How many races are there? Depending on who you ask there are anywhere from only two to over 100. Since many humans are too dumb and too biased to give an objective answer, let’s turn to math.
Perhaps a more objective approach was deployed by Cavalli-Sforza who transformed a genetic distance matrix of 42 ethnic groups into a scatter plot.
Once he had them in a scatter plot, he could do principal component analysis
The first principal component can be thought of as the g factor of race. It is the line that best fits all the races and the primary dimension upon which they can all be ranked. It reflects the great Out of Africa migration and how far from Africa the races were able to travel. Those who stayed in or close to Africa score at one extreme (Europeans and Africans themselves). Those who were able to travel all the way to Australia, Siberia and the Americas score at the opposite extreme (East Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians).
To find the second principal component, you need a variable that is 100% independent of the first variable. Thus you need to draw a line through the scatter plot that in 90 degrees from the first, but not just any 90 degree line, but one that minimizes the distance between the new line and ethnic groups.
The second dimension seems to correlate with skin color. Those who score high on the second Principal Component are white skinned peoples like Northeast Asians & Northwest Europeans. Those who score low have dark skins, like sub-Saharan Africans and Oceanians.
With two components you can crudely organize humanity into 4 major races: sub-Saharan Africans (lower right), Caucasoids (upper right), Northeast Asians & Amerindians (upper left) and Oceanians (bottom left).
However white supremacists might not be happy to be lumped in with commenter “Loaded” in a single Caucasoid race. Perhaps if Cavalli-Sforza had added a third principal component, that separation may have occurred. A third principal component would have to be at 90 degrees of both the first two and thus requires three dimensional space where it would stand like an erect pole.
Cavalli-Sforza never bothered, but using a smaller data-set of 26 populsations, Jensen extracted SIX principal components. He then spun the six components like a spin on Wheel of Fortune. “Varimax rotation maximizes the variance of the
squared loadings of each component, thereby revealing the variables that cluster together most distinctly,” said the brilliant Jensen.
Jensen wrote:
“The population clusters are defined by their largest loadings (shown in boldface type) on one of the components. A population’s
proximity to the central tendency of a cluster is related to the size of its loading in that cluster. Note that some groups have major and minor loadings on different components, which represent not discrete categories, but central tendencies. “
The six rotated components are: (1) Northeast Asians (2) Caucasoids, (3) Southeast Asians & Pacific Islanders, (4) sub-Saharan Africans, (5) North and South Amerindians and Eskimos, (6) aboriginal Australians and Papuan New Guineans.
However Jensen neglected to do a principal component analysis on the rotated principal components themselves or maybe he did but didn’t publish it because the results were unpalatable. You might think that’s not possible because principal components by definition are uncorrelated, however one purpose of rotating them is they become no longer 90 degrees apart and thus are no longer orthogonal.
Had he done such a second order principal component analysis, he may have found second-order factors. Perhaps (1),(3) and (5) would form a second order factor. Perhaps (2) would form another. Perhaps (4) and (6) would form a third. Then we’d have the three main races of the Bible: Mongoloids, Caucasoids and Negroids (not that I believe in the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book).
Pumpkin Person 
the only conceivable reason. i’m not saying this is a reason i agree with. i’m just saying it’s the ONLY argument the anti-free-speech people have that isn’t totally stupid and evil.
the only reason for curtailing freedom of speech in the american sense is if there’s a real problem…for example…
1. if blasphemy does actually result in crazy muslims killing people…a lot of people. not just a few people. freedom isn’t free. as ike said…
2. if singing “kill the boer”, as malema has, actually does result in the killing of white south african farmers…supposedly 10% of all south african farmers have been murdered since 1994…a genocide.
these are empirical questions. so in the US so-called “hate crimes” are basically non-existent, despite what the media wants you to believe. very different from south africa or maybe india.
but the punishment should just be a fine (like a tax…none should be ruined for “hate speech”) and dependent on the offender’s ability to pay. if he’s a journalist his company should pay it.
but again…this is NOT the case in the US or any majority white country.
it’s very similar to the mask mandate…assuming masks actually reduce transmission.
when there’s not a pandemic there’s no reason to wear a mask.
when there is there’s a reason…but…even then…
arresting people for not wearing a mask is gross.
K = 5 shows 5 human continental are populations which are robust and have been replicated numerous times. The 5 human continental populations Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians. K = 5 corresponds to the racial scheme used by the OMB, and by scientists and Americans in daily life. Human continental populations and OMB races correspond one-to-one in the following way: African, black; Caucasian, white; East Asian, Asian; Native American, American Indian; and Oceanian, Pacific Islander. So there is a metaphysical relation between the human continental populations in K = 5 and the OMB races. Spencer states that “identity” is what is exemplified between K = 5 and OMB races, and he then constructed this argument he calls “the identity thesis”:
(2.1) The identity thesis is true if, in OMB race talk, ‘American Indian,’ ‘Asian’, ‘Black’, ‘Pacific Islander,’ and ‘White’ are singular terms, and ‘American Indian’ means Native American, ‘Asian’ means East Asian, ‘Black’ means African, ‘Pacific Islander’ means Oceanian, and ‘White’ means Caucasian.
(2.2) In OMB race talk, the first conjunct in (2.1)’s antecedent is true.
(2.3) In OMB race talk, the second conjunct in (2.1)’s antecedent is true.
(2.4) So, the identity thesis is true. (See his chapter “A metaphysical mapping problem for race theorists and human population geneticists” in “Remapping Race in a Global Context” (ed. by Lorusso and Winther)
This argument is deductively valid and obviously sound. Spencer has, since 2014, been honing this argument more and more, and I think this definitively shows that there are 5 races, and that race is a social construct of a biological reality. Nevertheless, I am a pluralist about race so there can be many racial schema useful depending on the context, but when it comes to American race-talk, there are obviously 5 races.
It’s also important to note that Spencer has specifically stated that he’s worried that people like Chuck will his research for their own purposes, but Spencer has dispatched such problems at the end of his 2014 paper.
“Nevertheless, I do worry that politically right-winged people—for example, Charles Murray—might try to misuse my research for their own purposes.”
There’s nothing special about the five race model. They just divided the gene pool by different numbers until they found one that best fit the conventional wisdom. Post-hoc justification.
The populations that arise in K = 5 are genetically structured—that is, they’re meaningfully demarcated on the basis of genetic markers.
In any case, which premise of Spencer’s argument is false?
So is K = any number, hence the program is called STRUCTURE
I know why it’s called structure—again, I’m a pluralist about race, so which premise in his argument is false?
Just ban RR. His comments are a waste of precious space.
(2.2) In OMB race talk, the first conjunct in (2.1)’s antecedent is true…
This argument is deductively valid and obviously sound.
you have SEVERE autism.
“right-winged” isn’t a word.
In any case, which premise of Spencer’s argument is false?
PURE AUTISM!
rr uses “argument” 4 times in his latest two comments. he uses words ending in “-ist” 3 times.
it’s not nice to let him comment just so we can laugh at him.
maybe vox day, because low IQ, has confused the miller test with an original intent interpretation of the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
by “speech” the framers meant “speech or expression which conveys ideas, which is communicative”. pornography, per se, is NOT protected.
neither is LYING btw.
but it can be very hard to prove someone is lying. lying is making statements one believes to be false…is NOT making false statements. if one makes true statements he believes to be false he is lying. but that never comes up. lying for money is a problem. i agree. but that goes for MSNBC and the NYTs even more than for alex jones.
this will infuriate Pill. this is a Jewish rapper…passed away at 26 a few years back of a drug overdose became a vocal Trump critic before his untimely death!
RIP.
90% of jews despise Trump. If you are socially conservative in American Jews will despise you. If you are socially conservative in Israel…you will be elected to the Knesset.
It has been found that the physical and morphological phenotypes of Negritos, such as short stature, a wide and snub nose, curly hair and dark skin, “are shaped by novel mechanisms for adaptation to tropical rainforests” through convergent evolution and positive selection, rather than a remnant of a shared common ancestor, as suggested previously by some researchers.[12][13][14][15]
so not only are these traits not derived from africans, but they have been derived independently of one another in the various negrito populations.
Are they reading my blog?
Anyway the study is about Cambodian aboroginals who don’t even look Negroid:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8970429/figure/fig1/
I’m talking about andaman islanders, and perhaps some others:
i have Andamanese ancestry myself.
there are 4 references peepee, not 1.
I just googled the actual quote and I found a scientific study about Cambodians
Sailer wrote about Irish IQs and how we’re allegedly dumber than the english.
I could believe it. There are a lot of hillbillies in Ireland. e.g. my dad.
there was another time when the irish were smarter than the english. in the dark ages, ireland was the brightest light.
eriugena for example.
what happened?
ireland was ahead for the same reason it later fell behind. it’s at the far edge of europe. like portugal. poor portugal. for the same reason southern italy fell behind. it’s isolated. transportation expense.
and…maybe…because…
Irish are the biggest degenerates out there. how the hell did they keep a civilization alive if all they do is stupid degenerate stuff!
I’m in Turkey, istanbul and about 50% of the people on the street look white. Must have been a lot of admixture from eastern european migration but also the historical christian and orthodox pop here.
a large fraction on european ancestry is originally from anatolia, turkey. what’re you talking about?
the kurds and armenians speak an indo-european langauge.
celts used to live in what is today turkey.
ataturk had blue eyes, red hair, and died from alcoholism.
the ottomans fought with germany in the weltkrieg.
today turkey is a high middle income country.
it’s more about religion than race why people are against admitting turkey to the EU.
the central asian turks who conquered what is today turkey were always a small fraction of the natives.
are you there for the gay sex? what is it about turkish men you find sexy? are you trying to relive that scene in Lawrence of Arabia?
but what i noticed was people loved to play backgammon and as soon as i was over the bosporus 100% of people had dark brown eyes. very few turks look like ataturk or 100% greek zach galifianakis.
the hagia sophia was originally a church and is still the largest church or former church in the world isn’t it?
peter o’toole before being raped.
no. i was wrong. galifiankis is half irish.
but i do know the greeks hate the turks. like really hate them. like ukrainian nazis hate russians.
half greek half german eric metaxas:
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FR22WIRGCLFTMDMQNMDSRYYDS4.jpg)
see how swarthy germans are.
sad.
