smarterthanone

Yes and no. Because of child support laws the alphas aren't necessarily having children. The ratios of men who have children and how that selection happens is very different from the ratio of men having sex and how that selection happens. I've had lots of opportunity to have children but I don't want to chance getting stuck with child support so I make sure I don't. Otherwise I would have a lot right now, omg, a lot. However its certainly my fall back strategy. If I can't find a decent wife in the next 10 years, then I will just start getting randos preggo left and right. I mean im going to have kids one way or another.

So you are looking for 30+ year old single moms to have hook ups with? I guess that is the opposite of what I am looking for. LOL.

@barn I like and have had great success online dating. And not Christian mingle or anything like that, but Tinder and the usual free sites. Unlike most guys strategy of just swiping and talking to every girl, you need to be SELECTIVE and ATTENTIVE to clues about her character. Tinder is not for hookups any more. Most recent two girls I started talking to off Tinder. Latest is 18, I would say 7.5 looks but my type of look, virgin waiting for marriage. I consider that a win. We have been texting for a week and just got on the phone today, I anticipate seeing her in person next week. How I noticed her, I saw a promise ring on her finger in her pics. Those are rings you wear if you are saving your self for marriage. It was a band on her wedding ring finger with a cross. SO I spent extra time trying to get her attention because I already knew she was someone I would be interested in. I am also talking to an 18 year old, with a 9 in looks, who is at minimum extremely inexperienced (not sure if virgin) and christian. She also knows about power tools, building decks and gardening. I paid attention to her because her Tinder said something like "Christian, no hookups, be respectful". Two solid girls to date. Will it go anywhere? Don't know, but its not a waste of my time to get to know either of them. What is great about Tinder is that it is damn difficult to meet young women. At 18, she will not be in a bar or club, she will not even be on her own most of the time, usually with her family taking her around and staying home. That is what the typical under 21 person who isn't in 4yr college does. So how am I to meet her? Online is the only way i've found to consistently meet young women. Young enough to be virgins. On the flip side, a pretty hot 29 year old slut and a very intelligent 33 year old slut, and an insanely hot 30 year old single mom all tried to talk to me in the same amount of time... I DIDN'T WASTE MY TIME, I JUST SAID NO.

No. Baptist is the predominant denomination in the southeastern US. Black churches around here are baptist and so are white churches. If you go to a different denomination in this area, you are going to a specialty church. There are 6 churches within a 1m radius of where I live, 4 are baptist, 1 non denominational and 1 something else I think some specific protestant sect. This is the white area of town so they are all predominantly white. 2 of the baptists ones are quite large, 1 is medium and 1 is small. The non denominational one is medium and the other idk what it is is small. I am more traditional than even most traditional Christians, so I actually get along with them quite well. I usually just say I like to make my study personal and prefer to just read the bible and think on my own time, in order to avoid lots of conversations. I also dont mind discussing high level things where philosophy comes in (not apologetics stuff) but more practical level moral philosophy and I don't mind discussing history. And most of the christians I know haven't given me a hard time at all about being an atheist. I don't try and rub it in their face but if I live the life they don't really seem to mind.

Therapist question is not impossible. It is a real life scenario. So I am not sure why you didn't answer that one. Does it scare you, make you pee in your widdle diaper? You have no excuse for this one, its a real world scenario. And thought experiments are part of philosophy so to disagree with them maybe explain why but to just call it gaslighting, sophistry and ridiculous, sorry I dont think very many here will accept that. I am asking you to assume something for a thought experiment and you are asking me to assume many great philosophers are gaslighting sophists for putting so much effort into ridiculous things and publishing ridiculous things and thinking ridiculous things are important. Thread dead Bye.

Probability of determinism. Just like if you didn't know about gravity, you could know greater than random chance the probability that any specific object would fall off a cliff. That is not 100% proof, I agree, but it is absolutely evidence.

@Boss Lets just skip this. Answer either or both of my two questions I had asked and I think you will at least see what I am talking about. 1. Robot therapist, can through set programming, say specific things to you in order to alter your future behavior in set ways. If you can't help but cut yourself after a stressful day, the robot says things to you (as is done in normal cognitive behavior therapy) and now you are less likely to cut yourself. Yup its not 100% because the "forumla" is not known, but since you can influence the person to behave a certain way greater than by random chance, that means something not random is there that can alter a persons behavior in a determined way. 2. Duplicate person in same exact space time. Do they make the same choices or different choices and why?

