So 2023 began with the death of legendary broadcaster Barbara Walters who passed away quietly in her posh New York apartment at the freakishly old age of 93, on Dec 30, 2022
As the first woman to co-anchor the network news, she is praised as a trailblazer for women in broadcasting as she clawed her way to the absolute top of the New York elite. Like George Soros and Allan Greenspan, she’s part of the generation of American Jews who replaced the WASPs as the ruling class.
Fellow Jew David Wechsler would have been a kid in a candy store testing Walters. Despite a speech impediment perhaps genetic (her greatest secret was a retarded sister), she would have scored high as a kite on Verbal IQ especially Comprehension subtest (she had insight & wisdom) but she would have scored perhaps low on Performance IQ thanks to her sister’s genes.
Jackie’s genes
Before retiring from TV, the ladies of The View, the show she created, honoured her historic career. Even though she was surprised by luminaries as great as Hillary Clinton, it wasn’t Oprah.
For wouldn’t it have been great to have been honoured by the most iconic worshipped, charismatic & most powerful woman on the planet.
wouldn’t it be nice to claim her as part of your legacy.
one can dream.
and then it happened. Out of the corner of the stage, the Queen of the World walked out to surprise Barbara
The crowd went wild & Barbara went into shock
Packing a 150 IQ, Oprah took over the show, shifting seamlessly from prepared speech to improvised dialogue without missing a beat. After generously plugging a network special on Barbara’s career, Oprah introduced a long line of women in media who each thanked Barbara for paving the way.
It was the most amazing tribute I have ever seen and virtually the last time Barbara would be seen. Like so many who live so long, she would be diagnosed with dementia but had enough intelligence to isolate herself in her gorgeous apartment, so that this special day would be the last thing we’d remember of her incredible life.
slowly her incredibly high verbal IQ would slip away as she found herself turning into her retarded sister Jackie,
oh sweet innocent Jackie
her only sibling….
Jackie
her greatest secret…
jackie
Her greatest love and deepest shame
Jackie
If only there were a God so the two sisters could reunite in Heaven
Barbara died peacefully in her sleep surrounded by loved ones..probably other women from New York’s Jewish community
In the end it’s your own people who have your back
Pumpkin Person 
Science. Is inherently political, and as Lewontin argued in Dialectical Biologist, to do science is to be a political actor.
and lewontin was a psychopath and a fool just like you rr.
Yeah, that is a pretty retarded assertion.
it’s funny how by far the sexy-est comments on the interwebs are concentrated on a negress’s retarded blog.
i use a lot of big words and have a great conversational style. no ones mistaking me for an autist of course but i am proud of myself at least for having been this powerful
“In the end it’s your own people who have your back”
True, but what about us Amerimutts and other freaks? (that’s what a social constructivist would say at least)
question: what is 2 + 2?
rr: this question is racist! arabic numerals are cultural appropriation!
“social sciences” are political. chomsky calls them “ideological subjects”.
science is only political in the sense that all human institutions are political. scientists need funding and want their papers in the best journals. but that’s a different sense of “political”.
rr thinks idpol is politics just like he thinks professional wrestling is real. he’s a useful idiot for the masters of mankind.
what field do you think i would have excelled at? im too competent not to do something grand with my life!
everything happens in cycles. that is why math is so important. pay attention to this next time you go out!
rr is at it again.
Nonphysical (Mind) -> intention -> belief -> action ->
(?) ->
physical Brain cells -> mucels -> world
South Park Underpants Gnomes Profit Plan
rr should know that intentions are contained in the self-model of the brain which is the anterior prefrontal cortex. This part of the brain contains what is known as beliefs and preferences and thinking is done in the rest of the frontal lobes to find ways of using causality to achieve goals. Perception is in the back of the brain.
rr knows nothing about the brain. All he can do is play word games.
a.i. if it has a self-model and a world model will be able to intend. It is simply cybernetics and neuroscience both rr is ignorant of.
And just to clarify this is a first-person perspective on the matter. I use my self-model and world model to intend things. I know this is how it works for me so I know it is possible to work in software.
Machines will want to do things because they will have desires built into them by an artificial limbic system. The source of human desires. They will use language and the five senses to model others and get what they want this way.
Remember rr knows nothing of neuroscience like me. He is a normative philosopher. Meaning he just goes with the popular standard. Which never is right in the first place. He is a conformist, not a real thinker.
I don’t see how any of this interacts wkth any argument I’ve made against the claim that purely physical things can’t ever think. Saying “he doesn’t know X like me” is pretty cringe. I’m very well read on anatomy and physiology. Baker’s argument is sound—machines will never be able to act since they lack a FPP (first-person perspective). Brain is necessary for intentionality, but intentionality isn’t reducible to anything physical, and that means the brain and whatever makes up machines.
“machines will never be able to act since they lack a FPP (first-person perspective).”
Then a brain can never have one either and that means you lack the foundation to say anything about the transition between the nonphysical and the physical.
nonphysical -> ? -> physical (South Park Underpants Gnomes Profit Plan)
You believe an artificial brain is impossible because you don’t understand brains which is, even more, cringe than what I said.
A brain is necessary you just said so. How is the difference between an organic brain and a non-organic one even an issue for you? cringe.
“Then a brain can never have one either”
Correct—the mind is what allows a FPP. The brain is merely necessary for it but it’s not sufficient. You’re just rehashing the problem of mental causation which isn’t an issue if event and agential causation is distinguished. The fact of the matter is, machines are purely physical—that is they’re an arrangement of physical parts—and minds aren’t physical therefore machines will never have minds they will never intend, they will never have FPP, they will never have propositional attitudes. MIND—and of course language—is what makes humans unique from everything else. Thoughts—and of course mind—are sui generis.
“machines are purely physical”
You don’t know what cybernetics is.
agent causation is defined in cybernetics.
it has practical application and is not based on word games.
I won’t lie; I’m not really interested in this kind of debate with you. I doubt either of us will ever change our minds. That said, I do want to correct a slight mistake in your reply to AnimeKitty.
You state: machines are purely physical—that is they’re an arrangement of physical parts—and minds aren’t physical therefore machines will never have minds
This is incorrect. Human bodies are “purely physical” yet have minds. Meaning machines could someday acquire a mind. Being physical clearly doesn’t exclude them from this possibility. But perhaps you meant something else?
On another note, Since everybody seems to be hating on you recently, I have to say, you’re easily one of the top 5 most intelligent commenters here.
Nobody other than you and I put as much effort into the amount of research and education they do when trying to understand a topic. Not Pumpkin, not Mugs, not Philo, not lurker, literally no one else. You probably don’t care what these morons think but if you ever have doubts, remember that most of these people can barely tie their shoes in the morning without help, and even IF you’re IQ is only 110, it’s still multiple SDs above the majority of this site’s readers.
You’re doing good, man, and if you put as much effort into raising your son as you do in researching, then you will be an excellent father.
He is a charlatan. It’s exactly like put effort on astrology “research” but even worse because the lies he believes are dangerous and they are already causing a lot of harm on real people.
“Human bodies are “purely physical” yet have minds. Meaning machines could someday acquire a mind. Being physical clearly doesn’t exclude them from this possibility. But perhaps you meant something else?”
Yea, humans have a physical/material part of their constitution (bodies) and a mental/immaterial constitution (mind/self/soul).
Thanks for the kind words. I’m most likely way better off than most of the people who comment here. I think what they say about me is funny. Sure I have some weird views, but it’s not any weirder than what the people here believe about race differences.
“You’re doing good, man, and if you put as much effort into raising your son as you do in researching, then you will be an excellent father.”
I appreciate this bro. He’s 6 weeks old today and he just started smiling at us and being more aware and he’s been moving his eyes around and tracking things. I love having my baby. One of the best things that’s ever happened to me.
“It’s exactly like put effort on astrology “research” but even worse because the lies he believes are dangerous and they are already causing a lot of harm on real people.”
This is a description of hereditarianism and psychology.
@Erichthonius
There is no transition point where the nonphysical mind enters the mindless physical. And if there is it would be at conception but how this happens is up to the underpants gnomes.
If life begins at conception (transition of nonphysical to physical) animals should also have minds that rr denies.
RR is much more well-researched than a lot of people, but his opinion amounts to not much more than blank slatism that every garden variety liberal believes in, and whatever philosophical and biological evidence he can muster from his research, rather than actually dealing with even the most simplistic evidence against his position such as what you just mentioned.
Maybe it would be wrong to say intelligence is purely physical or purely immaterial but a combination of both.
I reject that intelligence is not a regulation system process.
Your english has gotten better santo.
But no, RR genuinely believes what he says. I don’t agree with all of it, but it isn’t lazy.
Erichthonious,
Thanks 🙂
I don’t think he is a charlatan in the evil sense of it but because he is a pseudo scientist. But i never know how cynical or well meaning people like him is. What i know is that, first, blank slatism has really serious consequences and second, about him he is personally or professionally involved on what he believes (money).
We agree in some crucial points but i cant stand with lies and even using philosophy as a tool to deceive people, it’s not what justice is about, the fundamental principle of progressivism. At medium to long term, believing in lies about very important topics will be/already has been counterproducent to the left itself. Why do you think far right is winning in many european countries, even in the most progressivist, like Sweden?? Just a coincidence??
RR is influenced by his penis. Pure and simple. If he wasn’t giving it to a black woman every night, me and RR would literally have the exact same opinions.
Honestly I threw up a little inside my mouth imagining what it would be like giving it to a bushy haired black woman. Jesus.
I see lots of young white guys hooking up with black women.
What do you say to people who say you’re an out of touch old bigot?
White guys that drill oil are complete losers. Thats literally only a step away from turning homo like some men do in prison or in the navy to get sexually satisfied.
Serena Williams husband is no loser. He’s rich, smart tall & good looking. Times are changing.
Obama is half white and he chose a black woman. Mind you he had political motives but still
Serena’s husband is a loser LOL. Hes a nerd. He literally is some sort of IT person.
times are changing but black women are at least as hideous as ever.
sad.
I see lots of young white guys hooking up with black women.
LIE!
rr doesn’t have a baby or a black babymomma idiot.
peepee made that up posting under rr’s picture.
it’s sad that rr thinks his baby is actually his.
also notice rr is NOT italian.
he looks part chinese and part black.
sad.
“I don’t think he is a charlatan in the evil sense of it but because he is a pseudo scientist. But i never know how cynical or well meaning people like him is. What i know is that, first, blank slatism has really serious consequences and second, about him he is personally or professionally involved on what he believes (money).”
Those are very good points… I don’t care that much about personal details of someone in an online setting of words, but since he seems to constantly avoid the many simple counter-points to his ideas that anyone as well-researched as him (and apparently honest) should understand, I can only guess certain personal details are the reasons why.
Pseudo-anonymous online debates are mostly annoying but he seemed honest enough to actually give reasons to those simplistic counters so that’s really the only reason I try to argue with him.
“We agree in some crucial points but i cant stand with lies and even using philosophy as a tool to deceive people, it’s not what justice is about, the fundamental principle of progressivism. At medium to long term, believing in lies about very important topics will be/already has been counterproducent to the left itself. Why do you think far right is winning in many european countries, even in the most progressivist, like Sweden?? Just a coincidence??”
True, and fundamentally blank slatism seems to rely on a wealth of infinite potential that human minds do not seem to have (we are limited in so many ways), similar to a view of free will that is not properly sophisticated.
If I am right 98% of intelligence is physical because we can explain physically what understanding and problem-solving is in the brain through self-regulation feedback. (cybernetics)
I have no idea how we can explain the other 2 percent because we don’t know what the immaterial does to influence the physical. We have no idea how intention transfer to the physical if it is immaterial but we do know how intention works if it is physical. We can understand belief as physical we cannot understand how it works if it is immaterial.
steel underpants -> ? -> profit
rr is such a fucking STUPID EVIL FRAUD. in his latest article he cites brentano and the link is to an article on brentano written a few years ago.
brentano died in 1917.
ban rr IMMEDIATELY AND FOREVER!
“blank slatism has really serious consequences …..fundamentally blank slatism seems to rely on a wealth of infinite potential that human minds do not seem to have”
I’m actually baffled by how you can read RR’s comments and come to the conclusion that he’s a “blank slatist.”
“I’m actually baffled by how you can read RR’s comments and come to the conclusion that he’s a “blank slatist.””
…it’s called reading and connecting the dots without 1000 citations and philosophical or psychological buzzwords.
But more than likely his ideas are hodgepodge of somewhat related but contradictory ideas and only blank slatism comes closest to a somewhat comprehendible interpretation of them, even though it itself is bad theory.
He said himself that reality fundamentally was probably ultimately unknowable or incomprehensible… try reading those comments and interpret them..
Lurker,
Do you already visited his twitter??
Every day he post some article directly related with his beliefs. Seems he works on it at professional level. Its like quantic Lamarck.
Erichthonius,
Tell me you…
Neolamarckxism is a variant of old but not gold blank slate religion.
The way rr appropriates words just is… wrong.
That the immaterial “explains” anything is a just-so story.
There is no material or immaterial at the quantum level. (false dichotomy)
[img]https://i.imgur.com/RrWvJy8.png[/img]
The denial of heredity is just wrong.
Philosopher,
I wonder why you care about a blog commenter’s personal life.
AK,
How can you be so confident that it’s “98 percent physical”?
Lurker,
What do you think “blank slatism” is? Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” then explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”? What’s contradictory about my views?
Melo,
Yea I agree. I agree. Being against hereditarianism I think is rational. And environmentalism is way more tenable than hereditarianism, since we definitely know environmental effects of test item exposure and other issues. Nevermind Montagu’s and Kleinberg’s 1930s and 40’s studies that lend credence to that hypothesis.
At the end of the day, hereditarianism just isn’t logically possible because the crutches of the theory—behavioral genetics and psychometrics—just don’t make any sense. Hereditarianism is many things combined into one—genetic reductionism, mind-brain identity, psychometrics, behavioral genetic and it relies on untenable assumptions of the MS, for which the EES has overturned. All four have insurmountable conceptual used that make hereditarianism not tenable, for if the assumptions of those theories are false, then so is hereditarianism.
Genes just don’t work how hereditarians need them to. Trait ontogeny is multi-factorial, with genes as but one cog in the wheel of the creation and proliferation of traits across generations due to the developmental system. Strong causal parity is true, and so that’s another reason why hereditarianism is false.
The real idealogues/charlatans, then, are the hereditarians, since what they propose is just not tenable.
RR believes that a three-year-old gifted child being very intellectually advanced in relation to her age has nothing to do with her biology or genetics… but with the environment (?)
It’s the same ignorant logic being applied to the fact that adopted children tend to look like their biological parents, behaviorally and cognitively, not just physically; that more intelligent people, in terms of learning ability, tend to have children on the same performance fringe and the same concording pattern for less intelligent people, and even the intra-familial cognitive variation that tends to be determined by the level of mutational load or genetic/racial/phenotypic diversity involved.