Puppy’s dad is turkish.
The economist magazine wrote an article on philosophy and how we should measure the utility of the the lives of people unborn or yet to be born. Bill Gates has basically done great damage to the world in boosting the future number of africans, perhaps even doubling the number by the year 2100. What an idiot. Obviously the article doesn’t mention the negative utility of blacks. It bangs on about saving lives so they can have more children. It is population growth kind.
I think he’s trying to decrease their population:
Gates doesn’t understand R/K Selection. Blacks are r selected. Also, in America, blacks still have massive number of kids even though it has much better healthcare than africa.
The demographic transition is like a sinking boat that lowers the fertility of all races without changing their rank order. so while blacks might always have the most births in given environment, in advanced countries like the U.S. that equates to only one birth in 1,714 women per year compared to 1552 for non-Hispanic white U.S. women.
Meanwhile it’s 4.69 for sub-Saharan African women.
So knowing whether or not a population has made the demographic transition is WAY more predictive of birth rates than knowing race
Gates is simply trying to get Africa to make the demographic transition faster and alleviate unnecessary suffering along the way.
Those stats must be false. Theres no way whites are more fertile than black women. Blacks retained their share of the population even though 50m mexicans arrived.
It is higher for blacks; I didn’t explain it right: It’s 1,714 births per thousand black American women (not 1 birth per 1,714 LOL) & only 1,552 births per thousand white American women and 4,690 in sub-Sahara. But the point Africa can be expected to approach black American levels if Bill Gates gets his way. Not completely since black Americans are 25% white on average, but close.
the “demographic transition” requires a certain level of economic development of which (pill would say) black african countries are incapable. it has happened in 95% black barbados because tax haven and vacation, retirement destination and 5% white.
the redlegs are a tiny % of that 5%.
Racists like you should take some solace that, as women become more prosperous, they want fewer children. Thus, aid to Africa will DECREASE their population. When there is lower child mortality, people want fewer children since they live longer. This was seen in India (pg 179, ref 1), Indonesia (ref 2), and China (ref 3).
(1)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227370327_Does_Economic_Growth_Reduce_Fertility_Rural_India_1971-99)
(2)https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2061907
(3)https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-1231-2_14
So hopefully, philosopher, your (racist) worries can be ameliorated.
you don’t get it rr. pill thinks that africa isn’t capable of the demographic transition and insisting it is because “racism” may lead to disaster for africans.
rr goes from HBDer to antifa as if these were the only two possibilities.
neither the HBDers nor antifa are right. nor is there a middle ground. the problem is both POVs depend on a fundamental misunderstanding of reality.
such impasses can’t be resolved when people are afraid to say what they really think, when they are punished or shunned.
this is why the 1st amendment needs to be radicalized and viewpoint needs to be added as a protected category in civil rights law.
conservatives: because stalin.
liberals: because hitler.
libertarians: because hitler and because stalin.
this simple mindedness is something ye was trying to get over in his inimitable way.
Mug,
I have been to a island country in the Caribbean called st.kitts. It is not a retirement haven, not a big tourist spot as compared to other caribbean countries, less than 1% white yet is highly developed country with first world standards of living.
“pill thinks that africa isn’t capable of the demographic transition”
Which is really dumb, but I don’t expect much else from Philo.
Look, I would say the IQ score of 94 for Ireland is a bit too low. Our PISA scores show we actually have a higher IQ than that. You also have to factor in immigration. About 20% of the population is now eastern european (thanks EU!).
I think its realistic for the Irish IQs to catch up to the 100 average of England by nutrition, teaching and basically not marrying your cousin.
I think its totally unrealistic to think a black could have a 100 IQ without genetic manipulation.
15% of blacks in the US should be above 100 because of the SD of the black IQ distribution.
It doesn’t seem like the Irish in the US are that much less intelligent than other whites, so it would seem weird to me for regular Irish to be 5+ IQ lower than the average white/European.
im done having discussions with you Lurker. all you do is assume the other person is wrong without actually debating the facts at hand.
you are a typical white supremacist with a very low functional intelligence. hope you find peace of mind.
Dude stop responding to me.
Also pot calling kettle black. Rap songs are not facts mate.
not until you stop spewing bullshit to other people. speaking of pot have you been smoking a lot recently to the point of psychosis?
Philo : « Look, I would say the IQ score of 94 for Ireland is a bit too low. Our PISA scores show we actually have a higher IQ than that. » « Our & We » are Irish.
I guess it is coherent with the Irish tinkler or traveler or Pavees or Mincéirs or an Lucht Siúil, the walking people, amusing hypothesis.
Btw, the Peripatetic school, founded by Aristotle, was actually known simply as the Peripatos, the walking people. That would clearly justify Philo epithet or byname.
Happy Christmas to everyone.
^^^ Most homosexual way to call a person a gypsy ever.
Lol.
Philo could be falling from a 15-story building and he’d still be saying, “The Theory of Gravity doesn’t align with my intuition so I must not be falling.”
i would enjoy that too. maybe i could have a “prostate orgasm”.
the irish on my dad’s side is actually norman/viking by surname.
the irish aren’t homogenous.
today is the celebration of the birth of…
1. the christ/messiah (greek vs hebrew for “anointed”), the savior, the prophet jesus of nazareth, the son of God, etc.
VS.
2. the birth of the incarnation of God the Son, the second person of the trinity.
NB: the incarnation of God, per se, is a heresy known as “modalism” inter alia.
the three persons have the same will.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg
one person two natures vs the eternal second person, who existed before there were any humans.
what is the resolution?
the problem with the miller test is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patently_offensive.
this criterion should be dropped from the test.
porn has become much less offensive over time. porn hasn’t changed. but sensibilities have.
btw, does gangsta rap increase black homicides appreciably? does gangsta rap meet the third criterion of the miller test?
if the answer were: yes and no then gangsta rap can be restricted.
and the first criterion of the miller test can also be dropped…gangsta rap may only glorify, encourage violence and never speak of “hos n sheeeit”.
basically any speech or expression is NOT protected if it doesn’t express a viewpoint. if it’s just making noise.
It doesn’t seem like the Irish in the US are that much less intelligent than other whites, so it would seem weird to me for regular Irish to be 5+ IQ lower than the average white/European.
Well turks in istanbul may be european looking but Im guessing the anatolians look like Cenk Uyghur. There are some asiatic looking turks here. I would guess central asian background for those. It would be interesting if the euro looking turks had higher IQs than the other types. Puppy of course would say the slanty eyed turks had higher IQs.
Bruno instead of worrying about me calling you an autist worry about the high IQ gypsies that control your thoughts. Please focus on that.
Philo,
I am very interested in the JQ. Contrary to most people
my social class, I am sure Jews have group agency because in Greece, Rome or in the Middle Ages, when they came to a city after being expelled of another one or just in search of better options, they had to negociate their residency, employment, monopolies, taxes and must have become expert on understanding structure of power, flux of revenue, and how societies work. A sort of parasitism is absolutely inherent in a mode of living where you keep separate but lives from a society you have never built.
Bruno no matter how hard you try no one can understand what youre saying. you have not only issues with English but overall articulation in terms of what youre thinking.
give up. you are insincere.
Sometimes his nonnative English confuses me, but generally I get what he’s saying. Here what he says makes a lot of sense.
Turks are not considered European. The neoliberal EU lowering wages project…even they balked at expanding into Turkey. Expanding the EU into Turkey would have sent millions into the West and lowered wages even further. That the powers that be couldn’t bring themselves to expand shows there are really problematic reasons with Turkey joining.
Maybe they think Erdogan can’t be controlled. The CIA/Mossad tried to get rid of him in a coup and it failed.
Sailer talks about it sometimes. How they have a leader in waiting living in America. Gulen I think his name is. The CIA/Mossad have a list of leaders in waiting for various countries….most of them muslim countries near Israel.
Turkish people are dumb as fuck so are most Muslims. Islam is a pathetic religion. only sheep believe anything the Quran has to say!
no wonder Pumpkin is so half-witted.
Come to think of it I respect Erdogan for surviving the CIA coup. But ideologically I have nothing in common with Erdogan beyond being weary of the high IQ gypsy people.
Theres a lot of hidden daggers stuff still going on with the CIA. Obviously there is the coup in 2014 in Ukraine replacing the pro Russia president with some puppet.
I don’t even understand what the Mossad/CIA are hoping to accomplish these days. My housemate tells me they are satanic and basically looking to cause as much violence and terror as possible. I think he has jumped the shark on that. I think there is a plan but I have no idea what it is.
Putin actually has positive relations with Israel and tolerated the jewish oligarchs so why are they annoying him? It doesn’t make sense.
housemate…hahaha.
because jewish oligarchs were 90% of oligarchs prior to putin. now they’re like 20%.
No it went from 25% to 15%. Knowing Jews are just around 0,2% so at least 10 times less than in the USA.
They were 6 out of the 7 top bankers when Putin came to power and none out of those 6 accepted him. So they all emigrated or had an accident.
In Russian passports, citizenry is different from ethnicity and being Jewish is an ethnicity like being Ingoutch, Georgian or Balt.
and in russia the oligarchs have no power. whereas in the US they have all the power.
Someday I will literally walk up to Robert Rubin and ask him what the plan for everyone is. I would ask him to skip the promoting of black guys in the media and just replace everyone with Mexicans quicker.
Its kind of funny how my life is actually everything that the American Dream promised. I am on an upper middle class income and yet I did hardly anything to merit it. I come from a working class single income household and yet my parents are very comfortable in retirement too.
