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 
is should say rr’s ultimate sin is SHIRK. rr has made an idol of so many things and the biggest thing the world.
rr might check out the “munchhausen trilemma”…but likely he won’t unnuhstan how it applies to questions of ultimate reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
there’s a phrase in english “it has a mind of its own”. it’s a very deep phrase if one thinks about it.
one could say mars’s only or largest sattelite phobos is conscious/has a mind in that it senses mars’s gravity.
why does matter know what to do?
it’s like “it has a mind of its own”.
what mind?
who’s mind?
…whose* mind…
so what is death like?
rr: like going to sleep forever you racist!
mugabe: it’s like forgetting about your personal shit and realizing you’re a lot more than you thought you were. your life was just like the tentacle of some cosmic octopus.
they called them test pilots…and no one knew their names…
the way chistianity complements vedanta is with what it emphasizes.
christianity emphasizes:
1. the first noble truth…life is suffering…God himself suffered…a lot…especially in his execution…eli eli lama sabachthani…
2. forgiveness.
3. eternal life.
and yes. pill is right.
was he a pedo…is that why he resigned?
YES. RATZINGER IS WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW AND FOREVER.
the greatest pope for hundreds of years. TRUE!
rome always wins.
eventually.
because the roman church doesn’t give a fuck when it’s AUTHENTIC!
it says…
FUCK YOU!
FUCK YOU!
FUCK YOU!
the thing BGI sent me is 460 MB and it takes forever to load and/or crashes my computer.
what does LOADED suggest?
what’s the CHEAPEST way not to have this problem?
i have desktops, but they’re old.
pill claimed india + nutrition = smart. but pill = peepee obviously.
if wypipo’s achilles heel is classism…indian pipo are biggest classists ever…they don’t even have a heel. it was shot off.
china is “we’re all the same…all han.”
no fair!
rr and peepee have convinced me…and LOADED…
that there is such an ENORMOUS HERESY the only solution is…
evil can be BANAL…
but rr is a-whole-nother level of EVIL.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-man-who-lived-a-normal-life-with-almost-no-brain-2015-10
RR is just describing himself when he talks about the ”mind”,lol.
i don’t know how to say it without sounding horrible…
the words that came to my mind interviewing stangl were…
simple
stupid
sheep
obedient
robot
brainwashed
idiot
…
but that just makes me sound like a MEGA-bitch.
you let rr comment again.
For you, RR
https://aeon.co/essays/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-the-mind-and-nothing-is-mental
Eliminativism about the mind is ridiculous. He says we “think, feel, believe, desire and dream”, and it’s MIND that allows us to do this. I fail to see how this refutes any argument I’ve leveled here.
ELIMINATIVISM…
No matter how academic tard sounding you’re, RR. Not just academicist communication is wrong because it’s not clear or dishonest but also you’re just factually wrong too.
Still doesn’t know what an argument is.
A circular comment: sounding ambiguously as an argument but actually is an opinion.
You failled to prove your point, again.
I never waste my time with your intellectual dishonesty level.
But maybe i read some of your links soon which is not too post modern but it’s still full of pedantic and incorrect claims, i’m sure of that just looking at your comments here.
How am I factually wrong? Arguments have premises, a conclusion, and inference rule.
First of all, stop label people indiscrimately. I’m not a “physicalist”.I don’t know what it means.
Second, consciousness or “the mind” is not “the brain”. Just a dumb “physicalist” who could state this. When you says “the brain” you mean, peripheral and nervous system and brain-guts axis and all other body systems in coordination, right? The same way a movement i do with my feet is not my feet, consciousness or mind is an expression or a direct outcome from our nervous system and such. I already seeing dubious claims like that ” ‘physicalists believe mind is brain”.
Indiscriminately.
INCOMPOSSIBLY…….
Dude, consciousness is not just about brain states but a constant outcome from a coordination of whole organism or body. It would be impossible being conscious without breathing and with the heart beating normally or just functioning. Consciousness or “mind” is not something completely separate from body, it’s the result of all body functioning and with the relative primacy of the nervous system on this hierarchy. Metaphysics of the mind is just the same Idea of soul or spirit. Bullshit but with a sophistricated flavor.
Seems your text was totally based on a misconception about what “physicalists” think about the “mind”.
“Since physical states are indeterminate..
…that means that there is nothing about a particular physical state that would tell you exactly what it would/could be and it could in fact be many incompossible forms. The argument shows that the mind is non-physical and if it is non-physical then it cannot be studied by physical sciences.
Dualism is true”
I separate this part.
Physical states are conditionally determined.
No. I don’t read all this text. Why? Think yourself. Waste of time and patiency. Philosophy should be taken by real philosophers. Most of us need to distract from the perception of an unbearable passing of time. Fake philosophers like RR are people who have words as their most important hobbies to distract themselves from the time perception. But they think it’s philosophy.
All of your text just by the first part is based on straw man fallacy. Congrats.
How?
“But if the mental is not itself merely physical
– Nagel
When vou say “physical” you mean chemical too right??
” …it cannot be fully explained by physical science. And then, as I shall argue, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those aspects of our physical constitution that bring with them the mental cannot fully be explained by physical science either. If evolutionary biology is a physical theory—as it is generally taken to be—then it cannot account for the appearance of consciousness and other phenomena that are not physically reducible. So if mind is a product of biological evolution—if organisms with mental life are not miraculous anomalies but an integral part of nature—then biology cannot be a purely physical science.”
RR call it “argument”. Where??
It’s an opinion or a circular comment passing as argument.
“I think mind is nonphysical because it’s not physically reducible”
A just so stories without empirical or even a logical evidence.
I take “physical” to mean processes, too.
“Where?”
Tell me you don’t know how to identify arguments in text without telling me you don’t know how to identify arguments in text. Look at the conditionals, then look up premise and conclusion indicators.
“A just so stories without empirical evidence” – a priori arguments font need empirical evidence. “logical evidence” – that’s what the whole article is.
So RR how do any of your arguments debunk HBD.
Even if dualism were true, you admit that the physical brain is a necessary precondition as are genetic variants which means natural selection was a necessary precondition
So why does any of this matter?
“why does any of this matter”
Because psychology is irreducible so it can’t be explained by the physical, so it can’t be explained by science. Further, psychometrics isn’t measurement as has been shown by Uher, Nash, Berka, Trendler, and Michell. That’s enough to takedown “HBD.”
RR et al real reason is not the supposed metaphysics of mind but to use it as a mean to argue against hereditarianism, of course.
“Because psychology is irreducible so it can’t be explained by the physical,”
IQ is not measuring “psychology”, just one aspect of psychology.
All measurements are inherently psychological in the sense that they all go through subjective frameworks where we are measuring abstract properties.
“Further, psychometrics isn’t measurement as has been shown by Uher, Nash, Berka, Trendler, and Michell. That’s enough to takedown “HBD.””
PP has cited and written so much that contradicts the idea that psychometrics isn’t a measurement of any real ability.
