TheRobin

using the word "tunnel vision" three times in a post doesn't automatically make it an accurate description or a valid argument.

Just went hrough Randi's FAQ, it doesn't mention anything about the water thing. Have I missed it? (Also I thought Randi's Challenge only goes for supposed supernatural things?) Can you elaborate a bit on that? In regards to the OP: Before I watch the video: assuming it's true: What does that even mean: "memory" in regards to water? and how would it affect me in my everyday life and decision making?

Complexity can only arise out of consistent adherence to basic premises and axioms, else all you can get is random noise. You can't understand a complex phenomena by using other complex phenomena as explanation. So anyone who's against figuring out the basic underlying causes is fundamentally against actually trying to understand a phenomena. Usually so they can use it as a dumping ground for all the prejudice and unprocessed trauma they have.

Well, as I see it the problem lies in that if society is the sum of all individuals of, say a specific area then society doesn't enforce anything, it's individuals, and those same individuals have rights. If someone'd argue that society has rights, but individuals don't, then they're basically saying many individuals have different rights than each one of those very same individuals, thus creating an individual that both has and doesn't have a right at the same time and in the same respect. Which is obviously a contradiction.Because in the end, the question is, "Does the guy with the gun have any right to force me to do something, despite me not having caused any harm?". If the answer is yes, then the question is, who gave him that right, if no single individual has it? (And if the answer is no, then, well, "Welcome to Anarchy!"

haha, quite the paradox you put forth here

After seeing the movie "I, Pencil" I'd heavily disagree with that statement. A society of people can make tons of stuff that no single individual could ever produce. So why wouldn't that count as an emergent property?In regards to the OP I'd also say that stating that society is a concpet isn't really an argument for or against anything. Every word you'll ever use is a concept, but so what? To me that's like saying society is a noun with seven letters. It doesn't have anything to do with describing reality and shifts the conversation from using language to describe reality to using language to describe language itself.

Idk, I think it might mostly be that the voting is done anonymously. Like, if I get a downvote and I knew it was from someone I have little respect for anyway, then I can take that as a compliment, however if I get downvoted from someone I respect, I then at least have the option to send a pm and inquire.Also I think the idea that unpopular views get downvoted is probably not quite accurate. I have often downvoted posts, but only due to the posts either being insulting or so full of sophistry it wasn't worth replying. While there's certainly a correlation between having different views and downvoting I'd say that's mostly because there's also a strong correlation between different views and people being unable to post them in a reasoned manner. And respond to critic in a reasoned manner.

I thought China already had a more controlling and authoritarian regime than most other countries, isn't that so?

There seems to be no coming back of slavery and racial discrimintation and I don't see how you could make the case that during times of econmic prosperity people will slowly get back into it and start holding some people as slaves against their will and everyone around them not saying anything about it. If your theory is correct then slavery would've come back a few generations ago already, yet this didn't happen, why do you think that is? And why do you think the same reasons wouldn't also apply to government?

Thanks. And corrected in OP

I haven't read anything from Alice Miller or Daniel Mackler yet, so I can't really comment on that, but Stef's "On Truth" and Jay Earley's "Self-Therapy" were quite helpful to me. Stef's book because it was a HUGE eye-opener in regards to my relationships and I doubt I could've ever figured that stuff out simply journaling or introspecting. And Earley's book cause it's a guidebook to using IFS basically, including exercises and thurough but simple enough explanations along with actual real-life examples to get you understanding the method and most that's needed to start using it.

Fair warning though, some stuff is quite macabre. I mean sometimes it's comedy gold and sometimes it's just plain horrible.

We're dependant on other people, but not on every single one of them. Constant exploitation can't happen if you're free to not have anything to do with the exploiter, and then, what's he/she gonna do? It's like the sleazy salesman who knowingly sells you a shitty prduct. sure you might fall for those at some point in your life, but so what? Not the end of the world for you and a hell of a loss of reputation for the seller in the long run. Exploitation is really difficult if people have other options, so not arbitrarily restricting those via the justification of violence is your best and only bet anyway. But basically: People don't want to be exploited, so it's not gonna happen unless via the use of force, but if most people get that using force against peaceful people is not justified, its not a possible option for any exploiter, or if they use it they'll just be ostriziced by those people not liking that behaviour.

Hey, you're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it

I didn't get all the jokes, but still had great fun Enjoy http://fora.tv/2009/11/08/Science_Laughs_Science_Comedian_Brian_Malow

Imo an interesting read. http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/free-thinkers/2/ "...For a study published in 2010, he loaded a computer with molecular biology materials and set it up in Kalikuppam, a village in southern India. He selected a small group of 10- to 14-year-olds and told them there was some interesting stuff on the computer, and might they take a look? Then he applied his new pedagogical method: He said no more and left. Over the next 75 days, the children worked out how to use the computer and began to learn. When Mitra returned, he administered a written test on molecular biology. The kids answered about one of four questions correctly. After another 75 days, with the encouragement of a friendly local, they were getting every other question right. “If you put a computer in front of children and remove all other adult restrictions, they will self-organize around it,” Mitra says, “like bees around a flower.” edit: oh, god. I just saw how bad my spelling was in the title. Sorry for that. Can some nice mod please correct that for me?

idk, feels like saying, "how do planes get built? Show me a detailed blueprint right now inlcuding each single step of the manufactoring process, or it's not an answer" -_-'

It will probably just shift to "Who is gonna build the airlanes? Without government supervision all those flying cars would just fly wherever they want and concstantly crash into each other.. " -_-

I don't know, it's like saying "There are peopel who belief Xbox is the best gaming platform, others say it's the PC or the PS. How do these groups co-exist?"What do you think would make people NOT co-exist peacefully in the first place?

well, that depends: What property must a question have or what criteria must be true, for it to be called "existential" or "profund"?

Well, yes, they explain that in the video, all are actors EXCEPT the one customer who gets the coffee. That was the "prank" (and given the video ends with literally having the name of the movie and the words "in theater October 18, 2013" I think everyone got it was a promotion "prank"/"act") edit: ah, come to think of it, I think it took me more than one view to get that though, so I apologize for the slightly arrogant tone at the end)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/ (p.s. that stands for "Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal", not anything kinky )

Do you have a source for that?Imo, it seems much more reasonable for it to be a the natural response to before unexperienced events and things where one has no certainty about what's going on. Assuming that from a more primitive PoV it was a whole lot better to be safe than sorry (run away when you're not sure what's going on than dead), I'd assume the response was the primitive one and the reasoning would come afterwards once the fear (and brainjuices) stopped.But the situation starts with conflict and yelling, much I think gets the adrenaline flowing a little already, and thus already diminishing the reasonpart of the brain a little, afterwards the woman gets just more aggressive and freaky stuff starts happening. And even aside from the telekinti stuff: The woman behaves kind of crazy as well, screaming at the end in a weird way. So imo one would be more tha justified to get out of there from any point of view, I could come up with. But maybe I'm missing something