I think Ireland might literally be the only western european country where the American dream of social mobility is still alive.
I am a worse employee than Homer Simpson.
I have been fired 15 times whereas Homer has never been fired. I literally sleep on the job whenever I can.
yeah because youre literally a sociopath. a sociopath can maneuver his or her way through society without meriting anything because they know whom and how to manipulate.
This is what “white privilege” is.
why islam should take over europe and then the world.
Notice the way Loaded is a muslim from Pakistan and yet never says anything bad about jews.
i dont believe in Islam you dumbfuck what type of retard believes in religion.
only someone as stupid as you.
That’s why I say he’s an anti-white/anti-West leech. It’s fair to criticize a group as long as you acknowledge other groups who are also worthy of criticism but he doesn’t do that.
It’s even worse because Jews are the most active at actually spreading the anti-white propaganda. It’s why he identifies with black rappers who come from populations with IQs that should be 2 SDs lower than his.
If you want come from a place of valid criticism you need to have both lived in a city and a rural area for years, and lived in places both where your race was the minority and where it was a majority for years. If you don’t, and/or if you don’t do a lot of reading and researching different cultures and areas from different viewpoints, you are basically guaranteed to have a bad opinion influenced by the current trends in (((mass media))).
no the only reason you criticize me is because im brown and dont like white people. all you whites are the same….shameless!
also if you dont want me in america thats fair but dont come to my country when im gone trying to exploit us for resources!
if you really think this is your country i could leave but i feel like you would still wiggle your way through to deplete my future homeland of its pride in any and every way you can!
so dont lecture me Lurker. i am too profound and smart for ya.
where is my response to Lurker Pumpkin?
why did you moderate my comment Pumpkin nothing out of the ordinary was said.
If I did it must have been by mistake.
“no the only reason you criticize me is because im brown and dont like white people.”
As if that’s a bad reason LOL. I would expect a brown person to feel the same if the situation was reversed obviously. And the worst part is that white people actually should criticize brown people and they should be thankful to whites.
No white person wants to go to Pakistan. Some opportunists may trade with (or exploit the resources) of other countries, but it’s a little different with completely immigrating there, and then insulting the ethnic population and praising subversive behavior. Whites generally don’t do that (the only whites who do that are those very rare international agents and they are only more successful than brown international exploiters because they are smarter and have a smarter and freer country behind them filled with light-skinned people).
Loaded, try speaking like a polite person and your comments won’t be moderated. Stop being a crybaby.
im not talking about immigration you ignorant buffoon im talking about how America and other Western white countries exploit countries for resources such as oil food etc.
plus American land isnt even white land if you wanna make this about whose land is whose….the world is without borders there are no lands those are constructs of white propaganda trying to inflict damage on other people.
but i wouldnt expect you to understand.
lurker is such a CRYBABY i can’t stand it!
the comment that was in question of being moderated was the one above. it has now been posted.
Lurker i am polite but all you do is spew vitriol and racism there is little room for politeness there! i am not mistaken on this matter.
LOADED when whites “exploit” stuff they actually create a functional society, and don’t grow their population exponentially. When other groups do it they don’t create anything and abuse their resources until they live in 20 square feet apartments with a family of four.
I understand everything you’re saying, you’re simply wrong about it. The US is white land now.
You’re barely even an adult, stop calling people ignorant and study.
thats so stupid youre looking at it from only one perspective and thats population growth and are biased towards whites anyways so youre looking for pragmatism to defend your people.
im saying broaden your fucking imbecilic mind and think to yourself…exploiting people is bad. period. people suffer. because of white people.
white people are trying to gain an advantage and destroy peoples lives. how the fuck am i wrong about this?
are you a fucking retard?
LOADED, just think about this before running your rap and cousin-loving mouth:
“Africa is the only continent in the world where official aid inflow outstrips private capital inflow by a large margin.”
“lurker is such a creepy nazi.said:December 27, 2022 at 8:45 pm
lurker is such a CRYBABY i can’t stand it!”
Is this Mugabe or Loaded? Either way, I said crybaby because it’s the holidays I’m around my sister’s baby. It’s fresh on my mind
Pumpkin what happened to my comment?
Lurker you are a shit human being. no one cares about your pathetic attempts to slander my name or a collection of over a billion people whom you think are lesser than you simply because of pigmentation.
you are a fruitcake-loving degenerate. stop with the degeneracy.
lurker is such a creepy nazi.
correct! there are pipo like the trs guys who facetiously call themselves “nazis” when they’re really just jeffersonian chua-ists who love love love freedom of speech.
then there are the creepy nazis: AVOID these people…believe me now and thank me later…the OG nazis were sooper-dooper creepy…like most germans.
lurker just said “the holidays” = creepy nazi
“lurker just said “the holidays” = creepy nazi”
You said I was Jewish, Italian, and now a Nazi.
You have no consistency. Lay off the eggnog, it actually DOES have an effect.
Lurker keep lurking! you are a creepy Nazi with no morality or sense of good judgment.
you are a pathetic creep!
99% of muslims no matter their education or IQ are jew aware. Maybe not HBD aware but they are aware the jews control the US government.
If I was to stop people here on the street and ask them who runs the US, the turks would say the jews.
Pill you are an absolute moron. schizophrenia is the worst disease mental or physical anyone can have and you have it dont you feel bad?
either way youre so stupid you think just because you read things that you are ahead of the curve.
you must be so retarded….you admit that everything you know to be real isnt real yet you go on for your sanity thinking of things that are there only to fool you!
foolish Pill son of a fucking bitch.
if you were fired just once in the US you’d have enormous trouble getting another job similar to the one you were fired from.
tax haven = oil rich
VS
same deal apparently.
why does ireland have an army? that’s gay. pill must be from northern ireland?
so pill is “livin’ the dream” because so many pipo in non silly countries are so much worse off from tax avoidance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#Top_10_tax_havens
In Q1 2015, Apple completed the largest BEPS action in history, when it shifted US$300 billion of IP to Ireland, which Nobel-prize economist Paul Krugman called “leprechaun economics”. In September 2018, using TCJA repatriation tax data, the NBER listed the key tax havens as: “Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Singapore, Bermuda and [the] Caribbean havens”.
it has its own yuge wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics
so, sadly, the irish out-gangstered the italians.
“inherently parasitic”!
the bruno personality is CORRECT!
but today jews as a whole have low tfr and marry out 50% of the time. the haredi jews with high tfr tend to be poor and powerless.
and jews in christian europe had little choice. supposedly.
dershowitz wrote a book bemoaning The Vanishing American Jew and feared that anti-semitism was the only thing maintaining their existence as a distinct people.
rr is actually an example of a type. a dumb person who wants to be smart, a “pseudointellectual”.
one of their many tells is no sense of humor, another is their total absence of any appreciation for why people make fun of them.
the holocaust and irish famine could never’ve happened if funny people ran things. this is how you know zelensky was a shitty comedian.
can i do a guest post on why rr is stupid?
33% of genes are directly expressed in the brain.
If races are different in genes then the genes in the brain are also different among races.
This would change the structure of brains among races or even just ethnicities creating psychological differences.
rr thinks psychology is in the soul so psychological traits cannot be affected by brain structure.
rr is dumb.
genes cause rr to be on the autistic spectrum.
rationalism(make shit up if it follows logic)
vs
empiricism(the blank slate only what we see with our eyes)
vs
functionalism(circular causality the base of cognition)
You’re off by 51 percent—84 percent of genes are expressed in the brain.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00952-9
That’d be fun to watch. I mean, RR would completely destroy your anal cavities in a debate, but it’d still be entertaining in the same way that watching John Cena body slam a 4-year-old would be.
RR makes a lot of interesting points about the nature of intelligence. But he completely ignores the material aspect. The Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism explains basically nothing about why the brain is necessary or evolved. There’s basically no theory there and just a bunch of ignored facts about material reality (like literally anything that has to do with any brain difference or the existence of the brain at all)
He gets bogged down in the immaterial nature of knowledge and experience, which are of course very nuanced and complicated, and uses that to prop up social constructivism instead of try to chip away at the specific problems with hereditarianism.
Animekitty actually makes a lot of sense when talking about the nature of intelligence. His ideas are probably a lot more accurate.
vedanta: the brain is like a sextant, a tool for navigating this world, but it shines in a borrowed light, the only light there is, the light of brahman.
ideed! name/peepee is correct.
jamaica is a tourist spot but very poor and it has a below replacement tfr and is black-er than barbados or bahamas or the DR.
but it has a horrible murder rate.
AND religion matters.
the very highest tfr black african countries are all in the sahel, muslim.
when women have power they usually choose fewer chirren.
i read it a long time ago, but..
as i recall…
the section on “why maybe jews disappearing is a bad thing for america” dershowitz comes to the conclusion that, again i paraphrase…
“the ravings of the craziest antisemites are TRUE…
BUT…these are individual jews, they don’t conspire, so bugger off.”
uhhh…
alan…
can i call you alan?
has it occurred to you that “raving crazy antisemites” don’t give a shit if there’s a yuge conspiracy on not?
“racism”: too general…usually means wypipo are guilty..
“anti-semitism”: specific..
there need to be words for all racism-s.
racism against wypipo = maybe “anti-albino-ism”…but that’s already a thing…in africa!
racism against black pipo: “negrophobia”…but all these “-phobias
ALL of the hatreds (real or imagined) need to have a word as powerful as “anti-semitism”.
iirc ye commented on this.
anti-black = racism
anti-asian = racism
anti-white = STFU you’re a racist!
anti-jew = 5 syllable latinate “anti-semitism”
i respect estonian intelligence for employing peepee.
coincidence?
free-est speech in europe = highest PISA scores…
estonia + finland
FACT1. it is theoretically possible that a very very very…very very very…very very very smart person can set goal “get sooper-dooper rich” and accomplish it.
