RichardY

I disagree with in group preference due to genetic factors. Group selection only so far as bonds of trust can be formed between two people, not so much the drug induced connection between mother and child. I'd say they live below carrying capacity, in anticaption of changes in environmental conditions. Such as changes in temperature leading to poor crop yields. Or waiting to maturity of seed as with the Red Squirel vs the Grey Squirel eatting sooner, by deferral of the red squirel allowing an increase in future potential carrying capacity, rather then living at carrying capacity as you suggested. Where as r live at carrying capacity which are then checked by lack of resources or changes in the environment. Even though rabbits will not usally deplete vegatation due to predation, unless we are talking Australia(myxomatosis...) where there will not always be enough grass, or island rabbit colonies Is anti-competitive. Which is why in group preference is important. I mean that in the base biological sense and not through any social bonds of trust that may develop. I'm thinking of more southern european countries(Italy) or the middle east, where motherfu*ker is possibly not an insult.

Panpsychism (Leibnizian)- The Puppetmasters (1994) Universe. "You" are along for the ride and God is the Puppeteer. The "Best" of all worlds - Leibniz. Substance Dualism (Descarte)(Socrates)(Plato) - "Event Horizon", (1997) Universes. "Where we're going, we don't need eyes to see." Freewill is an Actuality. Moral Responsiblity is REAL!, everything you do here matters. "We are not of this World" - Vicktor Frankl. Neutral Monism - (Aristotle) (Nietzsche) - Oblivion. Freewill exists as a potentiality, the only earthly certainty is oblivion. Morality is BS, what matters is kinship (why Aristotle argues for Monarchy). Every action aims at the "Good" or else it is insanity. Pantheism - Solipsitic. The self is the only thing that exists "You are God!" and anything you do is fine. Tend towards Neutral Monism. I can't see how freewill is actual, unless in a Substance Dualistic Universes.

Curious, what is the idea of God for people on the forum? After reading some of Aristotle I came to the conclusion that God is essentially chance. Without any empiricism, what essentially is the idea of God? Does anyone agree with me that God is Chance; or thinking of the movie Excalibur, "Fortuna". In an Atheistic denial of God. The term Atheist is problematic, I liken it to a kid being smoothered in strawberry juice, denying he has eaten any strawberries. So having despatched God, Goodfellas style. "Go get your f**king shinebox". The next step would be to dispose of "the evidence". How can one finally consign God to Oblivion, not to think of God as garbage, but less than that. There are people who supposedly have never had problems with conceiving of somekind of God or misplaced feeling, how fortunate I guess they are. Perhaps never having conceived of the possibility of some kind of God, they may hazard a guess, as to the madness of the many. "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

Sounds like the "Circle of Trust" from the movie "Meet the Parents".

“The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” Proverbs 21:16 & A Pilgrims Progress. Heard it mentioned at the end of a PC Game Deus Ex Invisible War.

I would say arguments which appeal to emotions are valid arguments. However I would say the purpose of the argument is not to convince(means to conquer) people, but to compare to an external standard of truth.

In that case you end up with a dualism between mind and matter. Which in theory detaches the mind from mattter, a kind of ghost self, which leads perhaps in theory to alternative universes. If however, there is only one universe and it is deterministic, how can matter behave differently because it is apart of a sentient organism, given deterministic laws of physics, It can't. I do however think that Actual Freewill is only possible under a kind dualism, however this would posit an immaterial spirit, and given that I'm going for the simplist and seemingly most nihilistic explanation, hopefully the least vain, I have to reject it. I like the fact you mentioned the creation of rules in the brain acting deterministically. I do agree that there is some determinism more like a chain and that only in thought does chance or quantum mechanics have any significant impact on alternative action. You see I would say gravity is relational and in the absence of some kind of unified field theory. Gravity I think is determined relatively by space time(influenced by entropy), as opposed to gravity determining time. I would not say there are laws in Mathematics, like can be said of physics. Instead I would say there are relationships. Instead of 1+1 = 2 being the psychological equivalent of 1 litre and then 1 litre is 2 litres. I would view it as something akin to Set Theory, 2 overlapping circles and not deterministically. Decide, perhaps, though in my case more of a fix. Not Illusion, Delusion. Hard Determinism, literally taking determinism to a logical psychological conclusion, perhaps even psychopathic nature.

A chair though has tangible substance. How far can the same be said of freewill? An abstract concept like infinity can be said to "exist", but does it exist in so far as it is an illusion, something never realised? What in effect would be the substance of freewill? For me freewill is questionable, but determinism is complete bunk. How it operates though I don't know, I think it would be like the idea that as soon as you question your happiness or joy it ceases to be. I think much is influenced by personality, whether the ego is constructed relative to others or despite others, coming from or going to. Is Mathematics really deterministic though? Reminded of the quote "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." I wouldn't say choice(as it relates to freewill) is an illusion for a Determinist, but a delusion, literally crazy. Might be why Sam Harris( A Determinist) & Stefan have/can never debate, as Sam is effectively calling Stefan crazy or insane. That would be Compatibilism, Stefan talked about it in a 3 part presentation on freewill, referred to it as "The Best of Both Worlds". The position is logically inconsitent and is not helped by saying things are predetermined even though we don't know the outcome, Clockwork Orange style.