He believes that my asymmetrical cognitive profile is a combination of my upbringing, the environments I’ve been living in, and my directed effort…
In other words, he and his crew of ideological zealots, often arrogant and self-righteous individuals, are sure they know more about me and all of you than we ever could.
Forcing equality where there is none is as oppressive as perpetuating inequalities.
And these neo-Lamarckian retards are dominant in the humanities and increasingly beyond.
RR believes the king is wearing a magical outfit that only the smartest can see. But the king is naked.
A person with schizophrenia who is aware of her disorder is much saner than RR and his gang of chronic pedants. His level of indoctrination is fully comparable with Nazis, Stalinists, Qanon…
”What do you think “blank slatism” is? Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” then explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”? What’s contradictory about my views?”
SANTO-GOD!!!!
Post this one PP.
Mind makes reason possible. Reasons are causes of action. What’s the third substance other than material and immaterial? What’s the argument that genes are special developmental resources? That is, what’s the argument that we should privilege genes over other developmental resources?
What does the blank slate belief or unscientific denial of genetic influence on human behavior literally mean?
That if human beings are born as “blank sheets of paper”, without prepositions variably inherited from their progenitors, does this mean that when humans are born, they are born without any specific brain development that defines their spectrum of personality and intelligence [??]
What’s the argument that genes would have those powers? The arguments against the irreducibility of intentionality refute those claims. Cultural differences exists and cultural differences are known to be causally efficacious for psychological traits.
“neo-Lamarckian retards”
Is DST “neo-Lamarckism”? DST theories directly refute hereditarian theories. Again, hereditarianism just isn’t tenable based on our knowledge of how genes truly work.
RR is a slave of words. Mind, by the way you believe, doesn’t exist. Mind is just a problematic synonymous for consciousness.
RR needs to get back to basic genetics lessons.
Mind allows consciousness. I know how genes work, they work together with the rest of the developmental system, with each part not being above—that is privileged, superior—to another.
post this one peepee.
rr’s most recent article is so wrong on so many points it would actually take some effort to make fun of it properly.
for two examples:
1. rr assumes his conclusion in his premises.
2. rr has yet to grok the difference between the physical qua representation vs the physical qua inseity.
and yes “inseity” is a real word, unlike rr’s many retarded neologisms like “agential”.
“inseity” = the quality of things that is as they are in themselves vs as they are for us (or for rr), from latin translation of kant’s der-ding-an-sich.
(1) Show this.
(2) What’s the argument, and how does it defeat the mounted arguments against physicalism?
Genes are not “privileged”. They are the scaffolding. Without them biostructures are impossible. Lead paint is both physical and environmental. You should not feed it to infants just because their immaterial souls can overcome the physical damage. No, the lead paint is destroying the bio regulation. Different genomes create different regulations and thus biostructures. Remember that GxE. The feedback is still regulated by E as the initial conditions. It is why bats do not develop into cats no matter how much you condition them. The innate structure is crucial to development which is found in genes. Morphology begins with the regulating of proteins. The tallest man and the shortest man alive got that way because of gene regulation mechanisms. Intellect is by the majority in brain morphology. Proteins are important to growth and metabolism. Look at downs syndrome. You think this isn’t genetic, you think the brain is not affected by genes? You are wrong. Development can’t happen if you cannot regulate. So intellect is simply a case of super-efficient regulation. I do not need to justify this, I do not need to justify that this is physical. It’s basic science. What you need to explain is how the immaterial affects regulatory development. I cannot do it for you because I have no idea how it does.
RR, saying hereditarianism is not at all tenable is ridiculous, as you are somehow saying you solved the nature vs. nurture debate.
“Mind makes reason possible.”
Reasoning is based upon logic and manipulating concepts using logic. Mind is necessary for meaning since there must be something that interprets the meaning of everything in the universe (even if that is the universe itself) and that would be equivalent to a mind. But once you have basic form of mind in the universe, where meaning now exists and is properly interpreted in a noncontradictory way, you don’t need further “mind” to do reasoning if all of the universe inherently has meaning and “mind”.
“Reasons are causes of action. What’s the third substance other than material and immaterial? ”
Why would there be a third substance? What’s the argument against the material and immaterial being two parts of a monistic substance?
Once again why are you denying the inherent abstract nature of physical things, which immaterial things share?
“What’s the argument that genes are special developmental resources? That is, what’s the argument that we should privilege genes over other developmental resources?”
Because
1. they have a special placement physically in the organism that makes them more able to control the development of the organism.
2. A lot of environmental exposure is very similar so genetics have a greater effect. The same as very gender egalitarian societies actually having greater differences in job preferences between genders. Reality is basically the same for most us so genetic differences matter more since it makes the organism existing in similar reality vastly different. Bigger, faster brains in the same environment have vastly different behavior than smaller, slower brains.
I know it’s not tenable due to the irreducibility of the mental.
That sounds like property dualism or Russelian monism. Chalmers’ property dualism is attractive, and he does accept that mind is immaterial. I asked what the third substance would be since AK said it was a false dichotomy.
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/philosopher-i-accept-dualism-but-dont-believe-in-the-soul/
(1) What’s the argument for this claim? You’re repeating the claim that needs to be proven—the claim being that genes are special developmental resources over and above other developmental resources when there are sufficient arguments against such a ridiculous claim. There is no privileged level of causation so if there isn’t, then hereditarianism must be false. It’s that simple. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
(2) What’s the argument that we can privilege genes above other developmental resources? That doesn’t address the question.
For behavioral genetics, what of the “laws of behavioral genetics”? Are they really “laws”? Are there laws of biology, at all? I asked Turkheimer how he defined “law” and he said “With tongue in cheek. In fact, it’s a null hypothesis: an expected result when nothing in particular is going on.” Nevermind the fact how clowns like JayMan use it. I think Tha deserves a conceptual, philosophical investigation. Joseph has a good article on this and I think building on it attacking the foundations of the claim like “laws” is fruitful. I will be doing this soon.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/09/the-fourth-and-fifth-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
“Genes aren’t privileged” *tries to argue that genes are privileged*
“Development can’t happen” without all parts of the system working together in concert, with no resource being over and above another.
The innate structure is crucial to development which is found in genes.”
What’s justifies this claim? What do you mean by “innate”?
“Look at downs syndrome. You think this isn’t genetic, you think the brain is not affected by genes? You are wrong.”
You think this is a blow against my thought processes? It’s merely the result of a disrupted system. Remember kids, empirical evidence is irrelevant to a priori arguments.
“What you need to explain is how the immaterial affects regulatory development.”
I don’t even know what this means. I know a lot about the physiology behind development, but your question is nonsense.
“it’s called reading and connecting the dots ”
Which you are incredibly bad at.
I mean, I can’t blame you completely. RR does not make it easy to understand his things. He overly complicates things.
But all he is saying is that the expression of an organism’s phenotype is more complex and holistic than HBDers make it out to be. It isn’t additive. It’s interactive or multiplicative. RR doesn’t believe that Putting your dog in college will increase its intelligence. Still, he does believe that attributing the phenotypic differences between a dog and a human to “genetics’ is overly simplistic and riddled with erroneous assumptions.
Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation, RR.
I agree with this Melo. An old coworker told me that I was overly verbose in emails when I didn’t need to be. The falsity of the additive assumption entails that h2 estimates are useless and don’t do what BGists claim, for one. The interactionist thesis of developmental systems theory refutes the simplistic hereditarian view of genes and humans.
Tooby and Cosmides were some of the first to proliferate the “blank slatist” nonsense by contrasting the so-called standard social science model (SSSM) with their integrated causal model. Two of the best books against EP (Richardson’s “Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology” and Wallace’s “Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won’t Work”) successfully argue that it is a false dichotomy—they’re using a manifestly untenable view and contrasting it with their own view. Such dishonesty. Then, after that, “blank slatist” discourses was used by Pinker and then of course the “HBDers” from the end of the 00s to the present day have coopted the term. But I’m wondering if Lurker can address my challenge.
(1) Show this. show yourself fapping in front of a mirror on a train you fucking FRAUD!
(2) What’s the argument, and how does it defeat the mounted arguments against physicalism?
AIDS is a tragedy…
EXCEPT when it’s not…
BUT either way…
SAD!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5fjZJPAuXkb
rr also has no memory. this is how i know rr’s babymomma is peepee.
1. physicalism = pure gayness, pure bathhouse anal pleasure
2. dualism = bisexual but mostly gay
3. idealism = straight
cue leitmotif:
“I don’t even know what this means.”
genes self-regulate the system as in it “all parts work together.”
development cannot happen without a framework for the regulation process of which you have no explanation for immaterially.
organisms’ self-regulation happens through the process of cell metabolism. metabolism needs the genes to regulate protein synthesis. This is how phenology works. When genes are activated in a sequence, then proteins form and regulate the system. Embryogenesis happens thus by bats growing wings and cats growing retractable claws due to the genes regulating the growth process in the womb. These biostructure’s claws and wings have different processes in that the genes follow the sequence of protein synthesis to grow the phenotypic morphologies.
self-regulation happens all through development and all through adult life in each cell and as a whole organism. whatever the genes do to code for regulation into phenotype morphology is what I mean by innate. The bats wing is innate in its genes the cat’s retractible claws in innate in their genes. Human speech is what Noam Chomsky calls an innate human structure.
If the whole system did not work together the genes would be pointless to regulate the system. Every genome is unique so every organism regulates its system in a unique way. But the phenotype is more gene-influenced than environment influenced. Cats don’t have bat wings. Humans do not have hoofs they have 5 fingers. If you do not start with the initial conditions of gene regulation in embryogenesis you cannot have cats bats or humans. everything working together can be explained with physics. I have no idea where you slide in the immaterial to any of this? growth is a physical process and genes regulate growth in the whole system. All the environment does is tell the organism when in its system to regulate not how to regulate. The genes determine the how because of the metabolism is dependent on protein synthesis. When to regulate from the outside influence is not the same as the innate code available to work with.
You tell me what percent is immaterial and what percent of it is physical. I only provide the mechanism of what genes do. It is up to you to add the pixie dust to the equation.
The system self regulates the developmental resources; genes aren’t active causes, they’re passive causes, waiting to be activated by and for the system. Genes don’t determine anything; genetic determinism is false. There is no innate information in the gene. There is no “code” or “blueprint”—these kinds of analogies fail.
I don’t claim that mind can be broken down into physical/non-physical percentages—the mind is either material or its not.
“What shapes species-typical characters is not formative powers but a developmental system, much of which is bequeathed to offspring by parents and/or arranged by the developing organism itself.” Susan Oyama, The Ontogeny of Information
I mean, we’ve known for literally decades that no one part has primacy over the developmental system. That doesn’t, of course, stop the reductionist hereditarian. I disagree with Rose on dualism, but most everything he writes about hereditarianism is right on the money.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9653723/
Richard Lerner is another great author who has decimated hereditarian theories in his Concepts and Theories of Human Development.
I know it’s not tenable due to the irreducibility of the mental.
“That sounds like property dualism or Russelian monism. Chalmers’ property dualism is attractive, and he does accept that mind is immaterial. I asked what the third substance would be since AK said it was a false dichotomy.”
Well obviously AK doesn’t believe they are separate. The substance would be a combination and/or a partial denial of
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/philosopher-i-accept-dualism-but-dont-believe-in-the-soul/
“(1) What’s the argument for this claim? You’re repeating the claim that needs to be proven—the claim being that genes are special developmental resources over and above other developmental resources when there are sufficient arguments against such a ridiculous claim. There is no privileged level of causation so if there isn’t, then hereditarianism must be false. It’s that simple. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/”
Empirical evidence suggests genes are special developmental resources as much as empirical evidence suggests that minds only exist when brains exist (both are unfalsifiable since we don’t know the ultimate deterministic mechanism of how an organism evolves or physical laws and we don’t know what in our universe is actually thinking and what isn’t without testing it physically).
But given regularity in the universe of course genes could have a privileged developmental position as I literally just wrote down.
“(2) What’s the argument that we can privilege genes above other developmental resources? That doesn’t address the question.”
What’s the argument that holes in the ground near mountains are privileged as lakes?
Once a specific formation exists in an environment with regularity, why do you need to “privilege” it?
“I mean, I can’t blame you completely. RR does not make it easy to understand his things. He overly complicates things.
But all he is saying is that the expression of an organism’s phenotype is more complex and holistic than HBDers make it out to be. It isn’t additive. It’s interactive or multiplicative. RR doesn’t believe that Putting your dog in college will increase its intelligence. Still, he does believe that attributing the phenotypic differences between a dog and a human to “genetics’ is overly simplistic and riddled with erroneous assumptions.
Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation, RR.”
Again, saying that organism’s phenotype is holistic and deterministic by the genes doesn’t defeat hereditarianism. It just makes it more complicated. I don’t know why you think I don’t know this but you apparently think I’m an idiot because I think rap is generally bad. Cool.
Basically, he’s a blank slatist but tries to deny certain aspects that would obviously make it untenable, since it is, as per the dog example or replacing dog with someone with a mental or genetic defect. This seems to be why he overly complicates it… because he says “blank slatism is true although I agree X, Y, Z that makes blank slatism false is false” and at the end of the day you have no idea what he believes.
Hereditarianism is different because it does not claim there is no aspect of nurture or that the genes can’t work holistically with the environment, it just states that the genes appear to be very important in the development of the organism and differentiate even complex aspects like human intelligence. Nothing RR claims as a refutation of hereditarianism refutes anything but an oversimplification.
It’s obvious genetics affect intelligence, and it’s obvious brain size and structure also affects intelligence (which is correlated with genetics and differs from person to person and race to race) regardless of exactly how it does it.
“Empirical evidence suggests genes are special developmental resources” – source? Noble’s argument is a priori, so you would need to provide an a priori argument for why we should accept genes as special resources.
“It just makes it more complicated” – Systems biology is completely at odds with the false notion of development and genes pushed by hereditarians.
“mental or genetic detect” – a disrupted developmental system isn’t evidence that hereditarianism is true, at all.
“genes appear to be very important to the development of the organism” – what’s the argument?
“It’s obvious genetics affects intelligence” – what’s the argument that intentions reduce to the physical and how does it refute the main argument I made here?
Erich,
RR et al is not an authority on this subject maybe in none. Believing he does, makes things worse. Just change the WORD GENETICS for BIOLOGY and will see…
Human organisms have genes but also bacterias, virus and hormones that helps to “build” our behaviors. But it’s not so wrong enphasising genes if at least in my understanding they are the first layer of bricks which build organisms and their reactive and active models. What is completely wrong is saying we are totally a product of environment. To be frank, biological determinism is the correct because no matter how strong an environmental influence can be, still the final response in these interactions is always of the organisms or their biology. If human organisms can’t thrive in harsh environments it not just because the (relative) inospitability of the environment in itself but specially because the nature or the resiliency level of the organism in such conditions. Genetic determinism maybe not totally correct but environmental determinism is totally incorrect.