FACT2. no one is actually this smart.
not even men.
I have a plan to become a trillionaire but am too lazy. So I am planning on writing a book about a person who becomes a trillionaire and how he spends most of his money to make the world a better place not just for the present but for the future and for animals too not just humans.
the Antichrist?
garry wills: jesus was the weirdest, strangest, most bizarre…but also the most inevitable person in human history.
Pumpkin where did my comment to Lurker go?
Comments are posted/ moderated in the order they were submitted. If a lot of people submitted before you or if I am
Busy, there is delay
Low IQ at work. People don’t understand commenting systems despite using WordPress for years.
low IQ how? ive seen a lot of my comments moderated here its fucking obnoxious that you as a white man are looking down on me.
you are a piece of shit Lurker.
rr: the reason you laugh at me is because you’re a racist and il-logical. you refuse to engage with my arguments.
mugabe: i agree 100%.
and frame!
pipo with foreskins must be banned!
because cheesers are GROSS!
the jews and muslims are RIGHT about that.
i can’t take a man seriously if he hasn’t had his chees(z)er cut off.
such an ugly penis.
RR is objectively a mentally retarded person. Maybe even dumber than loaded.
my IQ is probably higher than yours.
AVOID!
walk the other way.
if you have to talk to him, just pretend he’s actually doing a job and try to get him to refer you to a real person ASAP.
Look evolution made blacks really violent and jews very crafty. Do you get that RR? Are you too fucking stupid to believe in evolution now? Did CNN tell you evolution stopped 10000 years ago?
Mugabe is wrong. HBD people believe in a lot of things that are true while antifa people are just jewish puppets. Thats a world of difference.
Mugabe criticizes people’s viewpoints all the time but he can’t make statement without posting a dick pic or referencing some random song or some random factoid about Greek people or something. Like bro, if you want to criticize someone at least write with more clarity.
RR is the opposite and will cite everything and is generally very clear but misses so much of reality because he can’t see the forest for the trees. He literally can’t explain why adults have larger brains than babies.
“He literally can’t explain why adults have larger brains than babies.”
Adults have bigger brains because they are larger… Does RR not believe Adults are larger than infants?
He doesn’t believe brain size has to do with intelligence. So he has absolutely no explanation for brain size changes.
In case you don’t understand because you drank the same Koolaid… brains have no reason to increase in size or exist at all if they have no connection to intelligence. Saying brains are required for personhood but nothing beyond that means there is literally no explanation in NCSD for anything regarding brains besides their mere existence.
“brains have no reason to increase in size or exist at all if they have no connection to intelligence”
I think brain size has a connection with intelligence. But as I pointed out previously, brain size can increase simply as a function of body size.
Now, whether an increase in brain size always accompanies an increase in IQ is a whole other story.
My guy, I literally have a newborn and I’m watching him grow by the week as we bring him to his pediatric appointments. A babe’s brain size doubles in the first year of life and this is mostly in the cerebellum, which has to do with motor control and physical development. By age 5, the babe’s brain is 90% its adult size, and the increase is due to the babe experiencing things and eating and growing, though of course there is a bidirectional relationship between esting in order to grow and growing so they need to eat more.
As the babe interacts with their environment, they get more connections in their brains and they get differing kinds of muscle memory as they learn how to walk and begin to interact with and learn about their environment.
NCSD is a dualism of subjects of experience – the person – and their organized bodies. And Melo is right—adults have larger brains because they have bigger bodies. What you’re saying, Lurker, isn’t a blow to NCSD at all.
“write with more clarity” = “i’m too stupid to unnuhstan you.”
“I think brain size has a connection with intelligence. But as I pointed out previously, brain size can increase simply as a function of body size.”
Yes, but it’s clear when it increases it’s always due to needing more neurons to control parts of the body. I’ve never heard any other explanation other than that and there really couldn’t be any other explanation. That’s why whale can have a 20 pound brain while being not any smarter than a 3 pound brained human. So there’s a direct correlation to the brain’s use and its size. That’s the encephalization quotient of course.
Obviously increased control over the body doesn’t explain why humans brains have such a high encephalization quotient, but the point is that RR’s preferred explanation doesn’t admit any utility to brain size, even for increased control. Increased control over one’s body could obviously lead to increased ability to learn from the environment for example, although human IQ is probably not related to enhanced body control.
This all should be obvious to anyone like RR who engages in this stuff almost as a job. But he doesn’t believe in any evolutionary theory of brain growth, which means there is basically no explanation that factors in survival or usefulness of a larger brain. There really is no explanation as far as I understand his view. Just criticism of other views, even though those views at least acknowledge so many other important things (such as genetics, survivability, the necessity of material representation and quantifiability of any thing that actually exists, numerous observations in basically any field of science such as neuroscience, etc.)
“Now, whether an increase in brain size always accompanies an increase in IQ is a whole other story.”
Well it doesn’t seem to always in the case of Ashkenazis for example, and obviously certain changes in the structure and makeup could also increase IQ.
my satanist, rr…
screaming “racist!” and then doubling down on “animals don’t have minds” makes you WORSE than a nazi. say what you will about the nazis, but the loooooooved animals!
doubling down on satanism: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2022/12/28/nonhuman-animals-are-not-agents-language-sets-humans-apart-from-the-rest-of-the-animal-kingdom/
“My guy, I literally have a newborn and I’m watching him grow by the week as we bring him to his pediatric appointments. A babe’s brain size doubles in the first year of life and this is mostly in the cerebellum, which has to do with motor control and physical development. By age 5, the babe’s brain is 90% its adult size, and the increase is due to the babe experiencing things and eating and growing, though of course there is a bidirectional relationship between esting in order to grow and growing so they need to eat more.
As the babe interacts with their environment, they get more connections in their brains and they get differing kinds of muscle memory as they learn how to walk and begin to interact with and learn about their environment.
NCSD is a dualism of subjects of experience – the person – and their organized bodies. And Melo is right—adults have larger brains because they have bigger bodies. What you’re saying, Lurker, isn’t a blow to NCSD at all.”
Jesus christ. Yes, things get larger as they absorb material outside themselves!
I also know how babies work, I’ve been around them for years (i also was one once!).
You ever wonder what more connections might imply? What if certain organisms that more neurons or more synapses than others? Might that imply something like intelligence differences?
“And Melo is right—adults have larger brains because they have bigger bodies.”
I also spent all day around a baby yesterday, and even though he was angry/crying he couldn’t reach a toy that he dropped five inches from himself, he never did anything as infantile as this statement.
“Non-Cartesian substance dualism (NCSD) maintains that persons or selves are distinct from their organic physical bodies and any parts of those bodies.”
NCSD be true in some sense. Perhaps a subjective experience of a mind could take many material forms. However, NCSD literally offers no explanation of anything we observe in reality besides the fact that experience/consciousness/information is not fully reducible to material. Because reality has subjective meaning and qualia exists, we know there is more to reality than material. Great, now explain the other 99.9999% of facts that we observe that contradict environmentalism.
““write with more clarity” = “i’m too stupid to unnuhstan you.””
No, it means you don’t work very hard to make others understand you unless they know the exact reference you’re making.
Mainly I don’t think you could dismantle RR because you’re incapable of writing with clarity for long enough about a topic as abstract as intelligence. It’s not a knock really as most people couldn’t. Yes some people might understand you, as I do sometimes, but anyone who understands you probably already can figure out why RR is wrong.
peepee’s exploitation of rr is wrong but hilarious.
a baby with mutations in genes that cripple mental development is what blank slateists say is impossible.
no genes can cause mental crippling just as no genes can cause enhanced mental faculties.
blank slateists believe that you can give a baby coke a cola and it will be the same as breastmilk as long as you condition the baby through behaviorism.
The famine that killed 55 million Chinese (great leap forward) was the result of blank-slate farming techniques.
behaviorism is the belief that no innate structure exists in humans or any other organisms (genes and other biological differences). This has been disproven by the fact that apes and other animals cannot learn language (recursive processing) i.e. reasoning (Formal operations). see Piaget’s stages of development.
genes cause allergies (food poisoning) and other things.
genes cause innate structures in the brain and body.
innate structure is why food and development matter in conditioning. not the other way around.
Heredity is not a failed hypothesis it is a proven theory.
physical and mental both are Heredity. Dualism adds nothing.
IQ Phenotype (P) = Genotype (G) + Environment (E).
rr will be banned or peepee is promoting satanism.
Mugabe,
Hilarious meme. Thanks.
“IQ Phenotype (P) = Genotype (G) + Environment (E).”
This is straight up false as we’ve known since Oyama’s publication of The Ontogeny of Information. It’s GxE—genes and environment interact. They’re not additive. This is also why h2 estimates are highly flawed since they assume additivity. I did find it funny how Gottfredson (2009) made many non-sequiters about interactionism. Strong causal parity is true—no developmental resource has primacy above any other developmental resource since they’re all needed to interact to form the organism. Basically, biological relativity is true.
“I also know how babies work, I’ve been around them for years (i also was one once!).”
I’ve never really been around babies at all in my life. This is all new to me and I love the feelings I have every time I look at him and see him do something new.
“You ever wonder what more connections might imply? What if certain organisms that more neurons or more synapses than others? Might that imply something like intelligence differences?”
Do you think having more synapses is “better” and leads to higher “intelligence”? See, my issue with “higher” and “lower” imply that something can be quantified, and I think I’ve successfully shown that psychometrics isn’t measurement.
“now explain the other 99.9999% of facts that we observe that contradict environmentalism.”
Like what? What is “environmentalism” to you?
“I think I’ve successfully shown that psychometrics isn’t measurement.” – rr
The coefficient of the wais 4 with itself is 0.7
I am 66 inches tall. 5’6″
if we used 0.7 as a measurement of my height.
There would be a 95% confidence I am between 3’10” and 7’1″.
my estimate is a quick estimate. don’t quote.