Wild. Only physical things are measurable. How does “so much” of what PP has cited and written over the years “contradict the idea” that psychometrics isn’t measurement? How does what he wrote contradict Uher, Michell, Nash, Berka,
Click to access 30461%20UHER_Psychometrics_is_Not_Measurement_%28AAM%29_2020.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15366360802035489
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09593543211062868
Click to access EJ796125.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228363671_Measurement_Theory_Psychology_and_the_Revolution_That_Cannot_Happen
Science starts from observation and analysis of patterns or repetitive and stereotypical behaviors to build hypothesis. Science is not just “physical” empiricism. Without it and even has been possible identify psychiatric disorders & diseases like schizophrenia and generate hypothesis about its causation based on its own found patterns like the fact that many if not majority of schizophrenic people begin to be symptomatic in their late adolescence to their 20’s. Also has been possible to make comparison of intellectual performance or ability among people and with relatively good accuracy. Because psychology is at priori limited to pattern observation and analysis doesn’t mean it has no credibility at all as RR is claiming. About IQ, yes it doesn’t really measure like real measurements. What IQ tests do is to compare performance and rank it. But it doesn’t mean IQ is completely useless as RR et al claim. Actually, IQ is relatively accurate if people who score higher tend to have a superior learning abilities than those who score on avg or lower. It’s not coincidence that teachers tend to score higher in IQ tests than people who works in less intellectually demanding professions and it doesn’t happen only because people who works as a teachers are always using their brains to study and learn if anyone, whatever the occupation, can do the same. What’s really happens is the psychological inclination to learn, study or like to read or watch scientifical or intellectual content is previously determined, on avg, by cognitive facilities, like, people who love to study and learn mathematics first of all have a facility to learn or understand it (specific higher capacity).
But psychology findings and insights can be explained or found by more-physically empirical science like neuroscience. Something called interdisciplinarity.
So if psychology conceptualize and determine a psychiatric disorder & disease like schizophrenia, other fields can study it to find correlates in the body, like specific features associated with this disease, as they have done…
If RR just read other fields findings, he would look less ignorant to at least write his nonsense.
“But psychology findings and insights can be explained or found by more-physically empirical science like neuroscience. Something called interdisciplinarity.
So if psychology conceptualize and determine a psychiatric disorder & disease like schizophrenia, other fields can study it to find correlates in the body, like specific features associated with this disease, as they have done…
If RR just read other fields findings, he would look less ignorant to at least write his nonsense.”
This is outright false.
“Wild. Only physical things are measurable.”
RR, I’m basically done with you. I’ve shown there is nothing that is only “physical” numerous times in numerous ways. Physical things are only known by their properties, which are abstract. The only thing anyone could actually measure is a property, which is abstract. The only thing that could ever have another effect on something is something with a property, which is abstract. Therefore there is no such thing as a purely “physical” thing”, even in the realm of possibility.
You can’t refute that, and now you are ignoring it, which is simply dishonest. Philosopher is right that you are an autist, and apparently Santo and Mugabe and are right that you are dishonest.
“How does “so much” of what PP has cited and written over the years “contradict the idea” that psychometrics isn’t measurement? How does what he wrote contradict Uher, Michell, Nash, Berka,”
Because they show there are measurable correlations of material and genetics with intelligence, and intelligence with other outcomes, that go beyond random chance.
Yes, PROPERTIES can be measured, as LENGTH is a PROPERTY of objects. The basic tenets for metrication of an object are a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. Purely physical things exist—my body and brain are purely physical.
“measurable correlations”
Why don’t you cite three studies for this claim, then? How does that refute the arguments against psychometry that other authors have made?
The purpose of IQ tests is not to measure the soul. The definitive consequence of IQ is to measure what the brain is doing. Like in sports. Tangible results exist. The sprinter who runs the fastest is objectively faster. Running speed may or may not fit a bell curve but it is not based on cultural construction. Working memory is objective. Processing speed is objective. Spatial ability is objective. Language is semi-objective. Quant is not immeasurable. It is the defined characteristic of what the brain does. Quality is different but that is not the construct of IQ. The construct of IQ is quant. rr has never taken the wais and so his pseudo conclusion is that it is not quant but a knowledge test. I have taken the wais and so I know which parts (subtests) are or are not knowledge tests. 90% are not btw. so rr is wrong. Quant is objective like spriting is objective. rr cannot provide any objective argument against this. He cannot prove that the brain is not quantized in what it does in a relative population.
“measure what the brain is doing” – seems dangerously close to a mereological fallacy here.
“The construct of IQ is quant” – what’s the argument?
Which subtests aren’t knowledge tests? What do you mean that the brain is “quantized”? You mean “able to be measured”? The brain being physical means we can measure say neurophysiology but that’s not the same as mental measurement. Mental measurement is conceptually impossible.
“Mental measurement is conceptually impossible.”
again the IQ test isn’t measuring the soul cad.
You lack the ability to know what the word “manipulation” means do you?
This list is what the brain manipulates and is quant:
Information – Knowledge test
Figure Weights – Showing balances between shape
Block Design – coping shape
Similarities – knowledge test
Vocabulary – knowledge test
Comprehension – knowledge test
Matrix Reasoning – predicting the outcome by shape pattern
Visual Puzzles – fitting shapes together
Arithmetic – multiplication division adding and subtracting large numbers in the head
Letter Number Sequence – holding large numbers and letters in the head
Coding – copping shapes fast
Digit Span – holding numbers in the head and repeating them forward and backward
Symbol Search – finding a symbol and copping it fast
Cancellation – telling if a number of shapes are the same as another number of shapes in sequence.
Picture Completion – what is the picture missing, partial knowledge test.
The brain doesn’t “manipulate” anything, nice mereological fallacy. You’re merely describing things, those aren’t measurement as they lack a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit.
Then what is the brain doing?
What is it for?
What happens in the brain when it completes these tests/puzzles?
Should it not be that others are better or worse at these tasks? That is objective?
Stop using word games and actually explain your reasoning. Why is this (quant) not intelligence in your opinion?
The brain allows the mind, it’s necessary for it, for the thousandth time.
The brain may not manipulate but humans do with the movements and sounds we make & these can be objectively observed and graded, thus intelligence can be measured
That doesn’t follow at all. “Intelligence” is posited as a psychological property.
A psychological property that is inferred from observing one’s reaction to physical stimuli. So by measuring the efficiency of your reactions, we measure the functioning of your mind just like by measuring the height of your shadow, I can infer how tall you are
That analogy fails since the shadow can be measured with a ruler. I don’t see how what isn’t physical can be measured, like we measure sticks or height with rulers.
Intelligence might not be physical but it’s manifestation is physical & thus measurable by your logic . I can’t observe what’s going on in your mind but I can observe the way you talk, act, move, behave or respond to stimuli of any kind because all those things occur in physical domains
I don’t disagree with the second part, and that’s how the substance dualist can get around the problem of other minds. However, that’s still not the same, and it definitely doesn’t give the basic tenets of metrication for psychological traits.
“Yes, PROPERTIES can be measured, as LENGTH is a PROPERTY of objects. The basic tenets for metrication of an object are a specified measured object, object of measurement and measurement unit. Purely physical things exist—my body and brain are purely physical.”
Properties can be measured, and they are the only things that are measured, and properties are an “attribute, quality, or characteristic of something.”, meaning they are not physical but things that define physical things. In fact, physical and mental themselves are properties. Refute that champ.
“My body and brain are purely physical”. Says you, but you are obviously wrong.