RR writing is 101 pseudoscience. He never was really capable to translate his pedantic buzzwords to a didactic style because he literally doesn’t know what he is saying, the same way a religious teologist doesn’t make a clue that what he believes is a total bullshit.
RR is so intellectually dishonest he rarely argument directly even when he quote pieces of our comments. I already gave to him good questions, the three years old gifted girl example and the main idea of blank slatism (people born without previous and specific cerebral constitutions??) but he can’t.
RRA can’t live in a debate without his buzzword magics. He can’t make explanations about real world using concrete examples like we can do.
What do you take pseudoscience to mean? I wouldn’t say in an authority, but I’m knowledgeable in what I talk about. It’s not G or E determinism but GxE interaction, which completely upends hereditarianism and makes it untenable. I would like you or anyone else to provide an argument against strong causal parity which states that genes (what I take to be DNA sequences) have no special privileged causal role. They are inert until activated by the system. They’re mere passive, not active, causes. Re the gifted girl example, how does that prove anything about genetic determinism? I ignored it because it’s just not relevant.
“Genes don’t determine anything; genetic determinism is false. There is no innate information in the gene. There is no “code” or “blueprint”—these kinds of analogies fail.”
How do you explain embryogenesis and phenology then?
I just gave the example of bat wings and cat retractable claws.
How does this happen without gene activation in the womb?
Different organisms have different genomes and so are different phylogenetically.
Intellectually precocious people show up how biology// genetics is more relevant than environment because they were exposed to the same level of primary stimuli that most children receive, during their first years of life, but they have an accelerated cognitive development, no matter if they live in an african tribe, in a working class home in Mexico or in the most privileged places.
You’re privileging what’s not priviligeable due to strong causal parity being true.
You’re knowledgeable in pseudism.
“you apparently think I’m an idiot because I think rap is generally bad.”
No, I think you’re an idiot because you say things like:
Again, saying that organism’s phenotype is holistic and deterministic by the genes doesn’t defeat hereditarianism…..it’s obvious brain size and structure also affects intelligence
Hereditarianism, like CWT, is a specific set of theories/hypotheses and is not simply the idea that “gEnEs AfEct InTeLLiGeNCe.”
Do you realize how vague that is? How you’re basically saying nothing with this retarded assertion? No scientist on this planet that is worth his/her salt would ever say that genes do not affect the outcome of traits, but that’s not the same fucking thing as hereditarianism, which is almost always coextensive with genetic determinism and views phenotype expression as mainly additive.
As usual, you jackasses can’t help but shift goalposts whenever your bullshit is called out.
Santo all you need in this world is imagination. that leads to so many open doors wow.
WTF unmoderate my comment
bat sperm and bat ovum produce bat prodigy.
cat sperm and cat ovum produce cat prodigy.
The first has bat wings the second has retractable claws.
what is the cause of this?
rr doesn’t know.
I believe that genes regulate the growth of the system.
I don’t understand how rr doesn’t get this.
where do retractable claws come from?
why is there any phylum at all?
Your claim is that since species-typical traits exist, the cause is genes?
genes regulate the growth of the system.
bats grow wings and cats grow retractable claws.
why?
because of the regulation
what does the regulating rr?
The physiological system regulates all components of it—meaning the developmental resources. Genes are but one part of these resources, and development definitely isn’t reducible to genes. That’s a ridiculous claim.
The development differences between cat claws and bat wings are more in the genes than the environment.
Blank slatism will not under any normal conditions make bats grow retractable claws or cats grow wings.
These differences are specific traits conditioning doesn’t work on. What is the cause? a deficiency in resources? What resources?
BF skinner’s Behaviorism is also wrong.
Preditors are different from herbivores.
No matter what conditioning you give a rabbit it will never hunt in packs. Chimps will never learn a recursive language.
what is the cause of conditioning to be unable to work?
mysterious?
“more in the genes than in the information environment” – is there context-independent information in genes?
“Hereditarianism, like CWT, is a specific set of theories/hypotheses and is not simply the idea that “gEnEs AfEct InTeLLiGeNCe.”
Wow you did the capital/uncapitalized thing, did you learn that from debating communism online?
“Do you realize how vague that is? How you’re basically saying nothing with this retarded assertion? No scientist on this planet that is worth his/her salt would ever say that genes do not affect the outcome of traits, but that’s not the same fucking thing as hereditarianism, which is almost always coextensive with genetic determinism and views phenotype expression as mainly additive.”
RR literally says that genes do not affect the outcome of traits because he says they have no privileged causal position. This is basically what social constructivism amounts to anyway.
And yes I do realize how vague it is, because the point is that RR and blank slatists in general have glaring contradictions that can be pointed out by such simplistic statements. Empirical science has already established that genes are linked to intelligence, and have a privileged causal position, because that’s what we see whenever an organism develops from a single cell and looks and acts more like their parents than a squirrel, or even a human named Bob from 1000 miles away.
Maybe I need to stick some more “fucking” and “retarded” in my posts to get through to commi r-types like you.
“As usual, you jackasses can’t help but shift goalposts whenever your bullshit is called out.”
I’m not a professional scientist so I generally don’t care about hyper-specific definitions in their original form, I just recognize when people are saying extremely contradictory things. But either way, I’ve never seen a race realist, or a hereditarian, or whatever, say that nurture/environment never had affects on the development of the organism or their traits. It’s not shifting the goalposts, it’s calling you out on your pseudointellectualism.
I just want to know what causes there to be a difference between cats and bats?
Why are they not the same?
The cause, please?
“The cause”
There is no one cause. Multiple interacting irreducible factors interact to form phenotypes.
“why” are cats different from bats?
They have different evolutionary histories. The simple answer is they have different developmental systems. Asking “why are animals different from each other” isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. If knockout experiments are performed on every gene in a bat, would we learn the causes of bat wing shape or the differences in wing shape between bat’s and birds? The answer is developmental.
why do animals develop differently?
GxE ?
Yes but then you say the genome is not part of this? Animal genomes are not needed for differences to emerge phenotypically at all?
Genes are dependency conditions. I never denied that. They’re but one part of the system that leads to the phenotype.
genomes are wholistic to development.
no one gene codes for a bat wing, the total does.
but there is no way a bat embryo can interact with the environment that will turn it into a cat.
this is because of the specificity of the genome, see?
“specificity of the genome” meaning, what? That doesn’t even make sense to me. A developmental system is what shapes species-typical characters. Asking me to name all of them is a clear waste of time.
a cat genome is specific to a cat phenotype
a bat genome is specific to a bat phenotype
These differences are not transferable to only environmental influences of development.
You can’t develop a bat without a bat genome and you cannot develop a cat without a cat genome.
There is a specific reason for this not a nominalist one.
“is there context-independent information in genes?”
all regulation growth processes are context-dependent.
junk DNA is a myth.
It’s a yes or no question – was your response a no?
there is no context independent information in the genome of any organism
If you agree with that then why do I think you’re about to argue for a kind of genetic reductionism? Your recent comments lead me to believe you will.
I thought proteins were important to cell growth and regulation.
how does phenotype development happen without proteins?
i thought anime was asking you if you believed it.
“RR literally says that genes do not affect the outcome of traits because he says they have no privileged causal position.”
Lmao, that’s not what he’s saying.
“This is basically what social constructivism amounts to anyway.”
I don’t know why you keep using words you don’t know the meaning of.
“Empirical science has already established that genes are linked to intelligence, and have a privileged causal position”
It’s actually the opposite. Empirical science has proven theories like DST.
” I’ve never seen a race realist, or a hereditarian, or whatever, say that nurture/environment never had affects on the development of the organism or their traits.”
No one is saying they did. You still don’t get it.
“Empirical science has proven theories like DST”
What did you have in mind? Laland’s EES paper has novel predictions in it and they use a DST framework.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
[scene playing black jack or chemin de fer or whatever in swanky casino…]
peepee: mr? [peepee smiles at mr pot (sexually).]
mr pot : pol, pol pot. “genetically superior”.
peepee: danke schoen. a chante. entrez-vous. eggs and ham.
“Lmao, that’s not what he’s saying.”
You’ve proven time and time again not to understand what anyone else was saying unless it was extremely simplistic like someone calling you a name. For actually detailed discussions, you are a whiny bitch.
“I don’t know why you keep using words you don’t know the meaning of.”
Because it annoys pissants like you I guess? Or mostly because this is not a scholarly journal so we can speak like normal people since there is no one to impress. Do you honestly think most of the commenters here couldn’t understand these concepts?
“It’s actually the opposite. Empirical science has proven theories like DST.”
It has proven that intelligence and many other traits are heavily correlated with genetics… so it can only support DST insofar as it also supports strong genetic correlations.
“No one is saying they did. You still don’t get it.”
The reason I don’t argue with fags like you but argue with RR is because RR, as annoying as he is to me, argues in good faith (besides the bombardment of terms and autism). It’s clear at this point he simply doesn’t understand what subjectivity and objectivity actually are because he thinks physical things can somehow exist without any meaningful form, which by definition, is impossible as anything that exists has to have meaning to be anything at all. That’s why he doesn’t understand that what we consider physical is actually abstract and subjective, it just happens to be in a framework we all generally agree on. Nothing can exist even physically without meaning, interpretation, subjectivity, or a framework, because it would mean nothing, could not be interpreted as anything, and could not be differentiated from anything else.
And that is actually a sound argument unlike your irreducibility to physical terms argument… since you can describe a lot of mental conceptions in terms of physical facts. I can describe a fish in my mind as a foot long. I can say it’s above or below a table (physical references of it’s spatial location). I can’t describe it’s color without subjectivity, but neither could I if the fish was real.
Furthermore particular lengths like a foot is also something imagined, and not actually ingrained in the fish until we observe it and compare it, so it is also subjective. The difference being that thoughts seem to appear out of our will while observations come to us regardless of our willing of them. But every feature we observe of the physical world is subjective. That’s where Kant comes in saying that you can’t observe reality as it is. This should be very obvious if you seriously study philosophy (because I don’t and I understand it).
Another point is that objective measurements are consistent across different subjective viewpoints, but consistency applies both among the people themselves and between different people, but in terms of _observation_, a measurement isn’t any more or less abstract just because we all agree that something measured a foot is the same as something else measured a foot. And a unicorn is not any less concrete to our observations just because it only exists in our minds. A “objective physical” fact happens to be one consistent with other’s observations, while a “subjective mental” fact is one inconsistent with other’s observations. But besides a subjective feeling of having willed something into our minds, there is nothing different in the abstract or concrete or mental or physical nature of them… because observation is mental by definition… and how we interpret our observations is “subjective” or “cultural” by definition.
What studies dhw show a correlation between traits and genetics? Give me 3 references.
“You’ve proven time and time again not to understand what anyone else was saying”
LMAO, the irony.
“It has proven that intelligence and many other traits are heavily correlated with genetics”
You aren’t intelligent enough to understand what those correlations mean.
“fags like you”
Oh, I’m the fag? That’s funny.
“It’s clear at this point he simply doesn’t understand what subjectivity and objectivity actually are”
I don’t know why you’re ranting to me about this. I’m not a dualist.
That said, even if RR has some misunderstanding on what objective and subjective are, you clearly aren’t any more enlightened.
“What studies dhw show a correlation between traits and genetics? Give me 3 references.”
Yes I believe there is a field of genetics that does this.
Melo,
Again, nothing but useless browbeating from you. Literally no arguments or attempt at explaining anything.
And yes, you are a faggot; a hapa faggot apparently. Facts being what they are…
You made a specific claim about genes and psychology—please provide 3 references for the claim.
“Literally no arguments or attempt at explaining anything.”
An argument won’t change a moron’s mind, so there is no point in me arguing with you.
RR hasn’t opened his mind since months ago when I explained to him that both the physical and mental fall under the same umbrella of the abstract. His blockage comes from somewhere either intellectual or personal.
Melo still doesn’t realize that rap sucks and his whole online persona (including his name, social constructivism, communism, browbeating faggoty augment style, inability to admit that black women are more masculine, etc.) is literally a consequence of him being a hapa. Nothing wrong with a little identity struggle, as we all have it, although it is littered with the insecurity that LOADED always talks about.
Go write a blog about it, it might help.
Lurker doesn’t understand that I’ve successfully argued for the conclusion that there are 2 substances, and one is irreducible.
(1) Mind/consciousness first-personal and subjective.
(2) Science is third-personal and objective.
So (3) Science can’t study mind/consciousness.
(1) is self-evident. (2) is defended simply on the basis that science is done from a third-person view. So (3) follows, since although scientists can study brain states (from the third-person), those brain states are radically different from what is (first-personally) experienced by the agent-subject.
This argument is a similar one, and concludes that there is an irreducible first-person perspective that cannot be studied by science. The implications of the immaterial substance that makes part of us is clear—science cannot study it.
Click to access bak08sciM.pdf
1. you don’t even unnuhstan what substance means.
2. you haven’t successfully argued for anything.
3. you don’t know what philosophy is.
4. I explained to him that both the physical and mental fall under the same umbrella of the abstract.
correct. there is no experiencer and there is no experienced, there is only experience. it’s just a way of talking. but dummkopfs confuse themselves with words. see Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness .
“There is no experiencer”
False, the “experiencer” is the self, “I.”
SocialConstructivist,
“(1) Mind/consciousness first-personal and subjective.”
Begging the question. What isn’t subjective? What isn’t objective?
“First-person” Where is the person? Is it outside other persons? Then that refutes your idea that mind is purely immaterial since clearly there is a spatial element, even if it is not our 3d space, but another person space. If the person was nowhere, it literally wouldn’t exist, so it must be somewhere with respect to other people.
Is it objective that mind/consciousness is subjective? Why is it objective?
You actually have to define your terms fully and define them with respect to everything else so we can actually say that they aren’t actually the same in some way.
“(2) Science is third-personal and objective.”
Science only observes through first-person experience. Science only observes and can measure properties, which are abstract and require a subjective (interpreting) framework.
Science actually studies first-person measurements that are agreed upon by multiple first-person subjective observers… and therefore we can assume it is objective.
If you want to argue that there is an objective world outside our perceptions, that’s fine, but why aren’t our perceptions objective outside our minds as well? You can differentiate the two ultimately, as they are both simply properties and relationships, because dualism is false.
“(3) Science can’t study mind/consciousness.”
Seems like that’s all it does…
“(3) follows, since although scientists can study brain states (from the third-person), “those brain states are radically different from what is (first-personally) experienced by the agent-subject.”
Yes but they are brain states of one human as studied from the first-person perspectives of other humans, not from a magical third-person perspective.