Well it turns out this particular one got high and forgot what time it was and was like can you drive an hour away to come see me instead of us meeting in the town we both live in. I said no. Not wifey material. lol So if a girl grows up in a family that doesn't stress it at all, she may be moral in general but only happens to still be a virgin, OR moral but not a virgin. I've been in a few serious relationships with virgins and a few with non virgins, the commitment level was very different, even the ones that didn't do it for moral reasons. Well they are pushing the whole liberal feminist agenda. That is the feminist thing for him to do. I know someone who worked at a matchmaking service and said they just match you with anyone, they are terrible at keeping to your requests. Biggest was 99% of all men using the service ask for women with NO KIDS, and half the time they set them up with women with kids anyways. Secondly, I tried calling one and they just didn't get it, she was like what career should she have and I said "None" and she was like, "for real, like she could work at starbucks?" and I said "sure, sounds fine". It really threw her for a loop. I don't think men like me use match making services.

I've taken different tests over the past 5 years and consistently score about 140-145. Lowest ever was I think 135 and highest ever was 150. Not all tests are the same so that will provide variation as well as a 10 pt swing is normal variation as well on the same test. I just like to check up on it occasionally, make sure I am still sharp. Lol. I think they also may just simply not have an interest in people. Whereas I think many intelligent people who do take an interest in people become psychologists or similar types of things. I don't know. But you would think essentially any intelligent person should be able to figure out how an average or low IQ person thinks.

So you refuse to answer a possible real life scenario AND you refuse to answer a hypothetical thought experiment. You also think these famous philosophical thought experiments that many many well known and respected philosophers find value in are ridiculous without saying why. Its fine to think so, but the burden of proof is on you. I am a bit curious as to why you are even here? Philosophy of any kind OFTEN deals with hypothetical and non provable things. Do you even find value in philosophy? I am starting to wonder.

So if you only behave in moral ways, you will not be blackmailed. You must behave in immoral ways to open yourself to blackmail. I don't see the problem.

Sorry I forgot about thread but to respond to this... Blackmail profits from disincentivizing immoral behavior. So of course it can be good. Its a punishment for behaving immorally.

Monarchy is the best.

So there are lots of high IQ people having a hard time connecting with people, getting dates, making close relationships, etc. If you are so smart, why don't you just do it? Like aren't you smart enough to see why you aren't having success and then do something about it? I naturally have had a hard time with that stuff and have a high IQ, but I just like turn off things and turn on others and then I fit in just fine. In fact I dislike socializing with most really high IQ people because I find them so awkward even though I do love to talk about things with them, I just can't stand THEM. Part of it is they remind me of how I could be if I wasn't aware enough to not be that way. Aren't they smart enough to realize "I cant geek out on math right now because the audience is not going to be receptive to this topic" yet I often see these intelligent people doing just that and people getting like "ugh, not feeling it". So shouldn't an intelligent person be able to see these patterns and then adjust? Also if you are so intelligent, shouldn't you be super confident because you know you are the smartest in the room? Once I took my IQ test the first time, I looked at the stats and was like wow, typically in any normal setting I am the most intelligent person here, you know like in a bar or at a party or in a typical undergrad college classroom. Made me feel more confident. But it usually is the reverse for most intelligent people, like they often are not confident at all and let dumb people come up with the ideas instead of jumping in like "YO, thats just stupid bro". Bit of a rant but for real I always wonder this. It seems rare for very intelligent people to break out of these characteristics.

Do they already know about guns? If not, that could be part of it, have them start shooting. Or maybe its when you allow them to have their own gun (even if by law you must actually keep it yourself, it would be theirs to pick out, clean, shoot etc). Have a camping trip and make them go out in the woods by themselves for 24 hours. I suppose you would need to teach them survival skills first if they don't already know. As a man I think a rite of passage needs to "feel" powerful, because as a child you feel like you have no control over anything, feeling like you have some kind of power over your own existence I think is important, so something that doesn't make you FEEL that isn't going to work well IMO. Regarding being a man ho, not necessary. I do think losing your virginity is both a current in society rite of passage for men, and its also a good one. Male virginity is not valued. Even if some female virgins seek male virgins, the majority don't, and there is an over abundance of them anyways. I mean i've met plenty virgins and none had a problem with my extensive history. So I think a healthy sexual experience is perfectly fine, needing to make more notches than your friend or something I wouldn't encourage but unless hes lying cheating and stealing to get there, I wouldn't discourage it either.