“Do you think having more synapses is “better” and leads to higher “intelligence”? See, my issue with “higher” and “lower” imply that something can be quantified, and I think I’ve successfully shown that psychometrics isn’t measurement.”
I think you and others have shown that it is very nuanced and that certain aspects might be unquantifiable, but everything that exists also seems to have a quantifiable element as well, including knowledge. If you can talk about distinctions between two or more things you’ve already added quantization. Animekitty has mentioned some reasons why it is quantifiable as well.
But in any case it just seems like you’re putting your head in the sand if you are literally admitting that children form synapses and grow neurons as they learn and become more functional but yet intelligence is completely unmeasurable. How is a growing developing material brain corresponding to increased knowledge not obviously a quantifiable element?
“Like what? What is “environmentalism” to you?”
I mean as opposed to hereditarianism.
Basically all the things that I’ve mentioned to you that indicate material and/or genetics is heavily implicated in intelligence (so intelligence is dependent on more than what is subjectively learnt through the environment), like the evolutionary history of homo sapiens ancestors growing larger brains that corresponded to increased intelligence; Neuroscience experiments that indicate certain memories are stored in certain parts of the brain; larger brains being resource hogs that decrease survivability and waste our time if they don’t provide increased functionality; People’s knowledge 99.9999% of the time (except for out-of-body experiences or psychic phenomena!) being locally bound to their bodies; Genetic correlational studies; etc.
Metaphysically, if human minds have nothing to do with their bodies, where is there knowledge stored? How is it separated from everything else in the universe?
lurker mein parteigenosse, the universe has full blown AIDS.
“If you can talk about distinctions between two or more things you’ve already added quantization.”
I don’t think so. If there are 2 substances, one material and one immaterial, then one is measurable and one isn’t. If science studies the physical and the mind isn’t physical then science can’t study the mind. I think Berka and then later Nash and Garrison have shown that just because you put numbers to something doesn’t mean that “a thing” is being measured.
“if you are literally admitting that children form synapses and grow neurons as they learn and become more functional but yet intelligence is completely unmeasurable.”
I mean, if “intelligence” (whatever that is) is a psychological trait, and psychological traits are immaterial, then “intelligence” can’t be measurable. Neuroscience doesn’t even have the methods nor tools to study mind. Yes, neuroscience can study physiology (the CNS for example), but that’s far from the claim that it can study mind. For it to study mind, then mind would have to be identical or reducible to brain, and that’s simply not true.
Consciousness is simple, subjectivity is too different from anything physical to be an emergent phenomenon, and experience is different from the material thing (the brain) that is necessary for the subjective experience. For these reasons and more, this is why neuroscience can’t study mind.
Of course the human brain has increased in size, but that’s not evidence that mind is a physical thing since mind isn’t ontologically reducible to anything physical. Further, as I said above, strong causal parity is true so its nonsense to state that a trait, it seems that most say, is privileged by any of the developmental variables that are necessary for the trait to arise in the organism. Genes are passive, not active, causes. If physicalism is false then we can’t be the result of evolutionary processes, as Scott Brisbane argues.
https://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Brisbane/case_for_dualism.html
In any case, Nagel—in Mind and Cosmos—thinks a form of panpsychism is true. Of course a physicalist theory can definitely explain the the HOW, though physicalism being false means that we aren’t the result of evolutionary processes, that’s a direct entailment of the falsity of physicalism.
“if human minds have nothing to do with their bodies, where is there knowledge stored? How is it separated from everything else in the universe?”
My brain is necessary to be able to remember things, as I can’t remember anything without a brain. I don’t believe in disembodied minds, since it’s an incoherent notion. The self isn’t identical to the body or brain or CNS, as Lund’s, Hasker’s, and Lowe’s arguments successfully conclude.
I don’t pretend to know how, I only know that physicalism is false and this can be known a priori. Mysterianism is probably the right view to take in regard to evolution and human minds. I do think there are hard limits on what can be fully known about the world and the universe. The
In any case, nothing you’ve said concluded that what is immaterial can be selected for by “natural selection” (ignoring the F and PP arguments). If X is immaterial then X can’t be selected, as only material things can be. Thus, there can’t be a science of the mind.
What you need to do is provide a sound argument for psychoneural identity between mental states and brain states to be able to rightfully conclude that the mind can be selected. This is what evolutionary psychologists have needed to do for decades and—surprise surprise—they haven’t done so. You would need to refute the argument from realizability, for one.
William Hasker’s emergent dualism, and Lowe’s NCSD hold that the subject (the self, “I”) are emergent. NCSD isn’t compatible with non-reductive physicalism, it’s emergentist, and it holds that person’s have mental and physical properties. The person is a simple, unified substance and it’s unlike the brain which is composed of proper parts. Thus, the arguments that establish the self, I, the person as simple and not composed of parts further establishe the irreducibility of those things to anything physical. An immaterial subject of unified conscious experience has been proven with many a priori arguments.
“I don’t think so. If there are 2 substances, one material and one immaterial, then one is measurable and one isn’t.”
You literally said ONE is not physical, so you are using quantification even for that category. You don’t have to quantify “blue”, but you do have to quantify “blue” as opposed to “green”, for example.
“If science studies the physical and the mind isn’t physical then science can’t study the mind. ”
Mathematics exists pre-science. It is needed to even understand science as a field of study, much like logic is.
“I think Berka and then later Nash and Garrison have shown that just because you put numbers to something doesn’t mean that “a thing” is being measured.”
I didn’t say that.
“if you are literally admitting that children form synapses and grow neurons as they learn and become more functional but yet intelligence is completely unmeasurable.”
“I mean, if “intelligence” (whatever that is) is a psychological trait, and psychological traits are immaterial, then “intelligence” can’t be measurable. Neuroscience doesn’t even have the methods nor tools to study mind. Yes, neuroscience can study physiology (the CNS for example), but that’s far from the claim that it can study mind. For it to study mind, then mind would have to be identical or reducible to brain, and that’s simply not true.”
OK, you are just repeating yourself basically, and begging the question about psychological traits being completely immaterial.
You’re assuming that mind and matter are completely dualistically incompatible because certain aspects are immeasurable, even though neuroscience shows that very specific aspects of the mind are correlated with material and space.
“Consciousness is simple, subjectivity is too different from anything physical to be an emergent phenomenon, and experience is different from the material thing (the brain) that is necessary for the subjective experience. For these reasons and more, this is why neuroscience can’t study mind.”
Neuroscience doesn’t study the “mind” perse, but the material correlation and actualization of the mind.
“Of course the human brain has increased in size, but that’s not evidence that mind is a physical thing since mind isn’t ontologically reducible to anything physical.”
It’s evidence that intelligence has a measurable aspect, and that the mind as far as it impacts the rest of the material world is correlated with brain size, as I said before.
“Further, as I said above, strong causal parity is true so its nonsense to state that a trait, it seems that most say, is privileged by any of the developmental variables that are necessary for the trait to arise in the organism. Genes are passive, not active, causes. If physicalism is false then we can’t be the result of evolutionary processes, as Scott Brisbane argues.”
But none of this explains why genetics exists and is passed on in the first place if they do not have privilege in some domain (if genetics do not have importance over other parts of the environment the organism grows in, they would not exist because there would literally be no cause for them)
https://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Brisbane/case_for_dualism.html
In any case, Nagel—in Mind and Cosmos—thinks a form of panpsychism is true. Of course a physicalist theory can definitely explain the the HOW, though physicalism being false means that we aren’t the result of evolutionary processes, that’s a direct entailment of the falsity of physicalism.”
“if human minds have nothing to do with their bodies, where is there knowledge stored? How is it separated from everything else in the universe?”
“My brain is necessary to be able to remember things, as I can’t remember anything without a brain. I don’t believe in disembodied minds, since it’s an incoherent notion. The self isn’t identical to the body or brain or CNS, as Lund’s, Hasker’s, and Lowe’s arguments successfully conclude.”
Again, that doesn’t explain any of the reasons why a brain or a body is necessary for a mind and a self. At least hereditarians can explain why such a complex brain exists though they can’t explain everything about intelligence.
“I don’t pretend to know how, I only know that physicalism is false and this can be known a priori. Mysterianism is probably the right view to take in regard to evolution and human minds. I do think there are hard limits on what can be fully known about the world and the universe.”
It’s not that you have to know how knowledge is stored in the universe, it’s that you’re NCSD idea does not have any explanation, while the idea that the brain stores knowledge, even if knowledge is not reducible to brain material, does explain how knowledge is stored in the universe and in specific people. So you’re trading one incomplete/contradictory theory for another one that is simply wrong in another area.
“In any case, nothing you’ve said concluded that what is immaterial can be selected for by “natural selection” (ignoring the F and PP arguments). If X is immaterial then X can’t be selected, as only material things can be. Thus, there can’t be a science of the mind.”
Selection itself is an abstract process that is not determined by the mere existence of material, so even the idea of selection requires the immaterial.
In order for anything immaterial to be preferred in reality {so as to be actualized) there needs to be an actualized filter that prefers one immaterial thing (such as a specific conscious state) to another immaterial thing, and that process must have some sort of material existence.
“I mean, if “intelligence” (whatever that is) is a psychological trait, and psychological traits are immaterial, then “intelligence” can’t be measurable.” – rr
ok then.
intelligence is not a psychological trait. it is a material brain mechanism innate in humans that allows for the manipulation of data. Some people have broken mechanisms and thus low IQ and some have enhanced mechanisms and thus larger IQ.
intelligence is like the hardware and software of a computer. a material mechanism for manipulating data in abstract ways.
The mind does not need to be part of this. Intelligence simply is the mechanical part of the brain that does calculations for solving problems.
The immaterial mind does not solve problems. The material intelligence mechanism solves problems. Better or worse problem-solving brains exist and so we can measure problem-solving ability in relative comparison.
