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 
also i only read the kjv which makes it far beyond your level of literacy sadly.
Noted for its “majesty of style”, the King James Version has been described as one of the most important books in English culture and a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world.
yes. this is infinitely better than the devil’s people magazine book.
if you disagree then you’re either an imbecile or a douche.
Comparing Devils Chessboard to the Bible is like comparing Tolstoy to Roald Dahl. I mean the bible is literally people from 2000 years ago making shit up and laughing about it. Theres zero historical veracity in those documents…unless of course you believe God sent his son to woo people with miracles.
pure ignorance and autism.
Theres zero historical veracity in those documents
moron. some parts have zero and were never intended to. other parts have some. the most irreligious scholars agree on this.
…unless of course you believe God sent his son to woo people with miracles.
because that’s all that’s in the bible? the gospels were propaganda but contain some historical fact. pontius pilate was a real person and so was jesus and many of the red letters were actually spoken by him. see the very liberal jesus seminar.
your bizarre antipathy to religion suggests a personal motivation. are you a gay jew, but not one of the cool ones like glenn greenwald?
Bugabe think JEWsus was real…
Calling someone autistic here is the same as calling someone racist for “SJW”. Typical from brainwashed people.
i agree that formal religion is stupid. but not for the reasons you and pill do. and non-abrahamic religions are just philosophy. but properly interpreted abrahamic religions are too. cut these old semitic language speakers some slack. they took it to the limit.
I think far east religions specially buddhism is one of the most philosophical of all religions near to the original intention of all religions, seek and live throught existential truths like godlessness.
and that’s just the NT. a large chunk of the OT is just history.
joshua, judges, samuel, chronicles, etc.
these are propaganda but they correspond to other sources.
i dare pill-sky to read Acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
what’s interesting from a human behavior pov is the category militantly antireligion + unnuhstan religion = null. whereas the category actual scientist + unnuhstan religion = lots of examples.
this makes dialogue impossible. so people like dawkins will only debate with snake handlers.
You just don’t get it. These books aren’t history in the classical sense. Any history they have in them is by accident. Devils Chessboard is the apex of historical work. The Bible is like reading the Book of Mormon and hoping to find nuggets of info in it.
the book of mormon has no history in it pill.
Exactly
Look, in the grand scheme of things, believing in the bible is maybe less embarrassing than believing in the Berkeley sociology review but we are talking about different grades of retardation here.
Actually is more embarassing. It’s not coincidence bible literal believers tend to score around 90 in IQ range.
Political ideology full of sophisticated truth denialisms like cultural marxism is for high verbal IQ people, religious cult with magical or childish thinking is for low IQ people and I think specifically for lower verbal IQ people. Anecdotically, religious fundamentalists tend to have a poorer vocabulary in their native language.
It’s the difference to believe that the disproportion of behavioral and cognitive challenges among black children, teen and adults if compared with other macro racial groups is only or mostly caused by lead contamination and not that there is a positive correlation between higher amount of lead contamination and lower income urban areas, mainly in U$, predominantly black. A comparatve high level of sophistry than a belief in ressurrection or that a virgin jewish woman was impregnated by the sperm of an universe creator giving birth to a demigod.
” … and not that there is a positive correlation between higher amount of lead contamination and lower income urban areas, mainly in U$, predominantly black.”
I mean stablishing a causation without considering a more trivial possibility of correlation. Of course, because avg intrinsic differences among human groups is the new original sin for academics.
if you are a literalist today you are a heretic. not just a moron.
as an actual irishman said:
That John Dominic Crossan quote seems right on the money. Though I wouldn’t doubt that basically throughout all of any religion’s lifetime there were people with vastly different interpretations, from literal to figurative, and also among which parts they took literal, since autistic and lower IQ people have always existed…
i don’t believe in the god pill thinks i do either.
another example: i have heard that the most remarkable thing about the koran is how beautifully written it is…and thus translations never do it justice.
you’ve got it ass backwards. the bible and the koran and so many religious texts are simply the best literature there is, better than tolstoy. you don’t have to believe it like an appalachian snake handler idiot!
So you believe in impersonal god? I have seen some people expressing this belief.
Still bulshit. Better to belief in extraterrestrial life, it’s more likely.
of course not. an impersonal God is an oxymoron.
Actually i mean a personal god (personal CONCEPT of it).
harvard was founded as a puritan seminary. harvard, yale, and princeton still have divinity schools. so do oxford and cambridge. why?
do you think they teach snake handling?
The royal society is an interesting group.
They are like the Vatican but secular.
the west has its own madrasas.
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/theology-divinity-religious-studies
I always wanted to go to MIT to study a.i. since I was twelve because I read about them in books about a.i. in 6th grade from the school library.