Both of you. There is no proof to prove 100% either determinism OR freewill. So simply stating there is not enough proof so free will is not acceptable. Also, there is no math formula or such to prove a concept such as freewill vs determinism. Its more like proving the concept of love. Which we know something about such as brain chemicals but we do not have a formula to prove its existence and every behavior. So because cave men did not have evidence, the rock was not determined to fall? There was a chance it would float? No mathematical formula proof is needed. Gravity always existed, whether we knew about it or not. I am not claiming to prove determinism in this statement, I am trying to communicate it is the same kind of situation gravity was before gravity was discovered. The first assumption you must make if you are even going to follow any of my examples or thoughts is first you must assume determinism exists whether we know about it or not before you can follow the example. SMH. Its a thought experiment. You cant just read the example and say determinism doesnt exist so this is trash example. Assume it exists first. Its an example. Damn. Cavemen intuitively knew about gravity but would ultimately been stumped about a few things regarding gravity. Doesn't mean they walked around saying "no such thing as gravity, no mathematical formula proof so no gravity". Seriously, thats just dumb. And its intuitively obvious that they would have known a rock would fall, even without proving gravity. Well if that is what you define free will then I think there is both free will and determinism. But I actually think free will is what is in Merriam Webster: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention Obviously we can do what is called "recognize choices". But you will always use the logic/emotions/workings of your biology to "choose" the same thing. I actually especially like the merriam webster definition because it says "prior causes", and using this particular specific definition, what action do you ever take that is not influenced by prior causes? None. You invest in the stock market because you have money to invest prior, you are deciding which doctor to see because you got hit by a car prior. Now is that super simple. Yes. But I am trying to get you to understand something about determinism because if you think recognizing choices is proof of free will, you have no idea what determinism as a concept even is. Yes, in determinism you absolutely recognize choices. So its not proof of anything. The therapist is actually a programmed robot. Now forget the robot because a simple software, I hope we can both agree intuitively that it does not have free will. Answer the question about the person getting the psychiatric treatment. So you believe all thought experiments, since they are all impossible, are fundamentally corrupting? The Trolley problem, Monkeys and typewriters, Schrodinger's Cat and many other very famous thought experiments that are greatly discussed by philosophers... get rid of them, all fundamentally corrupting? Why would any answer to my thought experiment be fundamentally corrupting? I think you see the point of it and just don't want to go down a road of acknowledging the intuitive evidence of what I provided.

I highly doubt she gained some kind of morals, more likely she noticed none of the guys at church try to date her anymore and lots of scumbag guys now are ramping up the effort and shes smart enough to see what happened and regrets her current position. Not really regretting it from a moral perspective but a practical perspective. A big ol' dick cannot teach you morals. Lol. I also think its possible to have self respect and not wait till marriage, it really is a cultural thing and how you are raised. So her idea to become "born again" is not related to self respect or moral thinking. From an SMV perspective id marry a virgin first, a non virgin who I could have sex with that was good before marriage second, and a born again virgin last. Its literally the bottom of the barrel, non marriageable IMO. Socially its also intuitively embarrassing. If anyone ever found out I paid $35,000 for new car, let some other dude drive it for awhile until its beat up and then now I drive it around, how could I possibly ever be proud of that? Id be more proud to buy a $5000 car for $500 and get 10 years out of it then send it to the junk yard. The more I date and think about this stuff the more I really believe marriage is for virgins. AND people who have very low SMV possibly too, but im not super concerned with that view point at the moment.

Good.

1. So answer my question: Was a rock falling when thrown off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no? Knowing or not knowing the law of gravity doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by the law of gravity. It does however change the experience and expectations of the person throwing the rock. That is all. 2. You have no proof of free will. I don't see any. Responding to you or any behavior I do is the exact thing that would happen in a deterministic universe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Adding complexity for complexity sake again. Why not stick with the example instead of immediately trying to make yet another example? Wouldn't a therapist predicting another persons behavior or being able to change their behavior, even if not perfect, provide evidence that a persons behaviors are not necessarily their own but a result of the circumstances of their physical self and their environment? 2. Irrelevant. This is like Schrodinger's cat, a thought experiment. So IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, what do you reckon the outcome would be and why do you think it? 3. Psychopaths definitely become politicians at a high rate, I read a study once but don't remember the specifics. But the thing many people don't realize is they just demonize psychopaths. Psychopaths can be very strong, successful and virtuous people. Not just serial killers and things like that. Psychopaths would join any party or any cause if they felt is was the best reward for the effort in terms of achieving whatever power or change they wanted.

I am strongly considering going to a baptist church but I keep coming up with excuses. I just can't imagine stepping into a church as much as I am comfortable being atheist, I am mainly there for the chicks.

Not relevant. Just adds complexity for complexity sake. If all level of high consciousness people react in X way to Y stimuli then you can predict it. Neither of you responded to my psychology example. Go re read it. If you couldn't predict human behavior then there would be no such thing as psychology. Absolute perfect prediction is not necessary. The fact that it can better than 50/50 be predicted means there is some aspect that is behaving the same. Just because you (as a caveman) throw a rock and an apple off a cliff and it falls, by throwing a feather, which only floats down, doesn't disprove gravity, just means you don't have perfect knowledge about what is going on. If I can give people tests and determine who is more likely to commit crimes, I may not know exactly what is causing it, but its some kind of static element that can be recognized, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just don't fully understand it yet. Seems like support of determinism to me. So hypothetically if you had two exact clones in the same space time, would they do the same things or could one do one thing and the other do another? If you can explain how one would do one thing and the other would do another, I would believe in free will. Evidence such as twin studies says that is unlikely though. Well psychopaths tend to be some of the most successful people across all cultures and time periods, so maybe they are on to something.