“This argument is a similar one, and concludes that there is an irreducible first-person perspective that cannot be studied by science. The implications of the immaterial substance that makes part of us is clear—science cannot study it.”
First-person perspectives are what make up literally all of our experience and understanding, which includes our studies, so if science can’t study through subjective perspectives it cannot study at all. I’ve said this before… this gets back to our words meaning nothing according to your worldview.
Mugabe,
“1. you don’t even unnuhstan what substance means.”
True RR doesn’t understand you have to cover all of your bases when claiming two inseparable substances… you can’t say X and Y are different here so they must be completely separate. You have to show that in all possible worlds, they couldn’t be of one substance. Of course I can imagine a color without any spatial existence… but I exist in the first place. Furthermore, I can exist without certain properties, but anything that differentiates me and can be considered a property must be defined in an immaterial way.
If I say that subjectivity and material are completely separate, I have to show both how subjective properties could happen without material existence, and vice versa.
“2. you haven’t successfully argued for anything.”
Just very limited things that don’t imply his grand narrative of pseudo-blank slatism.
“correct. there is no experiencer and there is no experienced, there is only experience. it’s just a way of talking. but dummkopfs confuse themselves with words. see Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness .”
(1) Physical objects aren’t subjective. Mind isn’t objective. It’s not question-begging, due to the nature of experience. Do you know what a FPP is?
(2) Again, you’re just plain ignorant to the necessary conditions of metrication, the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit. A perspective is a subjective state, that’s why.
(3) No, it doesn’t, and it (logically) can’t. A TPP is merely viewing something from the outside. Third-person data is behavior and brain processes. TPP is observation, it is an objective view.
I showed how they’re separate and that intentions (subjective states) don’t reduce to dispositions (physical structure) here:
The first- and third-personal argument builds on that one.
Again, the self “I” is the experiencer, and David Lund’s argument establishes an immaterial self.
In any case, I have defended all 3 premises.
“If you want to argue that there is an objective world outside our perceptions, that’s fine, but why aren’t our perceptions objective outside our minds as well? You can differentiate the two ultimately, as they are both simply properties and relationships,”
Meant to say you “can’t” differentiate the two ultimately.
Perceptions aren’t objective because to perceptual experience is first-personal which is subjective.
Subjectivity is a default perspective for us. Objectivity is a perspective in which the subject directed his attention to a chosen object, abstract or concrete. First person is obviously irreducible. Irreducible for what?? Nonperson-perspective?? This claim doesn’t prove that science (made by humans or first-person perspective subjects) cannot study first-person perspectives… but in many cases particularly in psychology field, researchers need to trust on what is describing by patients or people they are professionally or academically interacting.
We have evolve to learn to reduce or regulate our levels of subjectivity.
I don’t know if a cloud is really white or it is just by my perception. Maybe in the future we will know how accurate human standard perceptions are. But i believe we tend to be well equipped sensorially. Generally our senses has been evolved to detect patterns of reality with some accuracy. Maybe scientists in this hypothetical study find our standard perceptual deviation is more discrete than significant.
(2) establishes that science is third-personal, that is it concerns behavior and brain processes. It’s what is seen by an external observer. Mental states are experienced first-personally while we never observe mental states from the third-person since mental states are PRIVATE, that is NOT PUBLIC.
“(1) Physical objects aren’t subjective. Mind isn’t objective. It’s not question-begging, due to the nature of experience. Do you know what a FPP is?”
The mind isn’t objective but it can know objective things. You would be a solipsist if you conclude the opposite.
“Melo still doesn’t realize that rap sucks”
Lmao. It absolutely infuriates Lurker that I am more intelligent than him.
“Perceptions aren’t objective because to perceptual experience is first-personal which is subjective.”
Objective perception is called extraverted perception. Perception dealing with the external world.
Extroverted Sensitising (seeing objects)
Extroverted Intuition (ideas triggered by exterior events)
Subjective Perceptions deal with the internal subjective world | body/mind image.
Introverted Intuition (meta-subjective | abstraction of the internal)
Introverted Sensation (interoception)
False, the “experiencer” is the self, “I.”
would’ve been correct if “self” had been capitalized AND if it had ALSO been said…
the “experienced” is the Self, “I”.
the Self = atman = brahman = ypu = me = unles you’re a zombie like daniel dennett.
rr: but those indian dudes didn’t write in english in the last 100 years!
mugabe: wtf are you talking about? i know, but it’s retarded.
rr: how dare you use the word “retarded”!
mugabe: okay. that’s enough. [marks paper sending rr to concentration camp.]
“Perceptions aren’t objective because to perceptual experience is first-personal which is subjective.”
False. The perceptions are objective for their interpretive framework, or else they couldn’t exist at all. They obviously must fit some sort of framework to be considered real.
Things actually need a solid definition and existence before they can actually happen.
Perceptions are objective. If I try to imagine a square triangle, it will never actually be a square and triangle in the exact same space and time. I can only imagine one or the other. Because even perceptions have to be consistent in order to cohere with each other. If you have one coherent perception, by definition of the word coherence, it does not contradict itself. If your perception is incoherent (and hence could not be objective in any framework) it can never actually be one perception.
Write another article about this because it might be why you continue to believe in a false dualism.
False, perception is the subjective reflection of the agent to the objective environment. The physical environment exists independently of our minds, but subjective perception is of course a product of one’s mind, it’s immeasurable. Try again bro.
“Lmao. It absolutely infuriates Lurker that I am more intelligent than him.”
No what infuriates me is parasitism or people who propagate it (people who defend parasitic classes or communism/equity, social constructivism). At least LOADED doesn’t defend equity or blank slatism as a general rule.
I’m an honest person and I would definitely admit you have an above average IQ, but it seems to come from partially being a mental or physical parasite of others (like our “elite” ruling class). I can tell because of how big of an asshole you are, and admitted to being.
Sad.
90s rap = good
Modern rap = trash.
The physical environment exists independently of our minds
totally meaningless statement.
do the objects in my dreams exist independently of “our” minds?
Try again bro.
exactly!
…60 IQ…that’s right. so just stop it. — pill
okay now i get it.
…perception is the subjective reflection of the agent to the objective environment…
^^^the definition of treating abstractions as more real than that from which they have been abstracted…aka autism.
cue gay theme song.
Extraverted Sensation is about relaying the impression of the objects external to the subject to the subject.
Extraverted Intuition is the ideas generated by the impressions relayed from the external object to the subject.
Introverted Sensing is the perception of the body image.
Introverted Intuition is the ideas generated by the subject reflecting upon their own subjectivity.
“False, perception is the subjective reflection of the agent to the objective environment.”
Objective environment that consists of what? Various properties existing spatially and temporally. Space and time are what? Relative measurements to each other.
What does a perception consist of? The mind holding certain properties at a specific time separate from other minds (a specific place).
What part of both physical and mental both ultimately consisting of abstract properties aren’t you understanding?
“The physical environment exists independently of our minds,”
Prove that no mind is necessary for our physical environment. You know every contingency about every immaterial mind that exists in the universe?
“but subjective perception is of course a product of one’s mind, it’s immeasurable. Try again bro.”
Try measuring something without using a mind.
Also, try reading what I write please.
It consists of physical properties.
P and M are substances, not properties and I have established that claim.
If humans weren’t here the earth and universe would still be here.
Length is a magnitude which can be expressed numerically. Psychology is irreducible and so immeasurable.
what is my IQ? mid 90s rap lol. jk. but honestly i hate pill so much.
he reminds me of every douchebag person put together to one! what a douche!
galen strawson:
Those who make the Very Large Mistake (of thinking they know enough
about the nature of the physical to know that consciousness can’t be
physical) tend to split into two groups. Members of the first group remain
unshaken in their belief that consciousness exists, and conclude that there
must be some sort of nonphysical stuff: They tend to become “dualists.”
Members of the second group, passionately committed to the idea that
everything is physical, make the most extraordinary move that has ever
been made in the history of human thought. They deny the existence of
consciousness: They become “eliminativists.”
what strawson jr can’t say or even think, because anilingus politics, is that he’s an idealist. “panpsychism” and “neutral monism” and “property dualism” are like a guy who’s married with 5 children and his doctor asks him, “how do you think you got AIDS?” and he and his family deny deny deny.
noam chomsky:
to exist independent of being perceived is like some yet to be calculated digit of pi. that’s all. not much.
rr pointed melo to kastrup. i suggest donald hoffman.
That video was really moving.
intense resilience i only plan to live a short life. how short we will find out.
LOADED my future husband,
like the evil italian smurf, anthony fauci, you will not have a tall life.
but peepee is even shorter. you should hook up before we get hitched.
im 27 now. will i make it past the civilizational collapse the evil in this world the great apostates who wish for my downfall?
currently i dont think so. i think i will be stuck suffering even i were to.
only way to get anything done is to do it yourself and i have plans to make everything go crazy too! 🙂
im not saying i couldnt live a long life but were i that wise beyond my years i would probably contemplate all the chaos around me which would dampen my chances at actually being happy! 😦
Pingback: RIP Barbara Walters 1929 to 2022 – Glyn Hnutu-healh: History, Alchemy, and Me
Another useless parasite died…
do you think the Internet is real Santo? switching your mind from real life to media of any sort is a real problem technology is the most evil thing there is because it only spreads negative values.
i am the furthest thing from a parasite and i must tell you ive been overjoyed by defeating my enemies one straight punch at a time…..:)
”do you think the Internet is real Santo?”
Yes.
”i am the furthest thing from a parasite and i must tell you ive been overjoyed by defeating my enemies one straight punch at a time…..:)”
Congratulations, may Jewsus bless you.
i am the grim reaper!
No way bro, dramatic commercialized mass media is so important and moral…
my secret to life is i can deal with pain. if pain exists then i can create pleasure out of it. rinse and repeat. i am good.
will i ever get to receive the love i so grandly deserve? no probably not but i can make strides to making them appreciate me eventually.
look its hard for people to block out the good in them. if they see something good they will react positively.
good is the greatest force in this Universe because of how strong it is. if we have a lasting effect on ourselves then the Universe has shined a beautiful light on us!
(she had insight & wisdom)))
If intelligence cannot be measured, and so emotion, why racism can??
If human races don’t exist why racism exist??
Racism is an action. I’ve taken care of the claim that if race isn’t real then why does racism matter? It’s simply because they don’t distinguish between biological and socialraces.
“If race doesn’t exist, then why does white privilege matter?
Lastly, those who argue against the concept of white privilege may say that those who are against the concept of white privilege would then at the same time say that race—and therefore whites—do not exist so, in effect, what are they talking about if ‘whites’ don’t exist because race does not exist? This is of course a ridiculous statement. One can indeed reject claims from biological racial realists and believe that race exists and is a socially constructed reality. Thus, one can reject the claim that there is a ‘biological’ European race, and they can accept the claim that there is an ever-changing ‘white’ race, in which groups get added or subtracted based on current social thought (e.g., the Irish, Italians, Jews), changing with how society views certain groups.
Though, it is perfectly possible for race to exist socially and not biologically. So the social creation of races affords the arbitrarily-created racial groups to be in certain areas on the hierarchy of races. Roberts (2011: 15) states that “Race is not a biological category that is politically charged. It is a political category that has been disguised as a biological one.” She argues that we are not biologically separated into races, we are politically separated into them, signifying race as a political construct. Most people believe that the claim “Race is a social construct” means that “Race does not exist.” However, that would be ridiculous. The social constructivist just believes that society divides people into races based on how we look (i.e., how we are born) and then society divides us into races on the basis of how we look. So society takes the phenotype and creates races out of differences which then correlate with certain continents.
So, there is no contradiction in the claim that “Race does not exist” and the claim that “Whites have certain unearned privileges over other groups.” Being an antirealist about biological race does not mean that one is an antirealist about socialraces. Thus, one can believe that whites have certain privileges over other groups, all the while being antirealists about biological races (saying that “Races don’t exist biologically”).”
Social constructivists about race are realists about race and social constructivists believe that groups are racialized—that is, the social can become biological.
I can’t understand your rubbish, sorry. Right in the beginning, i don’t know what you mean. Good communication is to be clear. Your writing style is horrible and may reflect your reasoning skills. It’s not because you copy ridiculous academic style specially in human sciences doesn’t make it smart or scientific. Excessive use of rare words is completely useless for science. Only specific terms are really useful. Pseudoscientists use them to boorst their researchs size often empty of relevance.
Racism is at priori a reactive response. No have such thing socialraces.
Italians were always BIOLOGICALLY european caucasians. Anthropologically ignorant anglos opinions about them during the XIX doesn’t make it right. The same for jews even thought they are a cline of european and middle eastern. So because your claim “race is ONLY socially construct because the way society seing to race change over the time” is wrong the rest of your comment is wrong too.
If intelligence cannot being defined or you don’t know what it is so how you know what is racism??
An action is irreducible to dispositions, as I’ve successfully argued.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/
I most definitely know how to reason. Check my most recent articles to see my reasoning. I gave many definitions for racism here and they’re context-dependent.
“Only specific terms are really useful. Pseudoscientists use them to boorst their researchs size often empty of relevance.”
Great points. I don’t think he does it on purpose but wants the most accurate and up-to-date terminology on a very difficult topic, and the result comes to be as you are describing. It’s nearly incomprehensible and sounds autistic (as in completely unaware of how others view they’re writing).
“If intelligence cannot being defined or you don’t know what it is so how you know what is racism??”
I asked the same thing about subjective vs. objective since his ideas of those appear to be contradictory.
Lurker,
Intelligence is the only way we can create a concept to identify a behavior like racism. If RR say he doesn’t know what intelligence is so how he can know what racism is?
I guess you didn’t read the article I linked.
“Intelligence is the only way we can create a concept to identify a behavior like racism. If RR say he doesn’t know what intelligence is so how he can know what racism is?”
Right, he says we conceive of concepts culturally and they cannot be measured objectively… but also that we can measure people passing tests for domain specific knowledge. So we can ascertain if someone understands algebra concepts for example, just not measure an IQ.
So if knowledge is culture bound (subjective), but can be measured objectively with domain-specific tests… how is it said that the intelligence thinking of those cultural beliefs can’t be measured?
If culture is subjective, how are we measuring anything regarding culture in an objective way in the first place? How is it possible to measure knowledge as a cultural belief/phenomenon if there is no objective measurement of the “immaterial mind” (i.e. an objective concept-to-concept mapping from cultural belief to cultural belief)?
Does knowledge not have anything to do with mind? If so, why is that knowledge as thought can be measured and matched, yet only in culturally specific domains? Where do those cultural ideas come from if not the objective world?
What would it even mean for an idea to be subjective with no objective element, and something to be objective with no subjective element? That’s why dualism is wrong.
They come from the objective world filtered through a subjective mind. Again, Cole’s West African Binet argument shows that culture-free tests are an impossibility. I’ve pretty conclusively shown that physicalism is false and dualism is true.