To me and everyone else, your brain and body are also perceptions that must be interpreted through my mental perspective. Do they exist outside my perspective? I’m not sure, if you subtracted my mind from the universe it might change a lot, ala the butterfly effect.
Your whole claim is that we cannot know other subjective experiences outside our own, which is why we can’t measure them. So how can you ever say that the brain and body have no subjective experiences? Following your own premises defeats your conclusions.
If atoms, or bodies as a whole, exhibit their own intentions, how would I know unless they were extremely similar to mine (which is how we understand that other humans and animals have mind or something like a mind)? They may have their own subjective framework with their own limited forms of intentionality.
Where is the argument against strong causal parity between intentions of various forms of mind? Can you show that person intentions are more causal than planetary or atomic intentions? Or are you simply refuting that they have intentions based on the fact that they can’t talk to you because their culture is different? Sounds racist and bigoted. Reporting your blog to the ADL right now.
“Why don’t you cite three studies for this claim, then? How does that refute the arguments against psychometry that other authors have made?”
There are studies that brain size correlates with intelligence. There are studies that intelligence correlates with many life outcomes. You know these studies probably better than I do (by name if not in actual understanding of the implications).
The object of measurement is a definite property of the object, so the object of measurement for the stick is length, the property being measured. So yes, properties can be measured and measurement proper is a physical quantity, quite obviously.
I can say that bodies and brains have no subjective experience because to believe they would would be a mereological fallacy—subjects, agents, selves, minds, have subjective experiences. Planets and atoms don’t have intentions because they don’t have minds.
Correlation isn’t causation, etc etc. And for the life outcomes, that’s by design since IQ and achievement tests are different versions of the same test—there is nothing interesting knowing that relationship.
“The object of measurement is a definite property of the object, so the object of measurement for the stick is length, the property being measured. So yes, properties can be measured and measurement proper is a physical quantity, quite obviously.”
Again a property is abstract. It requires interpretation.
How can you have a measurement with no interpretation? You can’t. Quite obviously. Get it through your thick head.
“I can say that bodies and brains have no subjective experience because to believe they would would be a mereological fallacy—subjects, agents, selves, minds, have subjective experiences. Planets and atoms don’t have intentions because they don’t have minds.”
Literally re-read what I wrote until you actually understand it. You can’t prove that they don’t have subjective experiences. You can’t prove that they don’t have intentionality in themselves.
Yes… the property of them being a material atom or a body itself is not a mind, that’s not my point. If you understood that there was nothing that is purely physical you’d understand that. You don’t know what has intentions and not unless it is similar to your own subjective experiences, by your own premises and acknowledgement.
A mind involves action, and we have no idea what actual physical actions are associated with what intentions except for our observations of our own intentionality and the effects it has that we observe through our subjective experiences. So it all is subjective, both our intentionality and what those intentions can cause in the physical world.
“Correlation isn’t causation, etc etc. And for the life outcomes, that’s by design since IQ and achievement tests are different versions of the same test—there is nothing interesting knowing that relationship.”
I don’t know, correlations between intelligence, material brains, and outcomes is pretty interesting unless you just don’t give a shit about understanding how reality works.
Try interacting with para one again. Intentionality is a property of minds so anything without a mind lacks intentions. The agent knows what their actions are associated with.
It’s a mere outcome of test construction—there is no logical reason to accept one group of items over another that gives a different distribution. Take the Stanford-Binet—Terman used a specific inclusion-exclusion criteria that favored certain groups over others. This inclusion-exclusion criteria “differentiated subjects of known superiority from subjects of known inferiority”. The S-B is in its 5th version now, and they correlate new versions with older (non-construct valid) S-B’s. So what is the implication there?
“The brain may not manipulate but humans do with the movements and sounds we make & these can be objectively observed and graded, thus intelligence can be measured” -PP
@rr
“Thinking” in the brain is done by energy transference within the buffers of the brain (as demonstrated by control theory) that correspond to the recognition of patterns.
Cognition then when solving these puzzles is within the range of a fluid capacity to put the correct patterns with the other correct patterns.
The Frontal lobes involved in motor control then implement a choice of what to do regarding this newly recognized pattern structure. (don’t confuse implements with initiates)
example.
Which pattern comes next:
Indicate what completes the causal pattern.
Solving puzzles is an objective result of being able to complete “Complex patterns” and indicating them with motor control.
Here is an abstraction of what the brain is doing:
Pattern completion is an indication of one’s capacity to understand causality and make judgments regarding one’s causal model of things.
The capacity to recognize causal patterns is intelligence imo.
Capacity is both fluid and crystallized.
Capacity is measurable indirectly by statistics. (disagree?)
Now tell me why or why not this is intelligence?
Thinking is an action which results in a thought and is irreducible. What’s the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for “capacity”?
a person can recognize causal patterns in partitions.
The ability to do this is relative in different dimensions of those partitions.
some people recognize more than others.
more information is accessible to them than others as a cognitive load. They can deal with more complex partitions.
some people are just smarter than others which you don’t believe?
maybe you believe in multiple intelligences?
How does this interact with my claim?
The first assumption that needs to be made is that intelligent differences exist.
The second assumption is that these differences has a cause.
The third assumption is that these causes can be known.
Fourth. what can be known can be objectively described.
Fifth. differences can have relative comparisons.
Sixth. anything relatively comparable is is an accurate description of differences derived from the cause.
seven. relative comparison is a form of measurability.
eight. the objective description is shown to be different from another objective description thus demonstrating a rank order of realitiveinsism. The measurement is of the object is in the description.
nine. partitioned pattern recognition is the description.
ten. this description is accurate.
eleven. we know who is best at partitioning patterns.
twelve. this is objectively known.
thirteen. the cause of intelligence is pattern partitioning.
fourteen. the measurement of pattern partitioning is duplicable. i.e. the relative comparison is stable across all objective circumstances.
fifteen. pattern partitioning shows up in give circumstances.
sixteen. the constructed is validated or invalidated by inferring a cause can be known and then testing it against verifiable results.
seventeen. verifiable results would entail subjects ability to complete/memorize complex spatial/temporal information.
eighteen patterns go from simple to complex.
nineteen. a person who has completed/memorized the most patterns is assumed to have the highest pattern partitioning ability.
twenty. partitioning ability is the unit of measurement. the capacity to segment things into spatial temporal causal sequences. (the bandwidth | parallelism of the system in question)
If you need an empirical example: vision.
This persons drawing is objectively better than mine because I have poor vision.
Yawn. The first assumption is false – IQ isn’t identical to intelligence. The rest then crumbles. What’s the property measured by IQ? What’s the specified measured object, the object of measurement and the measurement unit for IQ?
I did not say intelligence was IQ.
I said differences in intelligence exist.
True or false?
That’s a clear implication. “Intelligence” isn’t a valid construct. True.
Can you falsify intelligence?
What would make intelligence a valid construct?
Do you agree that some people can deal with more information (parts) than others can? That some people understand causality better than others?
Who’s picture is better mine or the one of LeBron James? or are they indistinguishable? Is this a matter of visual intelligence?
A construct is valid iff there is a tool to measure the construct. Even PP’s precious WAIS and WISC was “validated” by correlations with the S-B and teacher ratings. And, again, this is another test that’s had multiple versions with still no validity. Strange…
How much information one knows is a product of what they’re exposed to in their environment. As I’ve argued.