So before gravity was discovered and when primitive people speculated on things such as will every object I throw off the cliff fall, before it was known, how could you prove the law of gravity without an equation? How could you prove every object would follow the law of gravity? You couldn't. Even though they might not have been sure an apple would fall but maybe a banana would float or a twig would fly, it was always a determined outcome. Ok, but now suddenly someone discovered it and its considered a certainty. You really don't see how the PERSPECTIVE of the people involved would be very very different in an instant where they don't know vs an instant where they do know? Now throwing any object like an apple a rock or a twig would have a determined outcome. But before it was uncertain and speculative. What changed it? The knowledge of the participants. Was throwing a rock off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no? So just because there is no formula to predict absolutely any event, doesn't mean its not possible to come up with. But its not necessary to come up with. If you truly were guessing at the stock market, you wouldn't be likely to make money regularly and it would not be something you could maintain as a job or income. Somehow, you are able to predict how the stock market will react. You do this using pattern recognition which is probably the primary unique feature of your brain. Human pattern recognition is far superior to any computer but it does not translate into math for you, its intuitive. You look at some numbers, you read some press releases, you look at the market as a whole, but then you "feel" what to do. This is how I do my investments, I can't nor do I bother to try and quantify every aspect, its a waste of time. I look at all available info and then I use my instinct. I can't give you the exact formula but I can tell you, my intuition brain function is superior to random chance because Ive always won in an industry that has about a 50% fail rate. If I could not predict, then I would not be successful at it. Just because I don't have a formula that is 100% accurate doesn't mean its impossible to make one, its just super complex. And I do way more analysis than the average joe doing what I do but I often just throw the analysis out because I just KNOW its a good deal. And it always has been.

What if people were under attack by a hyena when taking the drug, what if they started on the left side of the room instead of the right, what if they were naked, in a tuxedo? etc etc. there are infinite complexities that can be added forever and ever to achieve such a cloudy example the most intuitive thing is free will. I am trying to get you to imagine more like exact clones, who grew up with the exact same type of experiences. If I can predict them with 100% certainty to eat the pizza if I inject them with drug A, then that is determinism. Period. I can determine it before they do it. Their "free will" is nothing because I can know exactly what they do before they do it. Not sure what the bold part means. Finally actually something that explains your hang up. I will try again and hope for a response that doesn't just say you posted therefore freewill. Fingers crossed. Probability and speculation have nothing to do with determinism. You are thinking of something 100% different and unrelated. I can prove that just because there is probability and speculation that it is still determined. Say you speculate that a coin will land heads up. Your friend considers the probability of this and disagrees. HOWEVER, if you flip the coin the exact same way, such that it follows the laws of gravity and such, you can determine what it will land on. (If you don't believe me, try it, its not too difficult if you arent worried about being super obvious about it. Or you can assume a robot flips it.) As humans, we do not however possess that ability to wildly flip a coin and see its mass trajectory etc and calculate it in our head in real time. Speculation/probability only comes from our imperfect knowledge. If you knew the location and speed and mass and everything about the coin, speculate turns to know, probability turns to certainty. Either way, the event was determined, whether you know about it or not. The fact that perfect knowledge is not possible does not change the the fact that the situation is determined, it just changes our perspective on the determined instance. aka "illusion"/seems like of freewill. In terms of stocks, if you had perfect knowledge, meaning you had a list of every persons trade account balances, plus their reasoning such as, (I want to sell all my KDU @ $10), and you knew all the business practices of each business as if you were God and could see every place at once before the press releases went out, you could absolutely determine what would happen in the stock market. The fact that you dont know this, doesnt make it not determined or even always unknowable by everyone in all circumstances. If I put a ball on a hill it will be determined to roll down whether you know it was at the top of the hill or not. Just because you can't determine its action in advance doesn't mean its destined to roll down the hill. What does this have to do with anything?

Do you also think animals have free will?

He's never heard of stock traders? Omg I am dying over here. "Bets"? lol Nah, no more responses. Repeating yourself just shows you have no additional content to add thus you keep recycling. Bye Felicia. If they do a flip that turns into the laws of gravity and motion and that is already deterministic. So it doesn't really add credibility to free will. It simply adds complexity for complexities sake. Same with the rest. You are just adding complexity for no reason. You can add all sorts of extra things to it and then it becomes just like real life and it has no purpose of an example anymore. Other than it has become so complex you just cant fathom it being deterministic. Its essentially an infinite regress. Just keep adding more and more on a never ending cycle.