So do you believe in a spirit world? Ghosts? Life after death? And why does the brain correlate with cognition if it’s not causing it? What is the relationship between the brain & mind if not causal?
I don’t believe in a spirit world, ghosts, or life after death. The non-identity argument refutes disembodied minds/souls/selves. The brain correlates with cognition since it’s necessary for it. The relationship is that its necessary for it, and we use the body to carry out the actions the mind wants to perform.
If x is necessary for y, then x causes y. So now you admit the physical causes the mental
That doesn’t follow at all. X is identical to Y iff they have the same properties. But the mental and physical don’t have the same properties. So the mental is distinct from the physical.
X doesn’t have to be identical to Y to cause Y, it only has to be necessary which you admitted it is. The brain causes the mind. The physical causes the mental.
Saying “Without the brain there can be no mind, so the brain is necessary for the mind” doesn’t mean that brain causes mind. I’ve dispatched that claim here.
You cited a very long article so not sure which part rebuts me. Meanwhile:
following:
x is a cause of y, according to our ordinary concept of causation, iff
(i) x and y are distinct events, and
(ii) x occurs and y occurs, and
(iii) in the circumstances, if x had not occurred, y would not have occurred, and
(iv) x is causally prior to y.
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/655/mackie.htm
I don’t disagree with that but I fail to see how that means that the brain is more than necessary for mind.
So you admit the brain is one of the causes of the mind?
Without the brain there can be no mind, but that’s not the same as saying that the brain causes the mind or that the mind is a process of the brain like digestion is a process of the stomach since mind is intentionally constituted and digestion isn’t.
Without the brain there can be no mind, but that’s not the same as saying that the brain causes the mind
Yes it is. That’s what cause means.
Necessary pre-conditions are necessary causes, not sufficient causes. Dependency conditions aren’t sufficient conditions.
It’s still a cause, even if it’s not a sufficient one. No one ever claimed it was sufficient. Now one might claim a healthy brain is a sufficient cause of a mind,
A healthy brain is a necessary pre-condition for for a mind, yes. I take “precondition” to mean “cause” in some sense.
No a brain is a necessary pre-condition for a mind. A healthy brain is a sufficient pre-condition.
The only difference between the two is the latter is the only cause while the former is a partial cause
That’s implicit in “brain is necessary pre-condition for mind.” Without brains there can be no mind. But it’s not identical with our mental lives. Necessary conditions aren’t sufficient conditions. Since humans are the only animals with minds it follows that human brains are necessary causes for minds. Minds aren’t identical to brains, which is what you seem to be saying. Mind-brain identity is false.
Can you think of anyone who has a healthy brain who does not also have a mind? If a healthy brain were an insufficient cause there would be examples given 8 billion humans on the planet
Sufficient conditions guarantee outcomes. There are a number of sufficient conditions that lead to mindedness, but we only need the physical necessary condition, a brain—and I don’t need to say “healthy brain” since it is implicit—for mind to arise. Stating that brain is a sufficient condition for mind means that we are our brains—that mind reduces to brain. But this is false, we are not our brains.
https://academic.oup.com/book/5458/chapter-abstract/148337700?redirectedFrom=fulltext
A healthy brain guarantees a mind. Otherwise there’d be healthy brained people without minds. Only unhealthy brained people lack minds like vegetables at the lowest stage of alertness
Yea, it’s necessary. As the Glannon article that I linked says, stating brain is sufficient means that mind reduces to brain—that’s false.
Having air to breathe is a sufficient condition to be alive. Having a brain is a necessary pre-condition for a mind.
“The a brain is a necessary pre-condition for human mindedness but not a sufficient condition” doesn’t seem to mean what you think it means. There need to be physical facts for there to be any mental facts.
Let’s not forget that you asked “If human races don’t exist why racism exist??”, and what u wrote DIRECTLY addressed your question.
What I wrote **
RR has been undone with Santo’s last comment.
Stop feeding the troll.
BRAIN
CORRELATES
WITH COGNITION
CORRELATES
He said.
Maybe it’s just your case, RR…
Do you know what that means?
I don’t waste my time reading sophistricated manipulation, sorry
Objective is not necessarily for precision but for object-directness. Subjective is what is about individual by himself. Emotion, for example. Objective is about a given object, abstract or concrete. Abstract is not just about what is subjective but a objective-abstract construct like racism. After racism correct definion (eliminating bulshit determination like “whites cannot suffer racism”), it can be objectively identified and even measure even thought measurement for cognitive and psychological traits tend to be pedantic or unnecessary if it’s possible compare them by objective criteria or definitions.
“They come from the objective world filtered through a subjective mind. ”
???
Where does the subjective mind come from in the first place if not the objective?
Where does the objective come from?
How can the subjective mind “filter” anything objective when they have no common constituents?
Where does the mind reside if it is somehow different from the brain?
How is it possible for anything to be subjective except in relation to other subjective things, meaning that in order to consider something subjective one must actually interpret something under a greater objective framework that encompasses multiple subjective interpretations? That being the case, is it not true that the subjective and objective hold commonalities, and that there is a greater possible set of “subjective” knowledge that holds many other sets in it, and a possessor of that greater set could be considered more intelligent?
“Again, Cole’s West African Binet argument shows that culture-free tests are an impossibility. I’ve pretty conclusively shown that physicalism is false and dualism is true.”
“Culture-free tests” are impossible because interpretation is inherent in any measurement, “physical” or not. Everything has to have an interpretation and hence a “culture”.
I’ve conclusively shown that dualism is false. Physicalism is also false.
I don’t claim to know where these things “come from”. My seeing a grey cloud is an objective thing filtered through my subjective mind. Asking where something “resides” means, what? The conclusion that the mind isn’t identical to the brain or processes of the brain is an entailment.
Nothing you’ve said can be construed as a counterargument to any argument I’ve made that argues for a dualist conclusion. “Culture-free” tests are impossible in virtue of the fact that cultural groups have specific kinds of knowledge.
What’s your philosophy of mind again? A form of panpsychism, right? What’s the argument?
The mental causes the physical? How?
What are you talking about?
for a human to preform an action the mind must cause the brain to do something physical to control the body.
Mind -> Brain -> Body -> World
what happens between the mind and the brain? What is the causal condition apparatus?
“But the skeletal muscle will not contract unless the skeletal muscles are stimulated. The nervous system and the muscular system communicate, which is called neural activiation—defined as the contraction of muscle generated by neural stimulation. We have what are called “motor neurons”—neurons located in the CNS (central nervous system) which can send impulses to muscles to move them. This is done through a special synapse called the neuromuscular junction. A motor neuron that connects with muscle fibers is called a motor unit and the point where the muscle fiber and motor unit meet is callled the neuromuscular junction. It is a small gap between the nerve and muscle fiber called a synapse. Action potentials (electrical impulses) are sent down the axon of the motor neuron from the CNS and when the action potential reaches the end of the axon, hormones called neurotransmitters are then released. Neurotransmitters transport the electrical signal from the nerve to the muscle.”
What you posted simply demonstrates that the brain initiates mind without the immaterial. Brain function is mind?
No it doesn’t; it’s the intentions of the agent that initiate action.
How would immaterial mind initiate physical action in the brain?
Lurker,
Many of the cultural knowledge is objective-based. Culture tend to be characteristically more subjective in religious or ritualistic sectors even thought it’s a false dykeotomy claim subjective and objective cannot coexist in same space. Actually they exist in a continuum and not in rigidly separate boxes. Subjectivity is derived from objectivity. The big difference between them is that they are directed to different perspectives: inside and outside, to object (and we can objetied ourselves). Our emotions are subjective because we only can feel them by ourselves but they manifest in objective ways, conceptually and self expressively. For other people, my emotions are subjective, because they belong only to me, but for me they are very objective because i’m experiencing them in first person.
If it’s first-personal it’s subjective.
You doesn’t know what correlation means after all these years. Say this absurd for people who really works on neuroscience and it’s not a professional ideologue. Curious about their reactions.
When i move my hand my peripheral and central nervous system, aka brain, are making my hand’s movement possible. It’s not a correlation. It’s fucking causation, my friend.
What do you think I take “correlated” to mean? The CNS is a dependency for action.
“I don’t claim to know where these things “come from”.”
You claim to understand a lot about the immaterial and material, and that they are definitely separated, yet you don’t understand the actual difference between them. You can’t explain how any differences could arise.
“My seeing a grey cloud is an objective thing filtered through my subjective mind. ”
“A grey cloud” is a pre-interpreted notion, where did that subjectivity come from? It’s made of atoms? Where did that interpretation come from? etc. Tell me when the subjectivity and abstract leaves the “physical” and maybe you can actually establish dualism.
“Asking where something “resides” means, what?”
Is it hard to answer? It either exists somewhere, or it doesn’t exist at all. If the immaterial is in “all things” including physical things, it contradicts your dualism. If it isn’t in everything, why?
“The conclusion that the mind isn’t identical to the brain or processes of the brain is an entailment.”
If nothing subjective is functionally identical to something objective, than how can we ever say we even understand anything? Our words would literally be meaningless.
“Nothing you’ve said can be construed as a counterargument to any argument I’ve made that argues for a dualist conclusion. “Culture-free” tests are impossible in virtue of the fact that cultural groups have specific kinds of knowledge.”
Again, you did not dispute what I just said so I assume you don’t understand it. I’ve put it in already a million ways by now, but basically anything physical and mental is abstract, because it is always interpreted… there are no pure “physical” facts. Everything subjective is also objective in its own framework but may contradict more detailed objective frameworks (or ones with separate matters of fact).
You could say that cultural knowledge is functionally objective (because it maps to other subjective interpretations) if you deny any interpretation as more objective. What you can’t say is that the subjective and objective are separate completely as that would entail no common mapping to “filter”.
“What’s your philosophy of mind again? A form of panpsychism, right? What’s the argument?”
I believe the immaterial/subjective exists everywhere but it needs to actually reside somewhere objectively, hence minds need brains or something else physical that functions like a brain.
My conscious experience is first-personal and using my experience and what I see, I navigate the world. I know they are separated through a priori arguments, there are necessarily 2 different substances, that much is clear.
What it’s like to see a color isn’t a physical fact. The interpretation came from my how I perceive it.
For there to be mental facts there need to be physical facts.
If something is “located” somewhere then that means it’s physical. But the mind isn’t physical. If it’s in “all things” that would be panpsychism, which needn’t contradict dualism.
Our words aren’t “meaningless”, I’m not rehashing this (clearly futile) conversation with you again.
Mental facts are perceptions, feelings and judgments. They depend on physical facts (the brain) for actualization. What do you mean by “abstract”?
Everything subjective is also physical. If everything subjective is also physical, then there is no distinction between subjective and objective things. If there is no difference between subjective and objective things, then dualism is false.
Is that a fair reconstruction of the argument?
Knowledge is normative. I can say the subjective and objective are separate. That the subjective NEEDS the objective isn’t the kill-shot you seem to think it is. No dualist denies dependency and necessary conditions. No dualist denies that minds need brains.
Once you understand subjective needs objective, the killshot to your arguments and to dualism is that the objective needs the subjective as well. That’s what you don’t understand.
That’s why all your arguments with hereditarians run in circles, is you clearly understand that even physical facts are interpreted.
More you try to debate with RR more you sink in his deliberate labyrinth. The most important point is that he is wrong about most, if not almost of what he believes is knowledgeable. It’s an extreme example of very bad use of philosophy or better saying bad use of philosophy’s name. It a waste of time, totally. Look how he never really answer directly, never and very often he “answer” with a question.
If he is earning money being a Judith Butler clone, so you dont need to know why.
You think I get paid to do this? Haha
I even try to take every point of RR but it’s pointless. RR problem start with writing skills. His sentences are horribly constructed. He can’t write non-circular and meaningfull sentences.
Go ahead and give me three circular and non-meaningful sentences.
RR, do you think there is anything that is a sufficient cause of the mind? Physical or not.
Being around other humans and interacting with them, learning language and concepts. Minds can’t come into existence alone. Putting a baby in the dark and leaving them there wouldn’t result in that baby eventually having a mind.
It also wouldn’t result in a healthy brain
That’s obviously after the necessary pre-condition is established.
Having air to breathe is a sufficient condition to be alive. Having a brain is a necessary[sic] pre-[sic]condition for a mind.
FALSE!
having non-ridiculous hair is a necessary condition for not being put in a concentration camp along with all the other “animals don’t have minds” people.
RR IS A SATANIST…STRAIGHT UP…
PROOF:
RR’S HAIR…
RR’S CLAIMING “ANIMAL DON’T HAVE MINDS”…
RR’S UN-APOLOGETIC LOW IQ…
INTER ALIA…
“Being around other humans and interacting with them, learning language and concepts. Minds can’t come into existence alone. Putting a baby in the dark and leaving them there wouldn’t result in that baby eventually having a mind.”
Beautiful circular explanation, worthy of a nobel prize.
Go on, explain. Necessary pre-condition is brain. Once that is established, one of the many sufficient conditions is being around and interacting with other humans and that is how mind develops? Nothing “circular” about that, as mind arises from interactions. Lurker chucking around fallacy names without explanation.
“Being around other humans and interacting with them, learning language and concepts. Minds can’t come into existence alone. Putting a baby in the dark and leaving them there wouldn’t result in that baby eventually having a mind”
So many layers of bullshit here. From saying “animals have no minds” to “brains or sinapses patterns just ‘correlates’ with cognition”.
Again and again, mind is a word with basically the same meaning as consciousness. Even severily mentally disabled people have consciousness no matter how deprived it can be. And while consciousness has a better concept, mind is too vague and exoteric.
I’m not a panpsychist. I don’t think a rock is conscious but i believe every living beings have consciousness in the sense they are alive and experiencing their existences throught their senses and Iraq and such.
There are also some interesting studies showing that our personalities may are partially forged in our guts.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-01-23-gut-bacteria-linked-personality
How do you can keep your belief about metaphysical mind knowing that the diversity levels of our microbiome in our stomachs is at priori found to be correlated with personality traits???
RR has a cat and think s/he doesn’t has a mind. Poor one.
They lack minds because they lack propositional attitudes and they lack PAs because they lack language. Brains and synapses are dependency conditions.
“a priori found to be correlated”
If an experiment was used to discern something, it’s not “a priori.”
I don’t deny those links, but diversity of microbiota is of course due to diet. I’d like to see some causal efficacy on personality. Even then it’s not a blow to a dualist position of the immaterial mind.
My cat behaves, it doesn’t act.
“interacting with other humans and that is how mind develops?”
That is a physical cause, not an immaterial one rr.
Again how does the immaterial initiate the brain into action?
Physical causes aren’t intentional since they’re not directed at anything. Mental causation is intentional, directed at things. Lowe’s NCSD maintains that selves/persons are distinct but inseparable from their physical bodies. We need both event and intentional causation to explain action, since the body is how we perform our actions with our immaterial mind.