Forget about tests. Let’s just focus on what the two main categories of intelligence are: Fluid and Crystalized. Is it possible that exposure to information is mediated by learning rate? The bandwidth by which information is absorbed into the system. Would this not account for differences in intelligence. Chimp being unable to lean recursive language is not because of their culture. Improving the culture of chimp society will not give them “Minds” as you define it. The ability to understand causality is based on the attention mechanisms relating to their and humans causal model of reality. This is true between chimps and humans and it is true between any human and any other human because everyone neurochemistry is not the same. Everyone’s potential ability to form a causal model of reality is different.
My crystallized intelligence is extremely high but I have poor vision, and I cannot draw detailed pictures. My fluid intelligence is high but not in certain areas. I can divide things into parts and deal with many parts but this is a mixture of spatial and language abilities. Dividing things into parts is how I define intelligence. The ability to work with information and understand different causality patterns.
Chimps lack minds because they lack propositional attitudes and they lack PAs because they lack language. At the end of the day, if X is a valid construct, then there is a way to show that as I have said.
Can a chimp develop language if its culture is improved?
Do you agree that some people absorb more information than others, are able to learn faster than others within a context?
Do you like my drawing? 🙂
Nope, they don’t have human brains.
I would agree and it comes down to context and what one is exposed to in early life.
I like it, keep practicing.
rr: planets and atoms don’t have intentions because they don’t have minds…like animals…so strangely chimpanzees are like planets and atoms, but schlitzie was a human (though not because of his dna) so he had a mind.
rr uses “substance” and “mind” in some idiosyncratic way. rr said he believed animals had subjective experiences.
maybe rr is chatGPT?
nagel asked What Is It Like to Be a Bat?
does rr say: “who cares. bat’s are zombies just like daniel dennett”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
Animals have phenomenal consciousness.
Everyone here think is enough debating with rr??
It’s fruitless.
RR quote the word intelligence…
“Intentionality is a property of minds so anything without a mind lacks intentions. The agent knows what their actions are associated with. ”
The agent knows what their actions are associated with only through their own subjective lens… meaning they have no direct access to the “purely physical” world (which would be impossible anyway since there’s no “purely physical” world). They NEVER will have access to the world without their subjective framework of their senses and mind. I think many philosophers have noted this, including Kant.
Intentionality requires wanting to do something which requires the need to want which requires a mind, yes. A rock or a planet could have an associated mind, and you’d never know because you don’t believe in strong causal parity of intentions of different beings, with no proof except anthropocentrism.
A rock’s mind could want to be a rock. (Or want to be water and so its intention is accomplished as the rock over millions of years goes through a process of erosion in which the rock becomes grains that flow in a body of water).
“It’s a mere outcome of test construction—there is no logical reason to accept one group of items over another that gives a different distribution. Take the Stanford-Binet—Terman used a specific inclusion-exclusion criteria that favored certain groups over others. This inclusion-exclusion criteria “differentiated subjects of known superiority from subjects of known inferiority”. The S-B is in its 5th version now, and they correlate new versions with older (non-construct valid) S-B’s. So what is the implication there?”
Do you think the Stanford-Binet is the only evidence of IQ and G being a real measurable thing?
Also, there are many life outcomes in the modern age that never existed when IQ was created or any tests were created that correlate with IQ. On average, a high-IQ blogger will get more views than a lower IQ one. A high IQ youtuber will get more views than a lower IQ one, and so on for basically any creative job using new technology that didn’t exist before.
That’s just one random novel thing that was predicted by IQ.
BlankSlatePostModernist,
Your idea that there is no logical reason to pick one set of test items over another and so tests do not predict anything more general than specific test proficiency is defeated by the fact that a person who knows more in general will score more on a test, and we can understand this when we see tests that are taken by many people who also have other obvious indicators of their general intelligence and have taken other tests.
It is possible to know everything one person knows, and also know everything another person knows, effectively being more intelligent than both. You can’t demonstrate that being false because it isn’t (the only thing about it being false is that it practically would never happen but neither would most things in philosophy).
According to RR, no one could progress in wisdom or knowledge and be better able to solve problems, because that would assume measurability of problem-solving. Sad worldview. He keeps arguing and researching because his religious beliefs as they are offer no point to life (as we all should do if we find ourselves in a similar position).
It’s shocking that you think civilizational accomplishments, rates of crime, etc. which correlate strongly with national IQ are simply culturally defined by our biases to be “signs of intelligence” that doesn’t really exist. It’s obvious things like this why people call you autistic and/or dishonest, in conjunction with your need to constantly reference terms. No forest for the trees.
RR: “OMG the researchers simply defined peaceful, functional, literate, highly technical, very trustworthy, progressive societies as being intelligent because it correlates with their completely unrelated test scores!!!
And they defined cannibalistic illiterate stone age societies as unintelligent for the same reason!!!
Must be Nazism and Jim Crow and age-old scientific racism!!!”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-013-9594-5“We prefer the term ‘mereological fallacy’ because the fallacy is about applying predicates to parts (not to an alleged homunculus in the head) of living creatures. ”
RR this is why you are annoying to everyone. You call things fallacies that are either obvious, or are simply you reasserting your unproven position that disagrees with your opponent.
If a brain doesn’t think, and I claim it thinks, is that a fallacy? No that is being wrong.
If I assume that the physical structure of the brain is heavily correlated with specific thoughts, is that a fallacy? No, it simply disagrees with your position. Otherwise you’re begging the question by calling it a fallacy.
I might as well invent the “Goyim autist robot fed Jewish social constructivist arguments fallacy” that describes people who argue blank slatism and environmentalism using (((woke))) psychologist and biologist papers and selected arguments from philosophers, without engaging with the obvious flaws in their worldview both empirical and apriori.
Very sad.
Again, if humans didn’t exist there would still be a world. The tree I’m looking at now would still be there. To be able to intend requires a mind. If X doesn’t have a mind, then X can’t intend. Simple sound argument. What you said about the S-B doesn’t interact with my claims – the fact of the matter is that gaps have been closed by in numerous ways. What does that tell you? Eg Kidder and Rosner 2002, Rosser, 1989, Terman, 1916, Hilliard, 2012.
As the quote from Terman demonstrates, they “knew in advance” who was more “intelligent” and then they constructed the test to fit that prior assumption. Did you know that he changed his test to ensure that men and women scored equally?
“National IQ” is a ridiculous notion, as Rebecca Sear and others have definitively shown.
I know what the mereological fallacy is – ascribing attributes of humans to the brain is a mereological fallacy, like saying the brain thinks. Humans think. It’s not wrong to say that, it’s incoherent. The brain ALOWS thinking, as I have said before. You need to show causation not mere correlation. I didn’t use the phrase incorrectly. You should read Philosophical Reflections on Neuroscience and Education (William Kitchen). Bennet and Hacker’s book where they coin the phrase, along with Kitchen’s, have many examples of the mereological fallacy.
Keep being delusional though, my guy. You should throw more racist buzzwords in there.
Iluminatikit,
“Again, if humans didn’t exist there would still be a world.”
Actually, that’s your apriori belief, unless you are pretending to know the exact contingencies of our present universe state again.
“The tree I’m looking at now would still be there.”