A problem can be hard or easy. High intelligence solves more than low intelligence. Understanding is a causal model of the reality we are placed in so to solve problems all we need to do is realize what subgoals are necessary to gain certain results.
Our goals are based on our values systems. But intelligence is the mechanism for obtaining those values. It all depends on what you need to do to get results. What “needs to be done” is a calculation of the intelligence material brain mechanism by simulation in the causal model of reality.
“You literally said ONE is not physical, so you are using quantification even for that category. You don’t have to quantify “blue”, but you do have to quantify “blue” as opposed to “green”, for example.”
Yes, ONE is physical and ONE is immaterial. What is IMMATERIAL can’t be QUANTIFIED.
“You’re assuming that mind and matter are completely dualistically incompatible because certain aspects are immeasurable, even though neuroscience shows that very specific aspects of the mind are correlated with material and space.”
What aspects of MIND are material and therefore measurable? If it’s an aspect kg MIND then it’s irreducible as the arguments I’ve provided and made in the article prove.
“Neuroscience doesn’t study the “mind” perse, but the material correlation and actualization of the mind.”
Neuroscience studies brain physiology. The mind isn’t reducible to physical parts of the brain not its physiology. So neuroscience can’t study the mind. Of course there are correlations between mind and brain, and that IS expected on a dualist account of mind but since mind-brain (psychoneural) identity is false, then by studying brain physiology we CAN’T study the mind.
“if human minds have nothing to do with their bodies, where is there knowledge stored? How is it separated from everything else in the universe?”
I don’t know. I don’t know what it means for “knowledge to be stored” – and since that assumes a physical basis (“storage” would be a physical notion), then due to the irreducibility of mind, I can safely reject that notion.
Again, brain is necessary for mind but not sufficient for it.
“So you’re trading one incomplete/contradictory theory for another one that is simply wrong in another area.”
What is it wrong in? If it doesn’t claim to explain one other area, I don’t understand how it could be wrong.
“Selection itself is an abstract process that is not determined by the mere existence of material, so even the idea of selection requires the immaterial.”
The selection process, as formulated by NS theorists, is an intensional notion and since there is no agent of selection nor laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes, then natural selection isn’t an explanatory mechanism.
“In order for anything immaterial to be preferred in reality {so as to be actualized) there needs to be an actualized filter that prefers one immaterial thing (such as a specific conscious state) to another immaterial thing, and that process must have some sort of material existence.”
This claim is taken care of by Koons in his article Epistemological Objections to Materialism in The Waning of Materialism (2010):
The materialist must suppose that natural selection and operant conditioning work on a purely physical basis (without presupposing any prior designer or any prior intentionality of any kind). According to anti-Humean materialism, only microphysical properties can be causally efficacious. Nature cannot select a property unless that property is causally efficacious (in particular, it must causally contribute to survival and reproduction). However, few, if any, of the biological features that we all suppose to have functions (wings for flying, hearts for pumping bloods) constitute microphysical properties in a strict sense. All biological features (at least, all features above the molecular level) are physically realized in multiple ways (they consist of extensive disjunctions of exact physical properties). Such biological features, in the world of the anti-Humean materialist, don’t have effects—only their physical realizations do. Hence, the biological features can’t be selected. Since the exact physical realizations are rarely, if ever repeated in nature, they too cannot be selected. If the materialist responds by insisting that macrophysical properties can, in some loose and pragmatically useful way of speaking, be said to have real effects, the materialist has thereby returned to the Humean account, with the attendant difficulties described in the last sub-section. Hence, the materialist is caught in the dilemma.
At the end of the day, hereditarianism is a physicalist theory of mind–I hold it to be a form of mind-brain identity—and so it cannot be true as psychological traits aren’t heritable. Nevermind the nonsense “laws” from Turkheimer
“Yes, ONE is physical and ONE is immaterial. What is IMMATERIAL can’t be QUANTIFIED.”
So how are you calling them “two” different things if one is unquantifiable? You do realize that numbers are innately immaterial as well? They are abstractions we apply to the material world. As I’ve said numerous times before and philosophers have.
“What aspects of MIND are material and therefore measurable? If it’s an aspect kg MIND then it’s irreducible as the arguments I’ve provided and made in the article prove.”
The aspects of mind that apply to solving novel problems in material reality are measurable in intelligence testing. Not that hard to understand really.
“Neuroscience doesn’t study the “mind” perse, but the material correlation and actualization of the mind.”
“Neuroscience studies brain physiology. The mind isn’t reducible to physical parts of the brain not its physiology.”
But material brain could be necessary, and certainly correlates with mind.
“Of course there are correlations between mind and brain, and that IS expected on a dualist account of mind but since mind-brain (psychoneural) identity is false, then by studying brain physiology we CAN’T study the mind.”
Not expected by “dualist” accounts because dualism separates mind and material. It isn’t an explanation of any of the correlations between the two because it states they are fundamentally separated.
“if human minds have nothing to do with their bodies, where is there knowledge stored? How is it separated from everything else in the universe?”
“I don’t know. I don’t know what it means for “knowledge to be stored” – and since that assumes a physical basis (“storage” would be a physical notion), then due to the irreducibility of mind, I can safely reject that notion.”
Nope. It assumes that there are REAL DISTINCTIONS between different knowledge, which we all agree to, and since distinctions exist they must actually be SEPARATED, and separation inherently creates/implies dimensional extension.
In other words, anything that actually exists, such as knowledge or thought, must be stored somewhere, in some dimensionally extended form.
“Again, brain is necessary for mind but not sufficient for it.”
And space is necessary for mind.
“So you’re trading one incomplete/contradictory theory for another one that is simply wrong in another area.”
“What is it wrong in? If it doesn’t claim to explain one other area, I don’t understand how it could be wrong.”
Because it assumes dualism. You’re right that insofar as it doesn’t state it explains how mind and matter interact it isn’t wrong. But insofar as it assumes mind has no correlation with matter it erroneously leads people to a completely subjective solipsism about reality where none of the material constraints have any real relation to subjective experience, which we obviously know is false considering most of our experience is informed by assuming objective correlations between our experience and distinctions in the material world.
“Selection itself is an abstract process that is not determined by the mere existence of material, so even the idea of selection requires the immaterial.”
“The selection process, as formulated by NS theorists, is an intensional notion and since there is no agent of selection nor laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes, then natural selection isn’t an explanatory mechanism.”
Natural selection relies mostly on well-established, predictable material processes, so it doesn’t really need to explain the ultimate laws or agents directing the selection, right?
“This claim is taken care of by Koons in his article Epistemological Objections to Materialism in The Waning of Materialism (2010):
The materialist must suppose that natural selection and operant conditioning work on a purely physical basis (without presupposing any prior designer or any prior intentionality of any kind). According to anti-Humean materialism, only microphysical properties can be causally efficacious. Nature cannot select a property unless that property is causally efficacious (in particular, it must causally contribute to survival and reproduction). However, few, if any, of the biological features that we all suppose to have functions (wings for flying, hearts for pumping bloods) constitute microphysical properties in a strict sense. All biological features (at least, all features above the molecular level) are physically realized in multiple ways (they consist of extensive disjunctions of exact physical properties). Such biological features, in the world of the anti-Humean materialist, don’t have effects—only their physical realizations do. Hence, the biological features can’t be selected. Since the exact physical realizations are rarely, if ever repeated in nature, they too cannot be selected. If the materialist responds by insisting that macrophysical properties can, in some loose and pragmatically useful way of speaking, be said to have real effects, the materialist has thereby returned to the Humean account, with the attendant difficulties described in the last sub-section. Hence, the materialist is caught in the dilemma.
At the end of the day, hereditarianism is a physicalist theory of mind–I hold it to be a form of mind-brain identity—and so it cannot be true as psychological traits aren’t heritable. Nevermind the nonsense “laws” from Turkheimer”
We need an explanation for evolution, genetics, etc. and regardless of whether that explanation is immaterial or material, anything actually existing exists materially in some sense… because it must be instantiated as actually existing. So regardless of what directs evolution it must have a material component (it’s existence as opposed to other things) as well as an immaterial component (the subjective quality and meaning of it).
“So how are you calling them “two” different things if one is unquantifiable?”
Because dualism is true which means that there are “two” substances—the material and immaterial.
“The aspects of mind that apply to solving novel problems in material reality are measurable in intelligence testing.”
This assertion is nonsense, as Tha main aspect in testing is thinking, which is IMMATERIAL. Nevermind the myriad issues with test construction that I’ve been bringing up for years. If it’s MIND then it’s IMMATERIAL and therefore Immeasurable. And you still run into the arguments made by Uher, Trendler, and Michell, who successfully argue that psychometrics isn’t measurement. So along with my a priori arguments against physicalism, these authors have refuted the claim that psychometrics is measurement. Thus, since psychology is immaterial it can’t be measured and since they show that psychometrics isn’t measurement, your claim is unfounded. You would need to mount an argument against theirs which successfully shows that psychometrics is measurement—can you do it?
“But material brain could be necessary, and certainly correlates with mind.”
I don’t disagree with either claim, but, again, this is expected on the dualist accounts of mind. Most dualists hold that the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness. That is not a blow to dualism.
“Not expected by “dualist” accounts because dualism separates mind and material. It isn’t an explanation of any of the correlations between the two because it states they are fundamentally separated.”
Do you know of any dualists that DON’T claim that brain is necessary for mind? Of course dualism separates the two substances, but that need not mean that P isn’t necessary for M. We are material (body) and immaterial (mind/self) beings.
“It assumes that there are REAL DISTINCTIONS between different knowledge, which we all agree to, and since distinctions exist they must actually be SEPARATED, and separation inherently creates/implies dimensional extension.”
What’s the argument?
“And space is necessary for mind.”
What do you mean by this?
“But insofar as it assumes mind has no correlation with matter it erroneously leads people to a completely subjective solipsism about reality where none of the material constraints have any real relation to subjective experience, which we obviously know is false considering most of our experience is informed by assuming objective correlations between our experience and distinctions in the material world.”