Kevin Mcdonald is basically recycling nazi theories and narratives. Far righters really think all “blue eyed aryans” are naive and good by heart and non-aryans specially jews and others called “sub humans” are all lacking of character??? They think was right murder people with psychiatric and other health conditions like the nazis did before holocaust (and porajmos/gypsy holocaust)??
RR is not totally wrong about dualism “mind” and body because seems there is a pronounciable hierarchical difference between central nervous system and the rest of body for humans than for other species. This may explain why cats for example tend to be so precise in their jumps and even superior primates moving along the trees while we are quite physically akward in comparison. But it doesn’t mean “mind” and body are physically separate but that the late is more subordinate to the first. Humans are comparatively so hopeless in terms of physical agility or strenghtness, only way left for our ancestors to survive and struggling a lot in the dawn of our species (indicative of strong selective pressure) was the intelligence. We are basically the weird nerd of nature.
A problem is that you can’t have mind without material and vice versa, so it can’t be “two substances”.
It’s like saying good and bad are two “substances” because they are different. Well, yes they are different, but how are they two “substances”? Or kind of like saying 1 and 2 are different substances. You can’t reduce 1 to 2, although 1 is required for 2 and can be reduced to 1, but is also in a sense irreducible because it is its own thing.
Lurker,
I don’t disagree. But the fact thar our brain or nervous system has a fundamental role in our bodies functioning than in other species just slightly sound like a dualism, not the way RR believes.
I would agree that humans have a special place in the universe experientially. Without humans or something of similar or greater ability to experience and interact with the world, the universe would be meaningless.
I think the falsity of dualism is important though because,
RR’s whole idea really rests on the fact that the immaterial mind is immeasurable, so it is really the crux of his BS idea about “IQism”. All the other studies he cites are basically irrelevant cherries on top of his incoherent environmentalist-NCSD-DST-whatever-other-term-he-calls-himself.
Anyone who thinks cannot deny that everything we know or could know about reality, or anything that it could be, is a property, which is by definition abstract, and by definition any property requires an interpretive framework to be understood (and hence is “subjective”). RR simply denies this because he doesn’t want to believe it or is too stupid.
The immaterial mind that cannot be measured is simply the magic apriori faith for RR’s anti-hereditarian religion.
And DST refutes hereditarianism, there is no doubt about it that DST has made hereditarianism an untenable position to hold. Learner’s Concepts and Theories of Human Development attack many hereditarian theories and show that they hold no water to a DST view. This is one example.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-00214-001
Universe still would be meaningful without us. Reality is absolutely meaningful by itself. But humans are really an extra. My opinion. I even don’t think “mind” is immaterial. To be immaterial, it couldnt be what it is, an outcome. It couldnt be or has a cause or effect.
For the record, I was a big hereditarian for years. Then I read a few books (DNA is not Destiny and Genes, Brains and Human Potential) and I changed my view. This was spring of 2017. Then the next year I got into philosophy of mind and realized that dualist arguments like Lowe’s, Hasker’s, Swinburne’a, Lund’s swayed me. After that I realized that if dualism is true then it has implications for hereditarianism and psychology/psychometry. I’m not looking to debate any of this. I’m just describing what led to my current views.
By the way, DST is the answer to hereditarianism and shows that hereditarianism is false. Oyama, Noble, Moore, Jablonka and Lamb et al have shown this.
And dualism isn’t “false”, again. What’s the response to Lund, Lowe, Hasker, and Morch?
RR,
No matter how your belief, your intrinsic lower rational capacity is always with you.
I believe you change your views to adapt or fit with your context. But i think it’s down too much IF you really believe. Waiting you change to a mostly black neighborhood in your city to prove at least by yourself that evil heresitarians are wrong about everything as you think…
Opinions passing dishonestly as arguments and ridiculous quotations of name’s obscure “researchers” coming from nowhere.
I have already responded to you about probably literally a dozen times, but if you want me to spoonfeed you arguments:
Lund:
“(1) Whatever is secunda facie conceivable for me is something I am secunda facie warranted in believing to be metaphysically possible.
(2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of myself with exactly my thought properties existing in isolation from all material things (i.e., this state of affairs is secunda facie conceivable for me).
(3) Therefore, I am secunda facie warranted in believing that my existing in isolation from all material things (i.e., as disembodied or even in the absence of all material things) is metaphysically possible.
(4) It is not metaphysically possible for a material thing to become immaterial and exist in isolation from all material things;
which, along with (1)–(3), yields:
(5) Therefore, I am secunda facie warranted in believing that I am not a material thing.”
1. Yes anything conceivable is metaphysically possible, as in the collections of properties one can conceive of is obviously coherent if they are actually conceiving of it.
True.
2. You can conceive of yourself existing in isolation from the material world, but look at the words used there: “in isolation from”. So you exist somewhere, just not in the specific material world you now exist… which is still somewhere. Because there is no actualized existence without a spatial extension because a spatial extension is what is necessary to say something is “isolated from” another thing at the same point in time… that is by definition.