The tree that is made up of properties that only exist through a subjective framework of your observations? So in other words you’re saying your perceptions are objective. Contradicting what you said before.
“To be able to intend requires a mind. If X doesn’t have a mind, then X can’t intend. Simple sound argument. ”
Prove that a rock doesn’t have a mind. or a planet, or atom.
“What you said about the S-B doesn’t interact with my claims – the fact of the matter is that gaps have been closed by in numerous ways. What does that tell you? Eg Kidder and Rosner 2002, Rosser, 1989, Terman, 1916, Hilliard, 2012.”
Gaps in achievement or IQ have not been closed at all. What do you think BLM was about? Us blacks iz still mistreated by da wyte folk n sheeit.
You’re asserting something that is completely false in reality; the gaps have not been closed.
In fact, given our governmental idea of equity one could say the reverse, and that if any gaps have been closed it has been because of intervention by the hands of the more intelligent to fraudulently make it seem that the gaps have been closed. Of course nutrition can create real IQ boosts, but if you look at Africa which receives tremendous aid and tech from higher IQ societies, you see that any measured gap decrease is real but from greater nurture from other groups, or is fake and from different policies that favor lower IQ races (at least on the surface).
“As the quote from Terman demonstrates, they “knew in advance” who was more “intelligent” and then they constructed the test to fit that prior assumption. Did you know that he changed his test to ensure that men and women scored equally?”
In one case, but not all cases. I’ve shown novel results like higher IQ people performing better at newer technology. (In fact, since reality is always changing, basically any sort of prediction of this sort about the future even repeating the same results on the same test is evidence that IQ is real and measurable, given that the mind is supposedly immaterial and so has no direct connection to anything physical)
““National IQ” is a ridiculous notion, as Rebecca Sear and others have definitively shown.”
Nope.
“I know what the mereological fallacy is – ascribing attributes of humans to the brain is a mereological fallacy, like saying the brain thinks.”
My point was that we are not committing a “fallacy” but either using words differently or disagreeing.
“Humans think. It’s not wrong to say that, it’s incoherent.”
Is anyone disagreeing, really?
“The brain ALOWS thinking, as I have said before.”
And yet you say the material and immaterial are “two substances”, which is wrong and contradicts this.
“You need to show causation not mere correlation.”
I never said material states “cause” immaterial states, they are probably mutually causal and mutually necessary… being of one substance.
“I didn’t use the phrase incorrectly.”
Correct or not, your use of it is in preaching to the choir.
“Keep being delusional though, my guy. You should throw more racist buzzwords in there.”
I don’t really care if I’m being racist if it’s correct.
Everyone should be as “smart” as they can be and should not be shamed based on IQ, but false notions of equality and false metaphysics and epistemology can cause great harm as well, and that is what is more prominent in many parts of academia and politics and common culture.
If all humans were to dissappear right now, there would still be a planet earth.
What makes up a tree is there in front of me whether I’m looking at it or not.
Rocks, plants and atoms lack minds because they lack brains and they lack language and propositional attitudes. So they can’t intend.
“Gaps in IQ have not been closed at all.”
False, see Flynn and Dickens.
The fact of the matter is, with different a priori biases, one can build a test to show whatever they want. They can create whatever distributions of scores they want favoring whoever they want. This point is irrefutable. This is a basic fact of test construction.
Can you retest Sears’ works on Lynn’s “data”? For example, you know that he ignore many many Chinese IQ studies that go against his biased? You know that China only includes like 4 provinces for PISA, right?
When you use language ascribing intentional actions to parts of the whole, you’re committing the fallacy—it’s incoherent to say that. If no one disagrees that humans think and not the brain, why use intentional language when talking about the brain?
False, M and P are 2 substances. What’s the response to Lund’s argument?
Hereditarian ideas can cause great harm too, and they have like in the 1900s with eugenics, and the Nazis.
“If all humans were to dissappear right now, there would still be a planet earth.”
You admit that we don’t know where the immaterial/mind originates. It could be everywhere in the universe, and without humans, the earth may be unnecessary, as the universal mind could want the earth to exist in order for humans to exist. You can’t disprove that because you have no idea why mind is here in the first place.
“What makes up a tree is there in front of me whether I’m looking at it or not.”
Goddammit. Stop denying that everything you know about a tree is a property.
“Rocks, plants and atoms lack minds because they lack brains and they lack language and propositional attitudes. So they can’t intend.”
They lack “natural human languages”, not necessarily language. Again, we don’t even know they do not have a language because we have a different way of communicating.
To “be about something” is inherent in all things, including material things, which is why they actually a coherent existence.
“False, see Flynn and Dickens.”
IQ and achievement gaps may have been partially closed but not completely, which is completely consistent with hereditarian claims. But again, BLM.
Stop ignoring reality through your citations you dishonest scumbag.
“The fact of the matter is, with different a priori biases, one can build a test to show whatever they want. They can create whatever distributions of scores they want favoring whoever they want. This point is irrefutable. This is a basic fact of test construction.”
Yes, but you can’t fake the complexity of different problem-solving when it is all evident across the development of society, which is why a lot of Africa is still no where you’d want to live. Stop pretending you see no differences in quality of life between different civilizations.
“Can you retest Sears’ works on Lynn’s “data”? For example, you know that he ignore many many Chinese IQ studies that go against his biased? You know that China only includes like 4 provinces for PISA, right?”
I don’t believe China has an IQ as high as Japan’s or Korea’s. The stats that say so definitely seem to be wrong, which seems evident by their society. On the other hand, there are probably certain parts or populations of China with fairly high IQs given the diaspora nations.
“When you use language ascribing intentional actions to parts of the whole, you’re committing the fallacy—it’s incoherent to say that. If no one disagrees that humans think and not the brain, why use intentional language when talking about the brain?”
Because the brain is where most of the information processing goes on.
“False, M and P are 2 substances. What’s the response to Lund’s argument?”
You motherfucker, I’ve already rebutted dualism 5000 times in different forms. Other people have as well. Are you a goddamn robot?
“Hereditarian ideas can cause great harm too, and they have like in the 1900s with eugenics, and the Nazis.”
I never said otherwise. Everyone in the west knows this, as we bludgeoned to death by it every second of the day practically. But thanks for the reminder.
I’ve laid out the criteria many times.
They lack language. Of course other animals have forms of communication but that’s not the same as having a language.
“Stop ignoring reality through your citations”
It’s clear that you’re the one denying reality.
What you said in response to my claims on test construction are irrelevant.
What do you think of Sears’ paper?
That doesn’t mean it’s valid to ascribe intention to the brain when only humans intend, not their brain.
You haven’t rebutted shit. And the hereditarian hypothesis is clearly false as developmental systems theorists have shown too.
Not sure why I continue arguing with you when you have no rebuttal to panpsychism or any random object in the universe having an associated mind and intentionality.
If X has the ability to intend, then X has language. X does not have language. Thus X does not have a mind and X cannot intend. They aren’t agents.
“What you said in response to my claims on test construction are irrelevant.”
False, they are relevant because they show IQ tests measure problem-solving ability. They are only irrelevant to your minor quibble about how some specific tests were structured in a semi-biased way.
“What do you think of Sears’ paper?”
You’ve already denied everything I’ve said a thousand times so what’s the point in asking?