It doesn’t lead to that conclusion at all. Our experience is subjective and we experience things in a material world. The material world is one aspect of substance that exists, and our subjective experience–eg our notion of selfhood—is an immaterial aspect that CANNOT be explained physically, since it is ontologically reducible. The ultimate claim is that since the immaterial isn’t ontologically reducible to the physical—like the self isn’t reducible to the body and the mind isn’t reducible to the brain, although they are necessary for our mental life—then the physical cannot, at all, explain the immaterial. Of course we experience physical things through subjective experience, but this claim doesn’t undercut dualism, not at all, not even a little bit.
“
“Natural selection relies mostly on well-established, predictable material processes, so it doesn’t really need to explain the ultimate laws or agents directing the selection, right?”
Yes it does. The only way for NS to distinguish between causes and correlates of causes is either a mind selecting the fit trait from the trait that merely hitches a ride and isn’t conducive to fitness or to posit laws of selection that can distinguish between causes and correlates of causes. Basically, without a counter to Fodor’s argument, one cant claim that “natural selection” is therefore an explanatory mechanism.
“So regardless of what directs evolution it must have a material component (it’s existence as opposed to other things) as well as an immaterial component (the subjective quality and meaning of it).”
Mind explaining how this strikes the heart of Koons’ argument? Subjective quality and meaning is an aspect of mind and “natural selection” is mindless.
“So how are you calling them “two” different things if one is unquantifiable?”
“Because dualism is true which means that there are “two” substances—the material and immaterial.”
Dualism is false, as shown that you are repeatedly applying the same more fundamental set of attributes to material and immaterial, abstractions such as mathematics or language or logic. If you can compare and contrast them they obviously share attributes and are not fundamentally separate in all ways.
“The aspects of mind that apply to solving novel problems in material reality are measurable in intelligence testing.”
“This assertion is nonsense, as Tha main aspect in testing is thinking, which is IMMATERIAL. Nevermind the myriad issues with test construction that I’ve been bringing up for years. If it’s MIND then it’s IMMATERIAL and therefore Immeasurable. And you still run into the arguments made by Uher, Trendler, and Michell, who successfully argue that psychometrics isn’t measurement. So along with my a priori arguments against physicalism, these authors have refuted the claim that psychometrics is measurement. Thus, since psychology is immaterial it can’t be measured and since they show that psychometrics isn’t measurement, your claim is unfounded. You would need to mount an argument against theirs which successfully shows that psychometrics is measurement—can you do it?”
You can just look back are old arguments from months back. This all stuff we went over (and I even mentioned quantifiable elements in this post, as did others like animekitty).
“I don’t disagree with either claim, but, again, this is expected on the dualist accounts of mind. Most dualists hold that the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness. That is not a blow to dualism.”
Dualism is not an explanation of a correlation or mutual necessity of material and mind because it posits they are fundamentally separate substances, or at least separate to a degree. That’s the whole point of dualism.
“Do you know of any dualists that DON’T claim that brain is necessary for mind? Of course dualism separates the two substances, but that need not mean that P isn’t necessary for M. We are material (body) and immaterial (mind/self) beings.”
They may claim it is necessary and then on the other hand, posit all sorts of reasons that the two are completely unrelated. Dualism isn’t really an explanation, just like agnosticism or atheism is a lack of a belief, dualism is a lack of a belief in the correlation between the two. Of course we already know the two are different in some sense because we have two different conceptions of them (as shown by our different words for mind and matter) but what actually is different is not explained by simply positing they are different.
“What’s the argument?”
I wrote it somewhere else on this post but basically, if you have two different things, the only way for them to actually exist at the same time is to be separated spatially, or if they exist in the same space, they must be separated temporally. How else could they actually exist?
“And space is necessary for mind.”
“What do you mean by this?”
Well if brains are necessary for minds, and material only exists in space… then space is necessary for mind. Therefore knowledge would have a spatial component.
“It doesn’t lead to that conclusion at all. Our experience is subjective and we experience things in a material world. The material world is one aspect of substance that exists, and our subjective experience–eg our notion of selfhood—is an immaterial aspect that CANNOT be explained physically, since it is ontologically reducible. The ultimate claim is that since the immaterial isn’t ontologically reducible to the physical—like the self isn’t reducible to the body and the mind isn’t reducible to the brain, although they are necessary for our mental life—then the physical cannot, at all, explain the immaterial. Of course we experience physical things through subjective experience, but this claim doesn’t undercut dualism, not at all, not even a little bit.”
If subjective experience cannot be explained physically, and physical itself experience cannot be explained physically (all explanations use abstractions – either language communicated with others or direct experiential mental interpretations) then we might as well dispense with the dualistic notion of separating physical and mental and state that fundamentally they are both abstract, and conceptual. Which would obviously explain why our mental abstractions and general abstractions like mathematics and logic apply to reality.
Regardless there is symmetry here… if the material requires the immaterial, the immaterial requires the material. There’s no reason to assume otherwise given that they always seem coupled.
“Dualism is false”
Nope. What’s the response to Barnett’s argument from simplicity, Lund’s argument that the self is an immaterial substance, Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument, Lowe’s identity argument, and Morch’s explanatory knowledge argument, and my definitions argument? If you need your memory jogged:
Anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial.
The mind cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties.
Therefore the mind is immaterial; materialism is false.
and
If physicalism is true then all facts can be stated using a physical vocabulary.
But facts about the mind cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary.
So physicalism is false.
“This all stuff we went over (and I even mentioned quantifiable elements in this post,”
This doesn’t address the challenge at all:
This assertion is nonsense, as Tha main aspect in testing is thinking, which is IMMATERIAL. Nevermind the myriad issues with test construction that I’ve been bringing up for years. If it’s MIND then it’s IMMATERIAL and therefore Immeasurable. And you still run into the arguments made by Uher, Trendler, and Michell, who successfully argue that psychometrics isn’t measurement. So along with my a priori arguments against physicalism, these authors have refuted the claim that psychometrics is measurement. Thus, since psychology is immaterial it can’t be measured and since they show that psychometrics isn’t measurement, your claim is unfounded. You would need to mount an argument against theirs which successfully shows that psychometrics is measurement—can you do it
Dualism is an explanation, seeing as physicalism is FALSE. Dualism can explain what materialism can’t. Psychoneural identity is false, and if that’s false then a while skew of things, including hereditarian theories CANNOT be true. This is the argument that I’ve been mounting against hereditarianism for years. Yea you need a mind to be able to have thoughts, that’s what “necessary” means. We don’t need to dispense with dualism–(on the contrary, we need to dispense with physicalism, since the arguments I’ve provided prove that physicalism is false.
“Nope. What’s the response to Barnett’s argument from simplicity, Lund’s argument that the self is an immaterial substance, Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument, Lowe’s identity argument, and Morch’s explanatory knowledge argument, and my definitions argument? If you need your memory jogged:”
Because dualism does not explain why material and immaterial are always coincidental. It doesn’t explain why the mind and thinking can directly apply to material structures and processes.
Obviously there is a difference between subjectivity and objectivity, mind and matter, intension and extension, but saying it is because they are fundamentally separate “substances” must be wrong because they obviously both have common elements and are more fundamentally described conceptually and abstractly… as I said before.
“Anything that cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties is immaterial.
The mind cannot be described in material terms using words that only refer to material properties.
Therefore the mind is immaterial; materialism is false.”
Materialism is false… Yes, obviously. Doesn’t mean that dualism is true. This is because there is no such thing as strictly “material” terms in the first place. Length, time, quantity, shape, color, are all abstract concepts that are defined in other terms… and to the extent they are absolute and not defined by anything else, there is nothing immaterial that can violate them. You can’t think in a manner that is fundamentally logically paradoxical… for example, you can think that 1 and 1 makes 3 as a linguistic sentence, but if you actually imagine 2 things, they will always be 2 and not 3, and if you were to actually imagine 1 and 1, and 3 at the same time, it would only be because you were imagining two separate unconnected quantities at once and not the actual result of addition.
Basically, there are things that are objectively true in an absolute sense, which the immaterial cannot violate (unless it creates two mutually incompatible universes, so it would still not really violate it). And there are abstract notions that are objectively true within a specific context which the immaterial can also not violat… and both of those “substances” completely describe the material world AND immaterial world. The first could be said to be structural, like mathematics, and the second could be said to be matters-of-fact about reality and history that happen to be.
and
“If physicalism is true then all facts can be stated using a physical vocabulary.
But facts about the mind cannot be stated using a physical vocabulary.
So physicalism is false.”
If dualism is true that all facts between material and immaterial would be stated using mutually incompatible vocabularies.
But the facts about the material and immaterial can be stated using a more general abstract vocabulary.
So dualism is false.
“This doesn’t address the challenge at all:”
Because you keep ignoring all the proof that knowledge could be quantifiable.
“Dualism is an explanation, seeing as physicalism is FALSE. Dualism can explain what materialism can’t. Psychoneural identity is false, and if that’s false then a while skew of things, including hereditarian theories CANNOT be true. This is the argument that I’ve been mounting against hereditarianism for years. Yea you need a mind to be able to have thoughts, that’s what “necessary” means. We don’t need to dispense with dualism–(on the contrary, we need to dispense with physicalism, since the arguments I’ve provided prove that physicalism is false.”
Dualism only explains that the physical and mental are different but doesn’t explain all the numerous simarities.
Psychoneural identity may be false (in terms of exact correspondence between mind and brain), but there numerous correlations… which hereditarian theories explain TO A DEGREE.
You need a brain to be able to have thoughts… and you need space and time to have a brain. And you need physical laws to have a consistent definition/representation of a brain, just as you need absolute (objective) meaning to have consistency in thoughts.
“It doesn’t explain why the mind and thinking can directly apply to material structures and processes.”