Incompatibilism - If the Universe is Deterministic, then Freewill is false. My view is that the Universe is NOT Deterministic. However, to account for the possibility of freewill, something brought order to chaos, perhaps a different kind of chaos, that something is chance or quantum mechanics. "The unmoved mover" - Aristotle. Acceptance of Freewill. I view Freewill as a potentiality not actuality, an Illusion, but not a delusion(unless a Determinist....). Just as Infinity is a potentiality not an actuality, and also an illusion. For if infinite were actual, how could one make sense of creation... one couldn't. Finite universe. Despite my thinking being that freewill is an illusion how might I approach as close to it as possible. To truly have freewill shouldn't a person be able to execute at two cognitive simultaneously, true multitasking, thinking how a gunslinger might be able to shoot two different targets simultaneously. For the moment you have freewill the "I" or ego does not exist? Ideal standard - To have Freewill is the ability to compare to an ideal standard, I have heard said. Although about only standard I have is "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". - The Silver Rule.(Also heard it mentioned in "Skin in the Game"). Ideals wise personally pretty base. Is Freewill an illusion, how can it be actual? Beyond Good and Evil “Freedom of the will”—that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order—who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his will itself that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful “underwills” or undersouls— indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls—to his feelings of delight as commander. L’effet c’est moi, what happens here is what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth; namely, the governing class identifies itself with the successes of the commonwealth. In all willing it is absolutely a question of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as already said, of a social structure composed of many “souls.” Hence a philosopher should claim the right to include willing as such within the sphere of morals—morals being understood. as the doctrine of the relations of supremacy under which the phenomenon of "life" comes to be.

Was listening to Nassim Taleb's, "Skin in the Game". Yesterday morning on Scribd (approx 7 GBP per month). Heard the author mentioned when I listened to "Thinking Fast & Slow" by Daniel Kahemann a while a go. Remember Taleb referencing the Soprano's a few times. Was contrasting a reasoned approach, with an empirical "Skin in the Game" approach. Haven't finished the book yet, but references communtiy a lot, looks Aristotlian. Had a look at your article, only takes a few seconds to look through. Noticed the J Peterson photo, there's a talk in London on the 13th May (same day as my Birthday...) also one in June in Iceland. The more posters generally the better. I don't think people should help the vulnurable, because they are vulnurable. (Reminds me of the book "Notes from the Underground"). I'm Homeless btw.

There was a british General Johnathan Shaw, who got cut off abruptly recently. Obvious false flag. Interesting how his eyes go up and to the left, thinking of the movie "The Negotiator." Time to embrace the horror?

r Wider Range in Intelligence. Strong in group preference. Genocidally so. Breed over and then to carrying capacity. Less Conscientious usually. Spray and Pray. r Country: Not really sure, but maybe an African one or former Yugoslavia and Venuzuala. K Usually physically stronger. Tend to be Taller. Tend to be smarter overall. Risk adverse, Less Entreprenurial. Slower maturation. Tend to be more conscientious. Though not always, thinking of perhaps China or the Native Americans... maybe. Tend to be more competitive. Again though, not always, off shoot of conscientiousness(more K) and agreeableness(More r) perhaps. Breed to carrying capacity of environment, or under capacity. Weak Ingroup preference or even Outgroup preference! Greater sexual dimorphism. Men more masculine, Women more femmine. One Shot One Kill. K Country: Norway, maybe Iceland might be more K. ------- @QwertyDavid 1) What sort of athlete? American Football is going to usually be more r imo. Makes me think of the beginning of the movie Idiocracy. On the otherhand, if they're taking a calculated risk for a scholarship, might be a bit different. 2) Polygamy is definitely more r. 3) Lawyers maybe.

Find another therapist.

I would say it's not.

@ofd I think there's a moral obligation if you have children and they're in the car to set an example, unless you don't like your children and you're frank with them. In England I think there is something called "driving without due care and attention", so if caught I 'm guessing Winston would be guilIty. Morally guilty if he decided to take an unecessary risk and believed in morality. For the sake of a few minutes though could have avoided damage to his car and all the hassle.