“That doesn’t mean it’s valid to ascribe intention to the brain when only humans intend, not their brain.”
You’re implying you know what it’s like to be a brain.
If your point is “brains are by definition material and are different from the mind” you are begging the question, again… for the thousandth time.
“You haven’t rebutted shit.”
Well, everyone here with mind seems to disagree with you, even those who respect you.
“And the hereditarian hypothesis is clearly false as developmental systems theorists have shown too.”
Genes clearly have a privileged placement in the structure of organisms given that massive correlation between specific genetics and specific organisms.
Again, I’m tired of your “X was rebutted because of my apriori argument” BS. Jesus christ.
That’s how all tests are constructed. And THE FACT that other newwre tests are correlated with the older ones proves my point.
What do you think of the paper?
There is no “what it’s likeness” about a brain, brains allow cognition, they don’t themselves think.
That’s not question begging to say that mind and brain are different from each other. I’ve already provided the other argument about the privacy of the mental.
What’s the argument for your claim that genes are privileged developmental resources? You haven’t given one and the arguments for that claim are a priori. Whether or not genes are special resources isn’t an empirical question.
I’m tired of you overall. Dualism is true because one thing is private and the other is public. This is one of dozens of arguments that establish the immateriality of the mental and the distinction between the mental and physical. Your efforts are good, but they still fall short.
“If X has the ability to intend, then X has language. X does not have language. Thus X does not have a mind and X cannot intend. They aren’t agents.”
How do you know what has language and what doesn’t except by when it communicates directly to you in a language you understand? Answer: You don’t.
Furthermore, your mind communicates in ways only your mind understands, which is why you can understand things without putting it in human language, or forget a word but still understand the meaning (or learn a new word that applies to concepts you already understand without language). This shows that one doesn’t need to be able to express in human language to have a form of understanding and consciousness and even beliefs.
People have beliefs about the laws of physics such as implicitly knowing where some object will go if another object hits it from a certain direction without putting that belief in human natural language. That would be spatial reasoning.
Even if language capacity is required for intentions, that doesn’t mean that random objects can’t have minds with intentions that you don’t understand or have no access to. If mind is immaterial floating in the ether there is no reason any random thing cannot have a mind and intentions.
Rocks have propositional attitudes?
Each thought doesn’t depend on a sentence expressing the thought, the claim is that for a thing to be able to think then they must have language. Here’s the argument:
(1) To be able to think, an organism must have a full range of propositional attitudes (PAs). (2) Having a full range of PAs rests on having language. (3) Nonhuman animals lack language. (4) So nonhuman animals lack PAs. (5) So, nonhuman animals don’t think. (6) So nonhuman animals lack mind.
rr: sending people to a concentration camp because they think animals don’t have minds is racist.
mugabe: why?
rr: because thinking animals have minds is white privilege.
mugabe: wtf are you talking about?
rr: poor people have to abuse their animals. they have no choice. and there are no poor white people and poor kids are just as smart as white kids.
mugabe: wtf are you talking about?
rr: shut up racist!
mugabe: okay. that’s enough. [marks paper to send rr to concentration camp.]
(at least he’ll get a haircut.)
Hahahaha
Impersonating RR became a contest here.
Socialrace and whiteracism #
Please, RR. I don’t wanna being mean with you but it’s difficult.
Does Melo acknowledge the jews control the media?
Q How do you go from HBD supporter and calling yourself race realist to a berkely sociology PHd candidate?
A Oil Drilling.
Notice the way Melo encourges everyone to chase black women while secretly staying away from black women. Very jewish behaviour.
(Loaded slaps his head 4 times and then bangs his fist on the ground and lets out a retarded roar)
Bystander: Whats he doing?
Other bystander: He says hes preparing for a job interview.
thats not even funny.
So how is the job hunt going?
Loaded really knows how to do it.
well yeah i started from a young age!
Melo goes to a white groups of guys: “Hey guys, I know a group of women who are super easy and just love to fuck!”
Guy: “Oh yeah? Where?”
Melo: Black girls. Look over there.
Guys all go silent and look uncomfortable.
Melo: Whats wrong goy…I mean guys?
Guy: We don’t really like black women.
Melo: Are you RACIST?!!
Guy: No No, its just uh….(starts sweating).
this is kind of funny but only because its happening in Pills head.
Melo: Hey Pill. You are RACIST if you don’t want to have sex with a black woman.
Philosopher: Yes. That I am. You got me there. Yep. Over a barrel. Red-handed. Im a racist.
Melo (to himself): Damnit! that trick always usually works.
Melo went to a jedi mind trick academy run by jews.
RACISM. RACISM EVERYWHERE. Wooohhhhoohhhhh.
RR doesn’t believe in IQ because he scored 60 on an IQ test.
Anybody ever notice the way every single black woman they call beautiful and that they promote as a sex symbol…is actually a mulatto?
You just can’t be beautiful and have a negroid facial skeleton.
Unless youre a black man. And you have a great body (which black men 90% of the time have).
there are some women whose skull shape would be characterized as Negroid who are very attractive!
True. Some would say “structural racism” causes those “beauty standards” but it’s kind of always amazing how they seem to work out in favor of whites and East Asians regardless of the actual demographics or who has control of the government.
They made Batman and Spiderman’s girlfriend a mulatto. Not even the jews in Hollywood thought it would be prudent to make someone that looked like Michelle Obama a love interest in the top AAA movie releases. And we all know how hollywood jews approach race relations.
those girls are hot though. if i had a harem i would have a girl of every variety to breed the best children in the Universe.
Loaded would have a harem of black dick from all over the world.
Software is a pattern, a platonic form. If rr wasn’t to call that immaterial he can but remember that a pattern only has the potential to exist. It cannot exist until it is actualized and becomes a physical interaction of parts.
I am a universalist when it comes to the genome. I believe that patterns of the cat genome can only make cats never pigs. The nominalist position is that patterns of genomes are completely divorced from phenotype. A cat genome can make pigs if they “develop” this way. Nominalists have no way of ascribing what causes cat genomes to develop into pigs but that is what they believe can happen because no patterns are not universal phenomena.
a cat genome to turn into a pig would need to change its sequence pattern into a pig pattern but then that pattern would not be universal to the cat phenotype anymore.
only by evolution and natural selection can patterns change over time in the genome. This is the reason development is not the main cause of phenotype. It is only the expression of the genomes’ regulatory mechanisms.
accurate.
“only by evolution and natural selection can patterns change over time in the genome. This is the reason development is not the main cause of phenotype.”
This is so far off the mark… West-Eberhard (2003) in Developmental Plasticity in Evolution states that most phenotypic evolution beings with environmentally-mediated changes and then genetic changes follow after. Development IS the main cause of phenotypic differences. It’s insane to state otherwise—we have known this literally for decades. The same genotype can give rise to different phenotypes, and that’s DUE TO development.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606729/
so a cat genome can produce a pig phenotype.
your so smart rr
That doesn’t interact with what I wrote.
a specific organism depends on a specific development
you can’t have a specific phenotype without a specific genome
gnome phenotype and development are inseparable you cad.
It’s been empirically shown that changes in phenotype precede genetic changes. And saying “cat genome” or “bat genome” implies innate information already in the genes. Oyama and others have definitively shown that the information is developed and constructed due to interactions between many developmental resources, and that development isn’t reducible to one of the resources.
any genome can turn into any phenotype?