Very impressed with cat lately. His true IQ of 120+ really shines right through the fog of mental illness that sometimes eclipses it.
Here we go…
“They lack minds because they lack propositional attitudes and they lack PAs because they lack language. Brains and synapses are dependency conditions.”
Even mind being an exoteric term, YOUR concept for it is extremely narrow. Non-human animals can dream and they think too or do you think they don’t?? Wtf is “PAs”. Use a normal language, sir. I googled PAs and found nothing.
“Brain and synapses are DEPENDENCY CONDITIONS”
Use normal language.
Brain and synapses or a nervous system are CONDITIONAL for consciousness aka “mind”, not dependent. “Mind” is basically what we call a somatization of all activities primarily related with central and peripheral nervous system.
“If an experiment was used to discern something, it’s not “a priori.” ”
At priori means “primarily”. They found a correlation not a proven causality, i mean, a partial causality, even thought they are in half path to find it.
“I don’t deny those links, but diversity of microbiota is of course due to diet. I’d like to see some causal efficacy on personality. Even then it’s not a blow to a dualist position of the immaterial mind.”
IS OF COURSE.
You are too quick to draw an absolute conclusion about it just because this can fit with your indoctrination. Of course no researchers said “it’s only due to diet”.
How not??
Your “immaterial mind” being directed influenced by bacterial gut?? A dualism presupposes a division between “mind” and body. Reality: doesn’t exist such thing.
“My cat behaves, it doesn’t act.”
Poor cat…
Your cat is not 100% instinctive.
“propositional attitude” “PAs”
Do you not know what a “DEPENDENCY” condition is?
Do you mean “a priori”?
The brand of dualism I push doesn’t say “reality doesn’t exist.”
Nonhuman animals have phenomenal consciousness, not intentional consciousness.
“Physical causes aren’t intentional since they’re not directed at anything. Mental causation is intentional, directed at things.”
The brain is a directed graph. How can you say that the brain is not self-referencing itself? Because that is the function of the brain.
A directed function is not the same as immaterial causes. It is software that depends on the hardware.
The parameters for how the graph changes are all in the physical feedback of the system interacting with the internal and external. There are no immaterial interactions I am aware of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_graph
“Your cat is not 100% instinctive.”
It is as if he is saying cats cannot understand cause and effect without language. “Behaviorism”.
cat saves toddler from falling down stairs.
pseudophilosophers like e. j. lowe think they’re fooling people with fake words like “agential” and with what they call “arguments”. no one takes it seriously who doesn’t have autism.
Anal philosophy is a branch and tradition of pseudophilosophy using anal-ysis, popular in the Western world and particularly the Analsphere… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
sometimes it’s also called “anal linguisting philosophy” or “anilingus philosophy”.
the greatest anal philosopher of all time is this guy.
here is a video explaining e j lowe’s NCSD theory.
“Very impressed with cat lately. His true IQ of 120+ really shines right through the fog of mental illness that sometimes eclipses it.”
Definitely, I really hope whatever is happening in his life continues.
“Physical causes aren’t intentional since they’re not directed at anything. Mental causation is intentional, directed at things. Lowe’s NCSD maintains that selves/persons are distinct but inseparable from their physical bodies. We need both event and intentional causation to explain action, since the body is how we perform our actions with our immaterial mind.”
Why don’t you consider the environment engineered by the genes as something important in the creation of a specific type of mind? Is that not what DST would imply as well?
All else being equal, the genes would be privileged in the causation of specific traits, phenotypically and mentally. Isn’t genetic material built to be maximally protected and isolated from external factors? That is the whole point of the selfish gene. The gene that best survives is that which can guard itself against disruption from outside sources. It would do this by being part of a reproductive system that has various physical safeguards of this effect, by being constituted in a certain way both chemically and in terms of spatial location (within the cell) to protect itself from mutations or damage while in an organism all costs.
I don’t see what your point is about genes not being privileged and “strong causal parity” being true?
I agree with lurker (for once) and PP. AK, your comments have been very clear the last 2 weeks or so. I hope good things continue to happen to you.
“Why don’t you consider the environment engineered by genes as something important in the creation of a specific type of mind?”
What do you mean by “engineered by the genes”?
“the genes would be privileged in the causation of specific traits, phenotypically and mentally. Isn’t genetic material built to be maximally protected and isolated from external factors?”
What would the argument be for the first sentence? I don’t see how that that would go against strong causal parity/biological relativity. Your second sentence seems to be Plomin’s confusion too—Plomin and von Stumm claimed that “nothing in our brains, behaviour or environment changes inherited differences in DNA sequence.” They wrote this in 2018—incredible claim, and outright false.
“That is the whole point of the selfish gene”
It’s not a physiologically testable hypothesis. “Selfishness” cannot be ascribed to inert genes. And it’s not even a scientific hypothesis. Dawkins believes that it’s not a metaphor. He even admits that he doubts there is an experiment that could prove his claim. He’s making an empirical claim, so it needs to be tested and he admits it can’t be.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060581/
If strong causal parity is true, then there is no such thing as “genetic causation” and they therfore are not privileged over and above other developmental resources.
“CONDITIONS DEPENDENCY”
You used two substantives as a composed term.. It’s like a say “MOON SUN” or “COGNITIONS CREATIVITY”. It’s not prohibited but no good either. Even in little sentences you prefer to use such obscure way of communication probably to hide something.
It’s not philosophy (love for wisdom).
A dependency condition is a condition that needs to hold for something to be actualized.
white privilege only exists in white countries because countries with less than 1% whites don’t give a **** about whites there.
in other countries, other races have privileges but this doesn’t count because there are no other races for them to oppress. they are homogeneous and only oppress the subraces or ethnicities of their own race. America is heterogeneous when it comes to race.
But also:
white privilege (whiteness = racism)
White privilege is being hated in the countries you evolved in or actually settled and built, being called names in your native language while you make accommodations for those who don’t understand your language, making less money than a lot of “oppressed” minorities in your own countries, dying in population and poor while you pay for others to breed like rabbits, etc.
Watching the world your ancestors built be destroyed because of your own willingness to be moral.
can we truly answer what a person deserves….i think yeah based on how much they contribute.
there are people out there who will take everything for doing nothing. and they will gladly enjoy it.
these people need to be stripped of power because their actions and influence arrive from power.
this is what is meant when white privilege as a term is used. but not only for whites or women or whoever.
it should be known that the human species is a parasitical and wasteful species who will destroy every facet of good that was already created!
Lurker talking out of his ass once again—what else he new.
RR, I’m guessing you haven’t read Nick Gerr and Sugma Dich’s latest paper on transracialism. Sad.
An autistic, trans and poor white person is more privileged than a “neurotypical”, heterossexual and black person???
😉
The same people who push the narrative of white privilege (an unidimensional approach about privilege construct) believes:
Truth and morality are Always or Only subjective;
But historical slavery of black africans BY white europeans was (OBJECT TIVELY) wrong;
And totally overlook the slave trade of black africans by muslims AND among african tribes themselves…
One the numerous reasons why far right is winning even with horrible socioeconomical policies..
Oh, i forgot to talk about the sephardic jewish role in black african slavery too.
Great comment, Loaded!
Santo are you willing to bring neutrality to this world or what is your end goal and mission?
different perspectives certainly do matter.
peepee just banned me again and i lost my sexy epic john holmes level comment.///
rr gets to spam his retarded comments no end.
conclusion: rr’s baby is peepee’s too. gross.
can you imagine a rap song as good as this trailer park, white trash song? if you can, you have full-blown AIDS.
I’m never a neutral person.
Also saying these woke people want to bring justice to the world is bulshit. Brainwashed people are the least impartial people capable to fight for justice. They even don’t know what justice really means (systematic search and practice of truth). Right know they are replacing so called political-economic “elites” to whites treating the late as a scapegoat, a vaguely defined group who also has been victimized by their own “elites”, specially working class. Burgeouis-identitarianism is pure poison. The class struggle, most important fight, for identity struggle. That’s no cohincidence so many super privileged and cynical “celebrities” are embarking to this “moral” armada. Rather than make people angry about your unfair privilege make them angry about whites.
K..now
Puppy you should tell your dad you think Oprah Winfrey is the Queen of the World and see what he says
Lots of people have served as king or queen of the world at various times. The kennedies, the Obamas, the Reagans, the pope etc
They served as king or queen of the world in women’s celebrity magazines.
No, they were American royalty which makes them global royalty
Nobody in human history called Oprah the Queen of the World except you.
But polls show she was the woman in the world Americans most worshiped so she was queen of the country that ruled the world thus queen of the world
Most people in the world barrely knows Oprah and many other figures of american media. Angelina Jolie is probably more known outside USA than Oprah, even in Mexico.
It doesn’t matter who knows her outside U.S.. Queen of America = Queen of the World.
The only people that called Oprah the Queen were american women and homosexuals. Thats about it. Hardly anybody outside America knows who she is.
Her popularity among women, gays & blacks was enough to make her Queen of America at her peak and Queen of America is Queen of the World
She could literally march into countries where no one heard of her and demand to be treated like royalty
America is a continent.
In your wild dreams, yes.
In the world, Oprah is despised, especially by the smartest ones, and I’m not talking about wealthy sociopaths.
She’s more loved than hated especially at her peak. You show me someone who everyone loves and I’ll show you someone who is irrelevant
Hey Pumpkin, why did you delete your post about the revised Biodemographic formula? Could I use it? You said you made a computer program to calculate it; what did you make it in?
I finished checking out the correlations, but I was interested in testing your inquiry about exactly when brain size starts to decrease in the Holocene, so I am replicating Villamoare and Grabowski’s work.
I’m trying to plot all of it in Python. In fact, I’ve been doing a lot of small Python projects lately. I finished all of the rap conversions and created an executable with a GUI system where you can choose a rapper, and then it displays a message about their IQ and other stuff. So, I figured maybe I could try to do what you did with the Biodemographic formula in Python too.
I didn’t delete it, I just unpublished it.
It was created on a sample of a few hundred people but given the number of variables & all their intercorrelations, a much bigger sample is desirable to improve reliability
As a result I’ve experimented with combining the results of much bigger studies
That’s great that you’re learning python. With the amount of tedium involved in statistics it’s a desirable skill to have
Even my formula for converting head circumference to cranial capacity was so cumbersome that I desired a computer program to do it for me
But what if AI learns to write code soon? You could be out of work.
AI can already do limited types of coding, just like creating art. It will be fine to learn coding and art as long as you utilize all the learning material and new resources available and don’t become a robot yourself… which is probably impossible anyway unless you are extremely stressed or give up on life. There’s no substitute for a very ingenious, flexible but still goal-oriented human, especially when that human learned using the tools that can do the menial aspects for him anyway.
so these people you mention Lurker will survive in an AI-dominated world youre explaining?
I think most people will survive as long we don’t surrender all technological progress and resources and weaponry to a small group of people who will use it against us.
Well, you should definitely post an update when you’re finished. I’d love to mess around with it.
Could you email me a copy of the old post? I got a throwaway email at cummonkey23@proton.me (100% serious)
And I don’t really plan to code python for a living. But it is useful for data science and scripting! If AI ever takes over coding, I will welcome the change because it would probably make my life even easier.
I republished it for now so you can look at it:
Lol, thanks man.
i am way too smart sometimes but other times i fail to plan ahead.
i cant be as charismatic as id like and cant draw the attention of the right people. I have purpose!
what would you do with your last day on Earth then? i think we are on a crash course for civilizational collapse at this point.
as the resident AIDS historian…i knew the name “paul jacobs” because very early AIDS death. but he had a beard. so i thought he might not be gay.
mongolian guy: WRONG!
i thought: if went the gay way i’d be into guys who looked like girls…
mongolian guy: WRONG!
then i read that gay guys love hairy way more than women.
turns out he was a yuge gay jew…
but i found his performance of straight gentile bolcom’s composition “graceful ghost rag”.
one of the most beautiful, haunting, ethereal pieces of music i’ve ever heard.
“unreconstructed” is a very important word/concept in politics. it originates from the american civil war and aftermath, but it applies to politics globally.
to what do those who sense the clownishness of clownworld turn? they can only turn to the past.
The problem with emulating the past completely, or third world “trad” countries like Russia, or Muslim countries, is that they are often traditional either to a fault, or because that’s all they have the trust and IQ to handle. They basically treat humans like very domesticated animals, rather than organisms who are individuals and could possibly be so much more.
These traditional countries help us understand somewhat what’s wrong with our society, but they obviously don’t have the answers for where we should head. (a lot of people on the right think we should emulate them for some reason)
HOW TO DESTROY PARASITISM: A SHORT THESIS BY LOADED
trust no one but yourself is the motto of our civilization. i wonder who built this society?
some really incompetent people who did not plan their ideas ahead.
IQ is an outcome, not a cause. But I bet lurker can’t provide a sound argument with an inference rule that IQ is causally efficacious like he is saying in this comment. “because that’s all they have the trust and IQ to handle.”
“IQ is an outcome, not a cause.”
Yes… a measure of a cause.
“But I bet lurker can’t provide a sound argument with an inference rule that IQ is causally efficacious like he is saying in this comment. “because that’s all they have the trust and IQ to handle.””
I mean that’s literally all everyone argues with you about on this blog.
SJW/rr politics is just a negation of what preceded it.
it’s just a strident din of “you suck!” directed at the past and its contemporary representatives.
and the moment that is the negation of the negation has yet to be approximated/approached by any leader save perhaps blessed mette frederiksen.
i am el duce and der fuhrer rr. deal with it!
it leads staright to the hakenkreuz.
just like the upanishads…
sadly.
and by “crush” i mean something A LOT MORE than merely “she’s hot and a fapped to her.”
there was a mulattess who was into me and she was very pretty. she worked at the sporting goods store and my dad said, “she’s pretty.”
sorry.
i was into some girl i had to look up her ancestry.
silurian.
still have dreams about her.
the girl at the hill from county kerry.
the celtic fringe is hot.
the POINT is…
because DEEP reasons…
a rich girl + a sexy girl + a girl not part of my “extended family” STILL EQUALS don’t wanna marry…
rr overcame his prejudice against girls from over the hill in the next village in the albanian part of calabria and was…
CHUFFED!
this is the problem with southern italians.
way too low standards…
for themselves!
Mugabe is so deep in the closet it’s not even funny anymore.
Black women are fucking gorgeous. Though, SZA is getting kind of fat lmao.
animal/melo: fuck all dem bitches even duh ugly ones.
human: no sex before or outside gay marriage. only one marriage.
…for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
it’s a sacrament.
Well there are surveys, and mountains of evidence that suggest black women are unattractive to the average male.