False.
3. False as follows from 2. To be clear, you conceivably could “exist” without material existence in the sense that you exist everywhere or nowhere, but that simply means there are no distinctions between anything in that “purely immaterial universe” which is a literally meaningless universe.
4. Yes, that with a spatial and temporal extension cannot actually exist without a spatial and temporal extension. An actual rock cannot exist immaterially, but the idea of it can exist and be put in a videogame… and the rock in the game is spatially separated from other objects if it is to a rock… so what is the point of this argument?
False.
5. You are both a material and immaterial thing, or you are simply nothing and meaningless in the universe (and this goes for literally anything).
False.
For things that are possibilities but not actualized, they do have meaning and are “immaterial”, but they have literally no effect on reality until they are material. Furthermore, something actually materially existing must have access to them before they can effect anything, otherwise they would have no ability to access reality (because actuality and possibility must be in mutual conceptual contact in order for possibility to become actuality).
So an infinitely high number greater than the number of atoms in reality has meaning, but cannot be material, and so will never have any real existence and cannot possibly effect anything anyway. A color that no one could see also could exist but since it has no way to meaningfully materialize it will never affect anything.
The only way the potential can become the actual is through what is already actual, meaning objective and material, by definition. The way other potential things can have an effect on the actual is that they are implied as possible by what already actually exists materially, such as infinitely high numbers or colors we can’t see… and obviously the need for coherence is something that doesn’t exist “actualized” but always effects anything that does exist, which is paradoxes don’t exist.
It could be possible that random things could materialize in the universe with no prior reason or basis, but again this is both contrary to the will or intention of a mind anyway and still involves any actual intention or subjective experience being actualized and not freely floating.
That is a tangent, and the main point is that any material thing has properties, and any property that has any real effect on anything is material. So no, you can’t be purely immaterial (unless in the sense that material is already immaterial and defined as information which rebuts dualism anyway).
Hasker:
“If the subject is not the brain or the nervous system then it is (or contains as a proper part) a non-physical mind or soul; that is, a mind that is not ontologically reducible to the sorts of entities studied in the physical sciences.”
Thinking requires a thinker which requires actualized existence which requires material.
Experience requires an experiencer, and so on which requires material.
Therefore the immaterial subject requires a material existence, and only that with a material existence could experience or think. They are inseparable.
Lowe:
“I am the subject of all and only my own mental states.”
So basically you, right now, are “separate” from everyone else and from the material world. Sounds like a spatial extension and temporal extension. I thought the mental was irreducible to the physical? Sounds like he is reducing it right now.
“Neither my body as a whole nor any part of it can be the subject of all and only my own mental states.”
You’re implying that bodies don’t have an associated mind with their own intentions with no basis.
“I am not identical with my body or any part of it.”
You’re implying you would know what it would be like to be identical with your own body or a part of it.
peepee just banned me again.
What’s the response to Lund, Lowe, Hasker, and Morch?
what’s your response to plato, hegel, hediegger, hoffman?
I forgot about “Morch”. (Where do these guys get their medieval names?)
“1. All physical facts are knowable without experience.
2. Some explanatory facts are not knowable without experience.
3. Therefore, some facts are non-physical.”
1. I thought you said knowledge was an action, which requires an actor, and so a mind experiencing the knowledge?
In any case, to know something, and to “know that you know something” are different, and I think the prior is inherent in all physical material (panpsychism) as it “knows” what it is and what it isn’t. But it seems that what we call consciousness is the experience of knowing that we know something (recursive).
To know something without experiencing that we know it would be to simply to understand that it is coherent and noncontradictory. But if I know it, I am clearly experiencing the fact that is coherent and noncontradictory, so it follows that I still know physical facts through experience. And if the “unconscious” part of me knows something that the conscious part didn’t experience, how can I say that the unconscious part didn’t actually experience it but does not or cannot relay the information back to me?
2. All facts are knowable without “experience”… if you define knowledge as recognizing something as coherent. If you define it as experiencing that you know something (in a recursive way), than nothing is knowable without experiencing it.
3. Physical is only delineated from the nonphysical as being a possibility that has been actualized, and is recognized by something else as actualized, which seems to imply that everything physical actually has to be experienced.
Really, all these arguments seem a bit incoherent to me. I don’t know what is meant by “experience” or “physical” because I don’t see the physical as something different from the mental in the first place. I don’t see experience as anything different from coherently recognizing some concept from an outside perspective, so I don’t see how anything could exist without at least being “experienced” by the universe/reality itself.
My experiences seem to be what it’s like to be my unified nervous system interacting with the world, and so I couldn’t know what a rock or planet could experience anyway, because that is not what I am. My nervous system is a complex and very quick moving organization of material and properties that interact with the world in ways much different from other material things except other humans and to some extent, animals. If I was less complex and more disconnected the experiences I have might not actually feel like experiences because of a lack of recursivity or complexity or other certain structures.