What do you mean “can directly apply”? The explanation is brain is necessary for mental life. Correlations are expected on a dualist account.
“Materialism is false… Yes, obviously. Doesn’t mean that dualism is true.”
If you claim materialism is false and that dualism isn’t true, then what theory do you hold to? If materialism is false then dualism has to be true.
What’s the response to Barnett’s argument from simplicity, Lund’s argument that the self is an immaterial substance, Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument, Lowe’s identity argument, and Morch’s explanatory knowledge argument, and my definitions argument?
Length is a property, time is a magnitude,
“If dualism is true that all facts between material and immaterial would be stated using mutually incompatible vocabularies.
But the facts about the material and immaterial can be stated using a more general abstract vocabulary.
So dualism is false.”
Nonsense, this doesn’t refute my argument about mental and physical vocabulary. That argument is sound so dualism is true and psychological traits are immeasurable.
“Psychoneural identity may be false (in terms of exact correspondence between mind and brain), but there numerous correlations… which hereditarian theories explain TO A DEGREE.”
Give me some references, then.
“You need a brain to be able to have thoughts… and you need space and time to have a brain. And you need physical laws to have a consistent definition/representation of a brain, just as you need absolute (objective) meaning to have consistency in thoughts.”
Yea this is taken care of with my claim “the brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness.”
“What do you mean “can directly apply”? The explanation is brain is necessary for mental life. Correlations are expected on a dualist account.”
As in, our ideas about material reality apply directly to it.
Dualism just implies that mind and matter are separate, it doesn’t even imply that the brain is necessary for mental life. NCSD does do that… but it doesn’t actually explain anything except acknowledging the fact that material world exists and that our minds “interact” with it is obviously true.
NCSD claims that mental causation is teleological/intentional. But it doesn’t explain anything about the necessity or reason behind the physical world and how that relates to the mental or teleology/intention.
“If you claim materialism is false and that dualism isn’t true, then what theory do you hold to? If materialism is false then dualism has to be true.”
The immaterial and material are mutually dependent, something similar to panpsychism.
I’m not sure exactly if panpsychism is true as formulated (that everything has consciousness) but I know that the immaterial seems dependent on the material and vice versa, and I know that both material and immaterial can be described abstractly… as I’ve said 90 times now.
“What’s the response to Barnett’s argument from simplicity, Lund’s argument that the self is an immaterial substance, Hasker’s Unity of Consciousness argument, Lowe’s identity argument, and Morch’s explanatory knowledge argument, and my definitions argument?”
I’ve probably already responded to them in some form or another (definitely I just did to your definitions). I may do so later but I don’t have a blog, everything is in my head so it takes time (especially when I’m inundated by falsehoods that cloud my judgment)
“Length is a property, time is a magnitude,”
The only difference between real length and imaginary dimensions that exist only in our heads is that real length is consistent when measured. But actual length and time are not any more “physical” than any other property one could think of, including mental ones. They are all ultimately abstract.
“Nonsense, this doesn’t refute my argument about mental and physical vocabulary. That argument is sound so dualism is true and psychological traits are immeasurable.”
I didn’t say mental is completely “reducible” to the physical, but that they correlated and mutually dependent.
“Give me some references, then.”
Bro open literally any neuroscience or social science article.
“But it doesn’t explain anything about the necessity or reason behind the physical world and how that relates to the mental or teleology/intention.”
Because we act based on what we see in the physical world, the immaterial aspect of SELF is the mover, of volition.
“The immaterial and material are mutually dependent, something similar to panpsychism.
I know that both material and immaterial can be described abstractly”
Can you explain mind in physical terms without referring to mental properties? If your claim is true, then you can, I think, carry out my request.
“But actual length and time are not any more “physical” than any other property one could think of, including mental ones. They are all ultimately abstract.”
Take a stick—the stick is the measured object, the length of the stick is the object of measurement (the property being measured) and inches, centimeters etc are the measuring units.
“I didn’t say mental is completely “reducible” to the physical, but that they correlated and mutually dependent.”
Is it partly reducible?
“Bro open literally any neuroscience or social science article.”
Bro give me the references that back your claim.
Because we act based on what we see in the physical world, the immaterial aspect of SELF is the mover, of volition.
“Can you explain mind in physical terms without referring to mental properties? If your claim is true, then you can, I think, carry out my request.”
You need mental terms to explain physical terms, rather than vice versa. But if you consider logic or mathematics or quantification as “physical” than you can easily describe some aspects of mind with “physical” terms.
In any case they are both abstract… so there is no need to say they are fundamentally separate substances.
“Take a stick—the stick is the measured object, the length of the stick is the object of measurement (the property being measured) and inches, centimeters etc are the measuring units.”
Take a simulated stick… it also measurable in fake abstract units, but is fundamentally represented as binary digits in the computer’s storage.
Take a RPG character’s stats… they have strength, HP, MP, etc. that are quantifiable and measurable but completely fake and abstract.
“Is it partly reducible?”
Sure, in the sense that knowledge is isolated in certain parts of space and time. Maybe other ways.
“Bro give me the references that back your claim.”
You literally disagree with a lot of studies, so it makes no difference. You have more of the resources at hand anyway…
This will be my last response in this sub-thread. I’m more than willing to continue discussing DST though. (Until next time on this issue, because I know there will be a next time.) You can take the last word.
See, I don’t agree with the claim that M and P aren’t different substances, property dualism is attractive, since at least people like Chalmers aren’t dirty physicalists, but I just don’t see how Lowe’s, Lund’s, Morch’s, and Hasker’s arguments can be refuted. Remember, empirical evidence is irrelevant to a priori (conceptual) arguments.
I agree that RPG character stats are “abstract” but I wouldn’t call them “fake”, since they quite obviously cause differences in a character’s attack or defense or magic or speed. They are difference-makers—which can be increased by leveling up, equipping different equipment, using stat boosts. The number reflects the type of character that will be good at certain jobs (classes).
Knowledge can be said to be written words, and that is “in space”, but the thoughts in human heads and the knowledge in them, a priori, isn’t physical—since, before a human writes the words its a thought which is immaterial.
Of course I disagree with a lot of studies, because I’ve been around the block many times and have held many different views in my 10+ years dealing with this corner of the internet. Why don’t you just cite one study that you think backs your claim?
And one final question before we pick up next time—do IQ tests measure a property?
Its not white privilege. I happened to live in a social democratic country that became a tax haven. I got lucky. There are some ethnic minorities in Ireland that also moved up the ladder.
Mugabe is right. Not every country should do this. But his ancestors from Switzerland wrote the book on being a tax haven. Not the irish. The Swiss still facilitate personal tax evasion whereas the Irish only do it for corporates.
Lazy white people exist everywhere, regardless of whether their location is a tax haven or not. The fact is that whites can get away with so much because of their race.
Go to China then. Go to India then. Go to Africa then. Go to Central America then.
Lurker….you suck my brown cock every evening.
Well when you found out you were part Scandinavian you realized we might be cousins and so as is the habit of your people, immediately invited me over for procreation and a movie.
LOL
yes but!
i’m less swiss than LOADED is andaman.
it’s basically just my Y chromosome passed down from my great great…great grandfather. and surname follows Y chromosome.
i’m way more irish.
like WAY!
AND according to ha-joon chang SW is NOT nearly as financialized as blighty. finance is only like 10% of swiss GDP.
BUT yes switzerland is basically as close as any country could ever be to “libertarian paradise”.
if my anestors had never left europe i’d be way better off today.
like WAY!
that is, as long as i could avoid being imprisoned for “hate speech”.
that’s one OBVIOUS solution all these brain-dead white nationalists never mention…if we all just move back to europe they can’t stop us. yet another example of the “coordination problem”, “collective action problem” and why small but highly organized minorities can rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
i may be Andamanese but my Y Haplogroup is still G. from Mesopotamia.
and by “SW” i obviously meant “CH”.
The blacks in Barbados were carefully vetted by the slave traders to be docile and not typically black. The low quality slaves went to America. Judging blacks by Barbados is like judging east asians by Mongolia.
its like judging whites by Mormons etc. or judging whites by Irish Travellers. it happens.
there is a lot of diversity intra race so it must be examined from many different perspectives!
is “organizational genius” a thing? this would explain musk, contra peepee.
i recall a german jew saying himmler was an “organizational genius” even if he was otherwise mediocre.
the SS was modeled on the jesuits supposedly. the jesuits differ from all other religious in that they have a fourth vow: obedience to the pope.
francis is the first jesuit pope.
“is “organizational genius” a thing?”
Yeah, my little brother is one of those. I’m the opposite because of the executive dysfunction from my ADHD. I’m more creative and goal-oriented than him, though.
Elon musk is definitely NOT an organizational genius. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be in this mess.
“the holidays” is such bullshit. this is how you know lurker is jewish or a creepy nazi. nazis hated jesus.
1. hanukkah was and is a very minor jewish holiday absurdly inflated in order to compete with christmas.
2. christ mass is one day. christmas continues until the feast of the epiphany on jan 6.
Moron. I said holidays because it includes the whole winter vacation (as in New Years etc.) Also I just wasn’t thinking because everything isn’t a trigger word to me.
But yes I wasn’t raised in a Christian household. If it makes you feel better I am circumsized though.
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting black dicks everywhere as a white guy. And being a middle aged drunk with no family. Sad. You are shame to the white race.
Lurker everything you are a fucking imbecilic homosexual. go get laid you fucking weirdo.
no one likes you youre a pathetic cuckold.
Cope and seethe you parasitic shitstain.
Loaded youre the one that worships black dick.
moron! the 12 days of christmas include new year’s eve/day.
get a life creepy nazi!
Belief in pseudoscientific “HBD” and racism—name a better duo.
How about being low IQ, a race mixer, and an autistic cuck. A fantastic triality.
AK is actually autistic. If you think we’re similar in any way… Hahaha