Is there context-independent information in genomes?
no? I don’t understand what you intend from this? there are epigenetic factors involved. transcription creates proteins but some proteins come from catalyst interactions (enzymes). not all proteins are coded in the genes but the fist enzymes that make them are. enzymes can make other enzymes.
You did not answer the question btw.
can an embryo of any animal turn into the phenotype of any other animal? can a salmon embryo turn into a rooster? under what circumstances? Mammals did not exist 500 million years ago. Humans did not exist 10 million years ago. Where did they come from if evolution is false? Why do chimps and humans develop differently so one can talk and the other can’t? explain why/how their recourse’s are different. I don’t mean for every animal on the planet. In abstract terms “why” development for a single chimp embryo will be a chimp and not Blonde European male human. You are supposed to be a race/species realist after all.
You made a false claim before—it’s been shown that phenotypic change precedes genetic change. There is no reason to hold the view you do today, which if I’m reading you right you seem to be some kind of preformationist? Young embryonic cells are pluripotent meaning they can develop into other kinds of cells, so this means that epigenetic factors activists and deactivate certain genes. Cells do whag they do because of what is in them and the contexts they are in. If they are attached to many different cells they may develop differently, due to the influence from the inside and outside of the cell and the context that it’s in. Information isn’t in genes, it gets transported to them. So the ontogeny of information is due to a dialectical, interactive relationship between all of the developmental constituents.
I need to brush up on my developmental embryology, but there is no information in the genes. I never said that “evolution is false.” So to answer your question of “why” the developmental paths of humans and chimps are different, it’s due to developmental, interactive irreducible factors.
“you seem to be some kind of preformationist?”
don’t be stupid
I simple believe that without genetic information you cannot have differences in organisms. GxE
Your argument is more preformalist because you believe Genes don’t exist in the system. You eliminate the G from GxE.
“there is no information in the genes.”
This is clearly false because;
A codon is a DNA or RNA sequence of three nucleotides (a trinucleotide) that forms a unit of genomic information encoding a particular amino acid or signaling the termination of protein synthesis (stop signals). There are 64 different codons: 61 specify amino acids and 3 are used as stop signals.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Codon#:~:text=A%20codon%20is%20a%20DNA,are%20used%20as%20stop%20signals.
“genes don’t exist in the system”
I don’t even know what this means. I don’t “eliminate the G from GxE.”
Codons aren’t information in the genes. Try again.
“Codons aren’t information in the genes. Try again.”
What the fuckk are you talking about.
This is just word games again.
How do you define “information”.
Developmental information is the result of—that is, derives from—the interaction of G and E and all other developmental resources. Cells generate information, they don’t contain it. There is no such thing as information outside of its relational context. Again, the fact that novel phenotypes can precede genetic change is a + for the view I am espousing. There is no such thing as “genetic information”, since that phrase implies a context-independent kind of information, but it is interactionist. It’s created through feedback between the current state of the organism and its interactants. Thus information doesn’t pre-exist, it is constructed by development, developing over the course of the life cycle, the information created through the interaction of the different resources is context-dependent. So there is a type of symmetry or parity between genes and other resources, meaning that there is no privileged level of causation.
We can store genetic sequences in computer memory. is this not information? I had my genome sequenced and it told me where my genes came from. 23andMe
That’s not the same as information. Information is constructed during development.
“Oyama and others have definitely shown”
Imagine quoting a random researcher in a supposed to be a trivial sentence??
who is the fastest reader in the world? i think i compete for best comprehensive ability out there since i dont focus very well but i can attain a sense of understanding of something within my gut.
If Loaded and Melo love black dick so much, why don’t they just get gay married to a thug? Thug life. Thats what they fap to. Forget about the black women.
Imagine Melo in the kitchen wearing a dress and making dinner for his R-Selected thug husband.
“Yo bitch I want my food”
Melo: Yes honey. Its coming! Please dont leave me!
shut up you inbred hillbilly.
Melo, Loaded and RR.
https://images.bauerhosting.com/legacy/empire-legacy/uploaded/three-stooges-knife.jpg?q=80&w=440
Does it feel good arguing with a guy who scored 60 on an IQ test?
Thats right. Just stop doing it.
Sailer is saying that people in San Francisco and California are preparing to pay reperations to blacks…jesus christ. The jews are laughing so hard at these retards.
Unban this
All about moral narcisism. People who really concern about social and racial inequalities look at the “hard” truths before to provide real possible solutions for it.
I bet there are many jews involved on it and anxious to give money.
After watching the rise of the “carnivore diet” the last 5 years, I’m convinced that “carnivores” are just as delusional as hereditarians.
You would need the basic knowledge to try to refute something… like knowing the known and specific chemical-physical processes that has been linked with cognition or consciousness but seems you just take “philosophy studies” and use them as basis against whatever you disagree, most of them based on semantic games.
I don’t know what you mean about hereditarianism. At least Peter Frost is open to consider environmental factors and I believe many other “hereditarian” scholars as well. Maybe it’s just another straw man fallacy being commited by you…
“You would need the basic knowledge to try to refute something… like knowing the known and specific chemical-physical processes that has been linked with cognition or consciousness but seems you just take “philosophy studies” and use them as basis against whatever you disagree, most of them based on semantic games.”
He knows about them… RR has a lot of knowledge but just doesn’t know how to put it together. Like a high-functioning autist.
I doubt you even know what changed my views. They can pay lip service all they want when they claim that “anything over 0 percent is hereditarianism”, like Warne claims in his book or Winegard claiming hereditarianism is between 20 and 80 percent genetic. Of course Rushton and Jensen claimed 50/50 then in the same paper claimed 80 percent heritability. But these claims rest on highly confounded heritability studies, mostly on twins and adoptees. At the end of the day, hereditarianism isn’t logically or empirically tenable.
At the end of the day, again, “carnivores” are clueless; there is no one “human diet” and humans are omnivores.
diabetes and bad teeth are medical reasons to go carnivore for a trice. with the agricultural revolution came diabetes and bad teeth.
what if eskimos are adapted to such a diet? rr: not possible because all people are identical except for their hairstyles.
I doubt there is any significant causal link between diet and these correlates. People born with risk to diabetes mielitus, not bad diet only. Sedentarization is historically correlated with population growth and genetic diversity (accumulation of mutational load).
theoretically: tooth decay is impossible on a strict carnivore diet*…type 1 diabetics don’t need insulin…type 2 diabetics will get better…concern is atherogenic effect of jordan peterson diet…but eskimos do fine on it.
true or false? why?
*also cavities can heal. this happens all the time in everyone. the saliva is like a river and the teeth like sediment. if you have a cavity and went on a 100% carnivore diet for a month or i don’t know how long…the cavity would stop growing at least and might heal.
as mugabe has said before silver fluoride means no cavities ever…but it makes your teeth black…
rr is the same guy who said a long time ago that carbs cause atherosclerosis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror,_Mirror_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
Is it possible for one to know they are happier at a certain moment than other moments? RR says no, psychology is immeasurable
Is it possible for one to measure they are happy and not sad? No, psychology is immeasurable.
Is it possible for one to be able to possess for mental states in a greater number than other people? No, psychology is immeasurable.