Was thinking recently a lot about what God is on a psychological level. What does Gnosis (Knowledge), Or Even the almighty state supposedly aim to leave out.... Chance. Archetypally God in my mind is Chance, though how to deal with that on a psychological level still thinking about. "The unmoved mover" - Aristotle. Perhaps some kind of Quantum effect, maybe even counteracting entropy. People, perhaps for good reason, do not like to think of chance? Metaphysically Leibniz Monadology could explain a potential aprori knowledge, although after listening to most of "A History of Western Philosophy"(Bertrand Russel) and hearing the Occams Razor orignal quote, being more along the lines of complex explanations being vanity. I'm inclined to discount monadology. "From dust you came, and to dust you shall return." Maybe there is some kind of biological apriori (bootup instructions)......, consciousness itself maybe the result of the quantum effect, allowing a person to conceive of the concept of the infiintesimal point or perfect circle. Could a person ever really think of themselves irredemably evil? Was thinking how some people perhaps through faith in God or the good, could be able to resist torture and not be "broken". Perhaps even presenting a kind of challenge to the torturer, similar to people witnessing the crucifixion of Christ, fact or fiction...... Braveheart style.

So just people who say morality doesn't matter, or more of a contrast between morality and amorality? My own feeling is that I'm Amoral(more of a trader principle), though I wouldn't say that morality doesn't matter (form of virtue signalling). The same way acts(due to Chance or Freewill) could be said to be Arational. I like some vague idea, I have about Equity law. An ancestor of mine(It's how I know) implemented it in England for 19 years, another one killed himself after 1 day as Lord Chancellor. On a community ethic level(Aristotelian) I wonder how I could make that possible, not being generally social. On an individualistic ethic level (Perhaps like Kant) Personally have more of a Nietzschean viewpoint, “Not that you lied to me but that I no longer believe you has shaken me.” “Smell that? You smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ‘em, not one stinkin’ dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like… Victory. Someday this war’s gonna end…” - Kilgore - Apocalypse Now!

Be interesting to hear what people think about Conscientiouness as way of being in the world. There are a few videos of Jordan Peterson referring to conscientiousness as a key personality trait being unexpected and that Intelligence not being correlated with Industriousness and Orderliness as being weird, suggested something to do with how different people process information. The problem with Conscientiousness - Jordan Peterson YOUTUBE What I mean by that is how is the I constructed; whether that perhaps maybe relative to others, or despite/independent of others. The former being imo low conscientiousness and the other high conscientiousness, Chaos and Order respectively. maybe technique to go from one to another. Fairly few number of archetypal characters, Loki & Thor, Kane & Abel, Sith & Jedi. Although often the low conscientious ones get made out to be the bad guy. Though not always the case: "let that be your last battlefield." (a Star Trek episode), Peter Pan & Cpt Hook. "I am Legend" a story I recently listened to on audible, has the protagonist Robert Neville (High Conscientiousness) facing off against the vampires, in the end though, dieing and recognising his faults. His last thought being I am Legend. I think sophistry has it limits, unless perhaps you are appealing more to a wider base. Could try the Jedi Mind trick thing though, or maybe something similar to "No country for Old men". I think low conscientiousness is more in line with Habit, High Conscientiousness Willpower. To master both though would be incredible. Having listened to Trumps book "The Art of the Deal", I would infer he has skills in both. There might be a downside in being Very High in Conscientiousness, Blindsided/Stubborn. Very Low Conscientiousness, Fragmented personality.

"Man is the measure of all things." The purpose of the argument is to compare to an external standard of truth. Sophistry to satiate desire.

Thought the site http://www.informationphilosopher.com might be of interest to those looking to learn about different concepts in philosophy. The author Bob Doyle(Harvard associate), seems to have similar views on Freewill as Stefan. Came across the site while looking up Incompatibilism.

I remember seeing a programme on Sky News in the UK a while a go where, black south African mothers would disable their children on purpose by giving them some form of toxic brew or alcohol. Leading to permanent mental retardation, so they could claim disability benefit "for" the children. Yeah if you don't have a degree you're pretty much screwed on emigration. Although there is the possibilitiy of getting a skilled visa in Agriculture in Australia, might be the same in Canada. The middle provinces have only like 100,000 people and you can fit the UK into them, although I've heard they have vicious biting insects. I'm interested in ulterior ideas in emmigration, maybe I could marry some trailor trash redneck in the USA or Australia, doublebag or something.

Hey no problem, I wish more people would post more interesting things. There was a guy on the show a while a go who worked as a security guard in South Africa, Stefan & Mike talked about helping the guy to get out of the country, not sure where it went. Lot of former South Africans in Alberta Canada, although with the environmentalists probably a few laid off, still probably better work and safety wise, though -40C and colder sometimes in winter. Can't you get your a.s.s to Australia or New Zealand? probably the least crazy regimes. Personally I'd like to do that, though kind of lazy, I live in the UK(don't move there).

Without choice wouldn't that destroy/deconstruct the concept of posting? I would say obviously yes, it would. More than that I would say it eliminates the potential for learning. Instead of posting, wouldn't some kind of "form" have to be postulated? Also, instead of learning; revelation or inductive reasoning.

Would it be fair to say that many people equate "Cause and Effect"(also a STTNG episode) with Determinism? Negating any additional or concurrent phenomena such as synchroncity? Quiddities, sounds like Harry Potter..... Though in order for a team/chain gang, to function to its maximum brute force power, wouldn't the team members have to give up any semblence of individuality.