Even so, there are plenty of black women to date if you want, and vastly increasing all the time (in contrast to white women or Japanese women)
These guys really think 99% of black women are “fat” and screaming?? Anyway, they want a whole human being of opposite sex to call a partner for life or a walking vagina??
Seems many far righters are so shallow.
My older brother, intelligent and easy to attract women chose a fat “but” smart and adorable woman to live after picking only beauties.
Mature men don’t look only for how good looking a woman is.
there’s a difference between “she’s hot” and “i want to fuck her” or “i want her to have my babies”. unless you’re a porn star. i mean fucking is a whole lot of trouble. so you wanna fuck her but not really because it’s a yuge hassle. you have to wait for tests for STIs for example. and then what if she becomes obsessed with you and stalks you?
normal people want to reproduce themselves. so making more than a mere fuck buddy of someone who is separated from you by 10s of thousands of years of evolution and genetic drift is a sort of perversion.
another comedic example:
in general marriages based solely on physical attraction are a disaster. no matter how good looking she is you’ll get bored of her.
it’s possible black women are sexier under the BLINDING light of the tropics…but they still have monkey mouth…among other simian features. equally dark skinned south asian women are INFINITELY sexier.
the native americans of the tropics and the indigenes of indonesia aren’t so swart.
Melo is an idiot. Black women have more testosterone than most asian men LOL. How in the world would that be attractive? Do you like getting bodyslammed?
“Black women have more testosterone than east asian men”
It’s impossible.
No woman has more testosterone than men.
“Black women have more testosterone than most asian men LOL.”
Source? You’re just spewing bullshit, but you’re a racist so what else is new. It goes without saying, you’re ignorant to T and what it does.
They have more T. Look at the upper bodies and the facial features. Its obvious.
What references do you have for your claim?
not the mulattess. gross.
the silure.
i still have dreams about the silure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silures
i didn’t know this. “catfish” is slang for a black woman posing as a wywoman online in order to extract wyboy sperm.
black women are so ugly they usually impregnate themselves via rape.
LOL. More accurate than it should be.
its just about being relevant basically. how relevant am i i can only answer.
wow.
100% the only men fucking black women are black men who have such low standards they will frankly fuck anything. And even then, black men prefer non-black women.
who is most likely to continue their legacy the longest on this blog? i think if i were to sire children they could live a very great and successful life one which could bring prosperity for many generations!
if human life can sustain itself for that long of course.
Post this one.
“If one is attracted to certain particular features that arr more common in certain races over others, then race does matter in dating.”
Only place Oprah can be considered an important public figure beyond USA is Canada, but Canada isn’t important..
Because power is centralized, being important in America makes her important almost everywhere. For example when a store in France didn’t recognize her it made headlines around the world:
“Queen of America is very angry”
The CEO of the store was forced to come on her show & apologize
A similar incident happened in Switzerland & the Swiss government apologized
PP,
You need to treat your delusional thinking about Oprah. It’s becoming extremely cringe specially because you like to share it with us. A tip for a friend.
Majority of people around the world don’t know or don’t care about her and they are right.
Even inside USA, most people don’t look at her lif she is divine, absolutely perfect or superior, like you do.
I find very weird a heterossexual mostly white man so obsessed about her. Believe in me if your self racial description is true, you’re a signficant exception in your demographic segment. Even among Black American women Oprah is not and never was an unanimity.
Worship for multi rich people who are master to enrich themselves is not rational or qualitately smart.
Even inside USA, most people don’t look at her lif she is divine, absolutely perfect or superior, like you do.
Most Americans don’t look at any one woman that way, so if Oprah can get at least 5% to worship her (which she did many years)that was enough to make her the top alpha woman in America & by extension the world
Most Americans hated trump as did most of the world, but he was still president. You only need a plurality to be the most powerful, not a majority
Even inside USA, most people don’t look at her lif she is divine, absolutely perfect or superior, like you do.
Most Americans don’t look at any one woman that way, so if Oprah can get at least 5% to worship her (which she did many years)that was enough to make her the top alpha woman in America & by extension the world
Most Americans hated trump as did most of the world, but he was still president. You only need a plurality to be the most powerful, not a majority
That story was about the store treating her like a robber. The jews immediately put everyone on red alert because they wanted to make out the store was racist.
Oprah knew the media would have a field day with the story & released it strategically
the communication gap is real both in social and verbal intelligence. i see it when i write things and people fail to understand or i fail to understand something.
for the most part my comprehension is very good but i still think people cant get the bigger picture of what im saying. its absolutely a travesty of the masses to think someone like me cant be heard!
like yes Pumpkin i know you can understand what im saying but do you resonate with me on an emotional and timeless manner probably not!
you need to UNDERSTAND TO UNDERSTAND!
the CEO of bacardi is a streetshitter. wow! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahesh_Madhavan
this woman, despite her enormous nose, is much sexier than any black woman could ever be…to me.
“this woman, despite her enormous nose, is much sexier than any black woman could ever be…to me.”
To most men according to surveys.
“…to me.”
Exactly! You don’t find black women attractive because you were made to think that way. Very few black women have a “monkey mouth.” Do a lot of them have slight prognathism? Yes, but that’s not the same thing, and it isn’t unattractive. There is literally no objective reason it would be. It’s literally just what you have been conditioned to believe.
Smarter people have a better awareness of how their ideas transpire. Anti-miscegenation is an idea that’s rooted in antiquated notions of science and morality. It’s no surprise that a catholic (a dumb person) still holds onto it.
Muggy has made his entire life a naturalistic fallacy. What’s funny is that it’s pretty natural to fuck other races and even different species. That’s why our ancestors did it so much.
It’s also why I am superior to you.
“It’s also why I am superior to you.”
Interesting considering I had a lot of social anxiety as a child and was still one of the smartest in my class compared to both the other white kids and the Hispanic kids. All the other people who got the highest scores were also white, or occasionally light-skinned Hispanic.
The reason I mention social anxiety is because I missed a lot of school because I hated it, and I certainly did not gain points because I felt superior to everyone and therefore somehow magically increased my score due to confidence.
Of course you are against anti miscigenation law because you are mixed and is favorable because he is not.
“And he is favorable”
At least in Brasil, indiscriminated mixing race has been a disaster.
Prognathism is objectively unattractive because it is not neotenous, which is the main difference between males and females (besides secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and hips).
Obviously there are a balance of features and you can have some “manly” features and some feminine ones, but black women tend to be more manly than other women because of biology (not social constructivism). More square jaws and stronger chins, gaunt faces, squarer faces, bigger noses, more splitting in the skull, thicker curlier hair that balds faster than everyone except Europeans, and let’s not forget… smaller brain cases.
“Prognathism is objectively unattractive because it is not neotenous”
Luker, once again, proves he has no idea what the word “objective” means.
BTW, round faces, broad noses, and thicc lips are all neotenous traits. Whites and Australian Aboriginals are actually the Least Neotenous races. I wrote a whole blog post about it.
i am very neotenous.
He literally endorsed bestiality. Unmoderate my comment.
“Luker, once again, proves he has no idea what the word “objective” means.”
I’ve owned you so many times and I barely know who you are. Let me enlighten you:
“BTW, round faces, broad noses, and thicc lips are all neotenous traits. Whites and Australian Aboriginals are actually the Least Neotenous races. I wrote a whole blog post about it.”
Round faces = Not black. They have thicker skin, not rounder faces.
Broad Noses = Not neotenous. Flat noses are, broad ones are not. White noses are “taller” but less broad. Certain Asian noses are the most neotenous, not because they are broad but because they are flatter than whites and not as broad as black ones. Yes they are broad because they are so flat, not because they are broader by sheer size.
Thick lips = Larger lips are not neotenous, it depends on the shape (but the same can be said for most features). Babies don’t have large lips, what the hell are you talking about?
Goddamn a whole blog post? No, they are hardly the least neotenous races unless you isolate very specific elements (which is not how it works).
Actually east asians and black africans have more neotenous features than whites europeans who have more progressive features, like a salient chin. Maybe people from nordic phenotype tend to be more neotenous features than other subracial european groups. Dinaric and armenoid are no way more neotenous. Neoteny and phenotypical gracilization are the same thing??
Aborigines may be the least neotenous, but not whites, was what I meant.
“Actually east asians and black africans have more neotenous features than whites europeans who have more progressive features, like a salient chin. Maybe people from nordic phenotype tend to be more neotenous features than other subracial european groups. Dinaric and armenoid are no way more neotenous. Neoteny and phenotypical gracilization are the same thing??”
I think West Africans are less neotenous than whites on average and on whole, but not necessarily all Africans such as North Africans.
I don’t think whites differ in neoteny much regardless of the country. Just different ways to express it.
When you are considering races that vastly differ by height and skin color, things get more iffy I guess, but looking at the phenotypes of the body and head overall I think Rushton’s Asian-White-Black hierarchy pretty much describes basically neoteny from most to least.
“Let me enlighten you:”
LOL.
“Round faces = Not black. ”
Ok. I mean, you’re objectively wrong, but it’s obvious evidence nor reason will sway your opinion.
“Flat noses are, broad ones are not.”
Both Asians and SSH Africans have broader and flatter noses.
“Thick lips = Larger lips are not neotenous”
Technically none of the traits we mentioned are “neotenous”; they’re paedomorphic. However, thicker lips are something consistently associated with being childlike.
“Goddamn a whole blog post?”
Yeah, you should read it. Did you know that r-selected organisms are usually more paedomorphic?
“Both Asians and SSH Africans have broader and flatter noses.”
Asians have much smaller noses than SSH Africans compared to the rest of their heads.
“Thick lips = Larger lips are not neotenous”
“Technically none of the traits we mentioned are “neotenous”; they’re paedomorphic. However, thicker lips are something consistently associated with being childlike.”
I see no difference between paedomorphic and neotenous. At least not any of importance here.
Thicker lips are not associated with being childlike at all… look at some baby pictures.
“Goddamn a whole blog post?”
“Yeah, you should read it. Did you know that r-selected organisms are usually more paedomorphic?”
But I’m referring to the faces and body shapes of people, not every single possible trait. White faces look more like babies, blacks less, and asians most.
Neoteny differences between whites and blacks and asians may be associated with the larger brains taking longer to develop fully and so, perhaps with more resources needed to be devoted to brains vs. rest of the body, perhaps with the retention of a childlike body that matches a brain able to learn more from the environment, or maybe just with an accident of genetic correlation between larger brains and less developed bodies (which became favored not because of the bodies but the brains) and more… A lot of “just so” stories but at least they actually cohere with most of the empirical evidence.
Keep this one pumpkin
“I see no difference between paedomorphic and neotenous. ”
There is definitely a difference, but it isn’t really relevant.
“Thicker lips are not associated with being childlike at all”
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/204427
“But I’m referring to the faces and body shapes of people”
So am I, though. Whites have thin lips, long and skinny noses, large brains/bodies, they’re hairy/. They just scream paramorphic
That quote says neoteny is related to red content in lips, not necessarily the overall size of the lips or mouth.
“So am I, though. Whites have thin lips, long and skinny noses, large brains/bodies, they’re hairy/. They just scream paramorphic”
It is quite hard to show one face being more neotenous than another because there is usually always one trait that the other person has that is more neotenous, and you can never know the weight of that feature.
But there are quite a few white features that are very neotenous, the most obvious would be the much larger upper head size compared to the lower jaw. Asians have flatter faces like a baby but whites have much flatter faces below the eyebrow (less prognathism). Whites are not really much more hairier than blacks, and have much finer hair. They have lighter skin and hair, smaller philtrums (which comes from having smaller lips I suppose) and a lot of other finer/delicate features than blacks.
You could say larger bodies are less neotenous but I don’t think it’s the type of neoteny that really affects sexual attraction for males to the degree that the other things do… well, at least all else being equal. It’s not really universally attractive or unattractive in either direction in the way certain other traits seem to be.
And larger brains could be considered less neotenous, but again most males would not factor it as unattractive. Most males like large boobs and asses but those are not neotenous traits. So I’m mostly referring to neoteny as it impacts male and female attraction I guess.
A large brain might be less neotenous but more encephalization (brain size relative to body size) is much more. Babies are much more encephalized than adults.
“not necessarily the overall size of the lips or mouth.”
The point is that the thinning of the vermilion border makes the lips look relatively smaller.
“Whites are not really much more hairier than blacks”
Lol, Caucasoids are the hairiest race.
“So I’m mostly referring to neoteny as it impacts male and female attraction I guess.”
But clearly, neoteny is not the only mechanism of sexual selection. You’re not wrong to say that it can be difficult to parse through all human traits objectively and then quantify which race is the most neotenous, but that sort of undercuts your original assertion.
“A lot of “just so” stories but at least they actually cohere with most of the empirical evidence.”
Hmm I wonder why…
The last time I foolishly I got into an academic debate with RR he quoted a paper. I didn’t even read the paper. I read the surnames of the authors and they were all jews and all they did was reference other jews. It was hilarious.
Lmao, how can someone be this stupid?
I wonder why you literally have no explanation of where mind arises and constantly use circular arguments to explain it?
Quote at least Ken circular argument I’ve given. I assume that the origin of the mind is unknowable. I don’t think everything can be explained but it’s clear that a nonphysical mind exists, as I have established.
Melo,
“The point is that the thinning of the vermilion border makes the lips look relatively smaller.”
I wouldn’t deny that but I think the mouth shape is more important than size, as well as the fact that blacks often have dark lips. I suppose greater lip size is more neotenous but more about how much of the bottom face it takes up (meaning the lower jaw is much smaller in relation to the lips/mouth), not how large the lips are in total size.
“Whites are not really much more hairier than blacks”
“Lol, Caucasoids are the hairiest race.”
Well, Middle Easterners and Indians are the most out of Caucasians. But many Indians are obviously more neotenous than Europeans despite being more hairy. So whatever.
“But clearly, neoteny is not the only mechanism of sexual selection. You’re not wrong to say that it can be difficult to parse through all human traits objectively and then quantify which race is the most neotenous, but that sort of undercuts your original assertion.”
My original assertion was prognathism is objectively unattractive because there is no way to interpret it as more neotenous or feminine. Just like bushy eyebrows or larger noses.
RaceRealist,
“Quote at least Ken circular argument I’ve given.
I assume that the origin of the mind is unknowable.”
The mind exists. The mind is immaterial. Material is necessary for the mind. Why is material necessary for the mind? Because the mind exists only with material. But if the mind is immaterial why material necessary? Because material is necessary for the mind.
A specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop. Why does an immaterial mind need a specific environment? Because a specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop.
Those are your arguments.
Actually, you have an answer to why a brain and a specific environment is necessary for a mind: it’s unknowable.
Guess what? Anything that exists in the universe is unknowable as to its ultimate origin. I know gravity is necessary for my feet to touch the ground after jumping, ultimately, I don’t know how gravity originated. Physical laws do not explain the origin of themselves or quantum particles/waves. But really, we do understand why the physical is necessary for the mental: dualism is false.