Is it possible to have more attention or mental acuity at certain moments of the day than others, like when just waking up or when sober vs. drunk? No, psychology is immeasurable.
Is it possible that certain problems could require more steps to solve, more variables to be solved, and other general differences in complexity and hence demonstrate different complexities of psychology? No, psychology is immeasurable.
So a drunk, barely awake homeless guy currently suffering brain fog from cocaine withdrawals is just as intelligent as a top-of-their-class University student with a worry-free mind and currently on stimulants. QED.
peepee’s blog:
Celebrity deaths, 2019, PRE-COVID, I counted 56: https://www.usatoday.com/celebrity-deaths/2019
Celebrity deaths, 2020, covid raging, no vaccines, 35 deaths if I counted correctly:
https://www.usatoday.com/celebrity-deaths/2020
Celebrity deaths, 2022, most Americans are vaccinated, and celebrities, given their liberal Democrat cultural bubble, are probably overwhelmingly vaccinated, yet their death count was more than triple the pre-vaccine covid year of 2020, and about double the pre-covid year 2019: https://www.usatoday.com/celebrity-deaths/2022
Can anyone explain this? Did a bunch of celebrities lose their health insurance? I mean, what could possibly explain such a high death rate in 2022’s highly vaccinated celebrity population which is no doubt super-protected? There are apparently some smart people on this blog, so maybe one of you can figure it out for us!
the early stages of COVID werent that bad the virus wasnt as strong. Yes Omicron is weaker but it for sure wreaked havoc with its contagiousness!
and plus you grow older the pandemic has wear and tear properties for sure built in that means people are going to die!
the vaccine is bad too yeah but not as bad as all the other stuff that happened!
civilization is deteriorating unless leaders can prevent it too!
Kirstie Alley died and some other public figures but it wasnt for covid. She died from cancer…
Lisa Marie Presley = fentanyl overdoses//chronic depression
Coincidences and cohencidences exist. Miracles and covid denialism, no.
because the medical system is fucked up due to COVID we are experiencing these problems in the first place.
lots of people arent getting the health care they need violence is on the rise destabilization of our society plus elites are just too old and are giving up on living!
Celebrities are not necessarily elites. Kirsty Alley was working class.
hmm interesting point. although i think thats true i think medical care for anyone wealthy is going to deteriorate!
Former working class.
#decolornazi
#socialjewstice
i explained to rr why the so called “problem of consciousness” is a non-problem and why physicalists and dualists both have full blown AIDS. i used a quote from galen strawson to make the point, even though strawson himself was just repeating what i said about “…inseity…” but he didn’t unnuhstan what he was saying.
what do you wager rr will unnuhstan and thus abandon the utter bullshit he calls “philosophy”, aka anilingus philosophy?
If only there were a God so the two sisters could reunite in Heaven
this is chock-a-block with category mistakes.
God is not a thing. and even less a thing which might or might not exist. God is not a contingency. and contingency per se doesn’t exist in things as they are in themselves but only as they are for us. and why couldn’t there be a heaven and no God…as most buddhists would affirm?
God is the final solution. ask why this? ask why that? ask why? why? why? eventually the answer is God…or the third possible solution to munchhausen’s trilemma.
autism in the service of capital, aka master.
Notice the way nobody has commented on Barabara Walters being a great example of jew nepotism and jew control in the media. Barbara could probably tell us stories of how the CIA edited the copy she was supposed to read every night to the goyim.
When autistic people try to do philosophy all you get is arguing with the dictionary.
When autistic people try to do philosophy…they read The Devil’s Chessboard and won’t shut up about it.
i read 100 pages and decided it was RETARDED.
and talbot is NOT an insider. wtf is wrong with you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbot
Barbara Walters being made an anchor is a great timestamp on when jews took control of the media. When was that? The 70s?
CNN was founded by a gentile and run by a gentile until about the late 90s. Then it became a jew nest of comical proportions.
Wonder why all the Bushies became neocons? George Bush snr was straight from Nixon/Allen Dulles heritage. His dad was a private banker/butler to the gentile elites. So what the fuck is his son doing running the US on behalf of the Likkud Party?
I don’t get it. We’ll never know until 100 years from now someone inside like Stephen Talbot writes a Devil’s Chessboard P2.
Maybe George Bush and Dick Cheney were being sexually blackmailed?
everyones problem is their ego seriously all humans struggle from it!
Cheney might have been blackmailed. Bush was probably just manipulated by wolfawitz who would not shut up about Hussein & Iraq from the second 9/11 occurred
It was almost like he had Asperger’s he was so obsessed kind of like how you obsess over Jews According to the book the Israel lobby, Cheney told him to shut up because it was annoying the president
that time period was nuts i was very young but i feel like biblical prophecies were being unfolded during that era!
I would say the Devil’s Chessboard is a more important book even than McDonalds Culture of Critique. But on a general basis, Rushton’s R/K book is vital.
Only 1 of these 3 books actually mentions jews though. (The Devil’s Chessboard only mentions that Dulles hated jews and promoted ex-nazi’s to run the german deep state post ww2 contravening the common perception that the US elites loved jews as much as the British elites did).
The book The Israel lobby is like Kevin macdonald for the left
Mugabe would rather read the Bible over the Devils Chessboard…whats his IQ again? 110? Sounds about right.
Phil would rather read the the Devils Chessboard over the Bible …whats his IQ again? 110? Sounds about right.
correct! The Devils Chessboard is low IQ fair mein herr. it’s like the National Enquirer or People but dumber. it requires much less reading comprehension ability than the bible which i hardly ever read for the bajillionth time peepee.
*fare of course. seldom used word.
Mine is 115.
Obviously the don’t teach real history in schools. They probably have never taught real history in schools, even going back to medieval times.
I would say history is the 1 subject that has been continually censored.
real history is in the movies you watch the games you play etc. isnt it?
You are the dumbest person here.
For Mugabe the Bible is literal history.
Hahaha.
Mugabe should play this to his dogs:
because that’s what christians and jews believe?
you’re more autistic than rr, and your IQ is lower.
LOL well of course thats what religious christians and jews believe. Because they’re idiots.
LOL no it’s NOT.
you have autism.
Its 1984. Who knows what happened more than 20 years ago? Really…we basically have to rely on jews to be honest and publish what actually happened.
Private and public states does not mean separate substances when they are all private at the end of the day.
what i think of as my public experience is nothing of the kind, as such is impossible. what i call my public experience is that which i can speak of and presume to be the same for the one with whom i presume to communicate. “do you hear that? do you see this?” the this and that upon which we agree may or may not be the this and that of our respective experience.
what celebrities would you compare me to Pumpkin? do i remind you of anyone? what are my paths to ultimate success?
mugabe: have you actually read any book other than the star magazine chessboard thing?
pill: no.
mugabe: sad.
im actually the smartest most competent one here. and pumpkin likes to moderate me wtf
try reading the bible like it’s Star. you can’t. it’s not easy reading at all. the fact that it may all be bullshit and some stupid people read nothing else doesn’t change that fact.
The Bible is literally what children are asked to read in Sunday School.
Its a bunch of ghost stories for kids.
its a coping mechanism the holiest of coping mechanisms. really puts the spirit in someone to achieve more!
not all the time though some become extremists and what not as well!