Your idea that the mind is immaterial and therefore immeasurable is false. Because all measurements deal with the immaterial.
The idea that the material and immaterial are completely separate is false. Because neither can exist without the other.
(Proof: Anything actually existing must physically exist, meaning it must exist somewhere or everywhere and sometime or always, and anything that exists must also be defined in some manner aka it must have attributes aka it must contain interpreted information aka be immaterial/subjective)
Where are your arguments that the physical does not require the mental?
Where is your argument that the mental cannot be measured when all measurement is inherently abstract?
“I don’t think everything can be explained but it’s clear that a nonphysical mind exists, as I have established.”
Nonphysical implies that anything can just be physical (in the sense of existing without pre-interpretation aka not being subjective), which is false, as I just have established (and Kant did).
Just thinking that RR and other people that believe in a separate mind from the brain…theyre all autistic.
How dishonest.
“The mind exists. The mind is immaterial. Material is necessary for the mind. Why is material necessary for the mind? Because the mind exists only with material. But if the mind is immaterial why material necessary? Because material is necessary for the mind.
A specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop. Why does an immaterial mind need a specific environment? Because a specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop.”
That’s not the argument at all. A specific environment is necessary since, in other environments (where a human isn’t around other humans), mind doesn’t develop, as can be seen in cases of feral children. The brain is necessary since disembodied minds are impossible. The brain and CNS are dependency conditions. Try again, champ, and this time quote me directly.
“Your idea that the mind is immaterial and therefore immeasurable is false. Because all measurements deal with the immaterial.”
If there is a stick on the ground I can measure the property (length) of the stick to ascertain the measurement of it. Since mind isn’t physical, this isn’t possible for psychology. What is the property being measured by whatever psychological test you can think of and muster evidence for?
“Where is your argument that the mental cannot be measured”
In my 6000 word article.
“Nonphysical implies that anything can just be physical”
This is incoherent. The mind can’t be physical and dozens of a priori arguments establish this claim.
A specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop. Why does an immaterial mind need a specific environment? Because a specific environment is necessary for a mind to develop.”
“That’s not the argument at all. A specific environment is necessary since, in other environments (where a human isn’t around other humans), mind doesn’t develop, as can be seen in cases of feral children. The brain is necessary since disembodied minds are impossible. The brain and CNS are dependency conditions. Try again, champ, and this time quote me directly.”
It’s circular because you state X physical processes or matter is necessary for Y mental properties, yet you claim that Y is separate from X. When asked why Y requires X if they are separate, you restate that X is necessary but that they are separate.
When you give a separate argument you say the origin is unknowable (a nonexplanation) or give an argument as to why Y and X are separate to prove that they are separate, but again do not answer why being separate X is still necessary. So you’re right, your argument is not circular, it’s just not even an explanation. It’s two observations that will never be explained… because they are both false, because dualism is false.
Mental requires physical. = True
Mental and physical are separate. = False
Because of what you don’t acknowledge:
Physical requires mental. = True
(Show me a physical property “as-it-is” that hasn’t been observed through a mind. Or for that matter, a property that can even conceivably exist without having an interpretation.)
“Your idea that the mind is immaterial and therefore immeasurable is false. Because all measurements deal with the immaterial.”
“If there is a stick on the ground I can measure the property (length) of the stick to ascertain the measurement of it. Since mind isn’t physical, this isn’t possible for psychology. What is the property being measured by whatever psychological test you can think of and muster evidence for?”
Did you not read my last response or recall arguments before? You didn’t even respond to what I said. You’re like a robot.
Length is not simply physical, it is a property… a property BY DEFINITION is abstract. There is no such thing as a purely physical property. Properties by definition exist in frameworks that interpret them.
That being said there are absolute objective properties, even though they are immaterial, such as numbers as an obvious one, though all coherent properties are actually both subjective and objective (within there interpretive framework), but you deny them because that would show some actual objectivity and measurability of the mental.
“Where is your argument that the mental cannot be measured”
“In my 6000 word article.”
You can’t restate it here like you do everything else (while adding 3000 unnecessary references and terminology)? Why is it so hard now… is it because I’ve clearly shown that the mental can be measured?
“This is incoherent. The mind can’t be physical and dozens of a priori arguments establish this claim.”
I said that nothing can be purely physical, not that the mind is physical. That was the point of my last response. That’s the Kant reference.
“It’s two observations that will never be explained… because they are both false,”
Sorry I meant to say that only one of your observations is false (Mental and physical can be separated because they are separate).
Obviously, a human mind requiring a specific physical environment is true, since dualism is false.
“My original assertion was prognathism is objectively unattractive because there is no way to interpret it as more neotenous or feminine.”
Right, and the fact that paramorphism can be sexually selected refutes that.
“Right, and the fact that paramorphism can be sexually selected refutes that.”
I guess so but the reason asian and white women are viewed as more attractive is because of neoteny which corresponds to the specific peramorphism in ways that either make up for their neotenous weakness and/or don’t detract from the rest of them, like intelligence and good parts of agreeableness and being more reproductively fit (less twinning and other genetic abnormalities and rates of infant mortality).
5. EtOH is a blood thinner and vaso-dilator…for example it used to be that those suffering peripheral vascular disease were prescribed a moderate amount of whiskey…if you’ve ever cut your big toe whilst drinking…you know…haveth blood everywhere…
so EtOH increases perfusion to the far parts of the body and everywhere else…it increases risk of hemmorrhagic stroke decreases risk of infarct stroke.
its effects are profound and subtle and many…
could the santo personality explain the meaning of this:
i have my own theories.
Gay porn illustrated
mongolian guy: WRONG!
keith haring met his boyfriend at the saint mark’s and his boyfriend was black.
maybe it was a place wyguys hooked up with black guys.
epic sci-fi macho man hero
how many people on this blog have a Messiah complex? i think i do if i look back at my mentality throughout life!
my house’s water heater only lasts for 30 minutes.
whenever i’ve been in hotels or motels or lived in an apartment complex i loved leaving the hot shower going for hours.
a lot of the bathhouses of the AIDS era were had been legitimate businesses…people needed to bathe and had no plumbing…and gradually turned into gay hookup joints.
in some parts of the world bathhouses are still a legit business…and especially legit as…there is no other means non-rich people can experience a steam room…places like morocco, russia, turkey…for example…
if you’ve never been in a steam room and learned to endure it you wouldn’t know…as the greatest philosopher of all time (according to rr) said: “it’s a sensational feelin’. it makes you feel real good…”
(obviously i’m referring to toss my salad guy.)
You talk more about anal sex and AIDS than I do.
I just eat asses.
eating a womans ass feels great.
And vaginas.
My gay cure doctor recommended me, after sucked my… feet.
for example: the totally fake and gay and soft problem of consciousness/mind body problem…
said:
January 15, 2023 at 12:17 am
OBVIOUSLY!!!
rr’s representation of physical things can NEVER break up with him…
BECAUSE REPRESENTATION!
NOT BECAUSE “PHILOSOPHY”.
SAD.
PROFESSORS OF “PHILOSOPHY” HAVE LOW IQs…
SAD…
THE LAST STRAIGHT-UP PHILOSOPHER (AKA A PROPHET IN THE SAND-[N-WORD DELETED BY PEEPEE] TRADITION) DIED IN…
1976!
it’s not like i haven’t tried with rr.
i “wash my hands”.
when i die will anyone remember me? what will my tombstone look like?
how will people go about their lives after my death?
when rr’s baby grows up and doesn’t ACE his SAT/ACT/whatever chinese overlords’ test…
will he say: because…i was a shitty father.
will he say that?
rr’s theory of “how the world works” IMPOSES an ENORMOUS burden on him as a father…a burden hereditists don’t feel…
when rr’s son becomes the next neil degrasse tyson (or the next earn-er of the luccheses) his case will be PROVED!
if all rr does is say “SHUT UP RACIST!” then he DIS-credits himself.
“but rich pipo are cool and po pipo suck n sheeeit.” — peepee
the duke of leinster is NOT a chav. but he was UN-lucky. his great grandfather put it all on “twice a prince”.
gretzky and messner prostrate themselves and say “we’re not worthy”…
indeed!
the aren’t.
sad.
chalmers vs dawkins vs mugabe
i would force them to eat eachother’s penises and then lock them in a dungeon until they thanked me.
this world is entirely corrupted. evil. totally despicable when someone can exploit others.
there is no good things that came from humanity or the Universe because the end is all that matters and we basically obliterated the values that the Universe had in the beginning from justice to good will to having a proper role in our individual lives and having influence on others that can be bearable.
but instead we nuked it. we destroyed it. we are demons. we have lost touch with reality and its initial circumstances.
Thanks Pumpkin!
Anyone else notice the way Loaded’s comments are 99% weird navel gazing. Loaded is basically like a retarded Hamlet.
you couldnt have chosen a worst time for your schizophrenia to get worse.
Oil drilling is bad for the environment. Print it.
Oh woe is me. Unto the world I shall let my sorrows lie!
^^
100IQ improvement on Loaded’s comments.
Santo should revert to his terrible engrish. Right now he feels too pristine being translated by Google.
Obama marrying Michelle was a bit weird. People say Obama is good looking so why is his wife so hideous and masculine? Obama probably has more upper body strength than Obama just looking at them. I think she might even be a bit taller. I remember CNN really straining to complement Michelle on her looks and the best they could come up with was that she had great arms. LOL. Thats something I would write as satire.
I read a conspiracy theory that Michelle used to be a man and he used to play college football. I kind of believe it.
The reason America is not antisemetic is people like Alex Jones are paid very good money to spread nonsense like that. Blacks, women, queers are promoted as a buffer class to shield the Jewish elite from the white extremists & conspiracy theorists.
There is a birth cert of a man named Michael Robinson born in the same place and date as Michelle circulating online. Joan Rivers called Michelle a man.
And Joan Rivers is ashkenazi and so fanatically pro-Israel even other U.S. media would pretend to defend Palestinians just to troll her. Hilarious
False. No (((US))) media defends palestinians. I have followed the media for 30 years and never seen that.
I said pretends to, just to get a rise out of Joan. YouTube Joan rivers Palestinians
“No (((US))) media defends palestinians.”
Yeah, they do. It’s extremely common, actually.
Loaded you keep saying youre a genius and to this day I have never seen you say anything smart or indeed, even correct. You are the most deluded commenter here by far. The funniest thing is you keep saying everyone else is deluded or wont recognise your genius lol. What a clown.
Pill you do not see greatness you are blinded as Paul was blinded until Jesus came along.
remember that old chap.
Did you find a job?
youre obviously being controlled. nothing you say strikes me as being from a place other than hurt and pain that has carried on inside of you for so long.
i just want to get it clear that it doesnt affect me having you displeasure me with your filth company! you are nothing scum!
LOADED doesn’t need a job and leprechaun economics doesn’t apply in the shitnited states. if they did LOADED would be your boss’s boss.
sad.
On the subject of palestinians I find the treatment of them by the jew media really interesting. Rather than try to portray them as evil or terrorists, they just completely ignore them. Its like they have correctly deduced not mentioning them will provide the best environment for their cousins in Israel to beat the shit out of them.
Silence is compliance in this case.
The case where the Israeli soldiers shot a muslim US journalist was very interesting. It was obvious that the soldier did it on purpose. The response from the US government and (((US))) media was hilarious. Its times like that you see the matrix glitch.
The media lost its mind when the Saudis butchered the Wapo journalist but when the Israeli soldiers shot one, they almost celebrated.
My impression is that Manhatten jews think of their cousins in Israel kind of like lower class people or hillbilly jews. Thats just my intuition based on the way they cover Israel.
Correct
its just ive never advocated for myself. i at least deserve integrity from others but this is not a comfortable position for me to be in when my enemies are locking down things on me.
regardless if i correctly politick with someone worthwhile and appreciative then i could garner some way to go forward.
Post this instead: Pill you have too lofty ambitions for yourself. look at geopolitical talk is great and all but you really have no influence so it just makes you sound pretentious and unfit to talk about these things.
take it from me you need to be open minded enough to care but not open minded enough to let go of what you think is right.
RR is what happens when a wannabe scientist goy autist reads thousands of Jew-penned biology and philosophy papers over years.
why haven’t you banned rr peepee? he’s unbelievably stupid AND evil.
He’s not evil at all.
so if hitler had a black girlfriend he wouldn’t be evil?
you’re such a racist you’re evil.
hahahahaha.
Pill thinking black women have more testosterone than east asian men is the new best joke of this blog.
And RR saying brain correlates with cognition. Maybe is a tie…
Some revealing comments about how really and specifically knowledgeable people are here.
My knowledge about all these subjects is very limited but at least i know the very basics of them.
also waiting for peepee to ban herself for being stupid and evil.
“the physical” doesn’t cause anything, because it doesn’t exist.
DUH!
So everything is mental? Is this the famous I think therefore I am argument?
it’s not an argument. the very idea of “the physical” is incoherent or meaningless.
when you get down to the nitty gritty of matter…it’s just platonic forms…the universe is a mathematical object illumined by the light of ultimate reality, brahman, The One, God, Allah, YHWH…whatever you like…it’s all the same thing in different words.
this is why so many great physicists have been idealists. they’ve seen things as they are ultimately and the only way they can be…it’s a game…it’s leela…
heidegger is hard to understand because he’s hard to understand not because he’s deliberately obscure.
What cannot be spoken with words but that whereby words are spoken…
What cannot be thought with the minds but that whereby the mind can think…
What cannot be seen with the eye but that whereby the eye can see…
…
Know that alone to be brahman, the eternal, and not what people here adore.
i do a lot of reading. i have great reading comprehension and literacy.
i am one of the most profound thinkers of the last few billion years. i believe in aliens and i think theyve been around much longer so i cant speak on what i dunno!
you’ve confused what is known and knowable with what is.
ἐπιστήμη with ὄντος.
which is fine because almost everyone does. idolatry is the most insidious sin there is.
the afterlife believes in rr. he’s going straight to hell for his hairstyle. he might repent, but rr is incapable of self-reflection so his fate is sealed. hell.
“the physical blah, blah, blah…what about muh argument?…blah, blah, blah…i love being retarded.” — rr
rr is so IGNORANT of natural science it’s DISGUSTING.
True. What about common sense? Why are we delving in the depths of science and metaphysics and epistemology when clearly IQ exists?
(obviously it’s nuanced but not nearly as much as he acts for the specific problems he has with it)
Prove it. If IQ exists then the concept is a valid construct—give me some references. I’m waiting for the day you provide references for your claims.
Why do you need references but can make arguments like “mental is not reducible to the physical” assuming things like purely physical or mental things exist (because you don’t understand the nature of objective and subjective properties)?
I have heard about a book called the Bell Curve that treats IQ as a real valid construct.