In any case, to reiterate nothing can exist in any meaningful form without properties (that is what meaning literally is, to have some sort of definition and attributes) and no property or meaning can exist (the immaterial) without actually existing in some place or time separate from something else (as all meaning implies distinction, starting from the most basic “property” of existing vs. not existing).
”RR,
No matter how/WHAT your belief, your intrinsic lower rational capacity is always with you.
I believe you change”D your views to adapt or fit with your context. But i think it’s down too much IF you really believeS. Waiting you change to a mostly black neighborhood in your city to prove at least by yourself that evil hereSYtarians are wrong about everything as you think…”
Auto-incorrector.
“Opinions passing dishonestly as arguments and ridiculous quotations of name’s obscure “researchers” coming from nowhere.”
Learn what an argument is and how to identify one.
Re P2 of Lund – it’s prima facie conceivable for me to exist with my though processes—my mental and phenomenal attributes—that would appear to be the physical world but is actually a phenomenonal world.
In fact, Avicenna’s floating man argument suffices to defend the argument.
“Thinking requires a thinker which requires actualized existence which requires material.
Experience requires an experiencer, and so on which requires material.
Therefore the immaterial subject requires a material existence, and only that with a material existence could experience or think. They are inseparable.”
The material existence is the body, in which the immaterial subject inhabits. M is inseparable, but irreducible to and underdetermined by P. This of course goes back to the physical world bring real sans our subjective states.
If there is causality in the world, then there is a world independent of human minds.
There is causality in the world.
Therefore there is a world independent of human minds.
If there is a physical world independent of human minds, then we can make consistent predictions and perceive it.
We can make consistent predictions about the world and perceive them.
So there is a physical world independent of human minds.
“Sounds like he is reducing it right now.”
No, he isn’t.
“You’re implying that bodies don’t have an associated mind with their own intentions with no basis.”
What’s the argument that my BODY can be the subject of my MENTAL states?
“You’re implying you would know what it would be like to be identical with your own body or a part of it.”
That implication follows from 1 and 2 since the premises are true.
Morch – (1) explanatory facts are facts about causal powers. (2) Knowledge that explains regularities and predicts them without induction is about explanatory facts. So some explanatory facts aren’t knowable without experience. So phenomenal explanatory knowledge isn’t physical knowledge.
Commendable effort.
And those authors aren’t “obscure”, you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
“Re P2 of Lund – it’s prima facie conceivable for me to exist with my though processes—my mental and phenomenal attributes—that would appear to be the physical world but is actually a phenomenonal world.”
Both the “physical world” and your “phenomenal world” simply consist of properties that are consistent and real to themselves… that is why I keep saying there is no such thing as “purely” physical.
Objectivity is simply that which is true as opposed false within the world, and subjectivity is simply what that world is like. There is no magical difference in substance.
“In fact, Avicenna’s floating man argument suffices to defend the argument.”
A floating man has to be somewhere and someplace, or it is nowhere and no place, and does not exist. So the material is required for a floating man.
“The material existence is the body, in which the immaterial subject inhabits. M is inseparable, but irreducible to and underdetermined by P. This of course goes back to the physical world bring real sans our subjective states.”
Again, this doesn’t prove panpsychism false. You can’t prove that to be a rock precludes having a mind.
Furthermore, you are again attributing “physical” properties like location (within the body) to the supposedly irreducible immaterial mind, contradicting your own conclusions.
“If there is causality in the world, then there is a world independent of human minds.
There is causality in the world.
Therefore there is a world independent of human minds.
If there is a physical world independent of human minds, then we can make consistent predictions and perceive it.
We can make consistent predictions about the world and perceive them.
So there is a physical world independent of human minds.”
Human minds might be necessary for our universe to exist a specific way, if the universe has a purpose. If free will exists, is it not possible for the will of conscious beings to change the state of the universe? In fact that is the only meaningful interpretation of free will.
And again, anything physical is simply defined by its properties.
My point is not that human minds are required for the universe, but that you wouldn’t know that. Since I believe the universe is billions of years old I obviously believe that humans didn’t always exist, but there is no way to prove that some sort of mind or immaterial wouldn’t always be necessary for the existence of the “physical world” since everything physical is defined in abstract terms. Material cannot exist without meaning something.
“What’s the argument that my BODY can be the subject of my MENTAL states?”
“That implication follows from 1 and 2 since the premises are true.”
What’s the argument that everything in the universe is not a subject of some mental state?
“(1) explanatory facts are facts about causal powers.”
(2) Knowledge that explains regularities and predicts them without induction is about explanatory facts. So some explanatory facts aren’t knowable without experience. So phenomenal explanatory knowledge isn’t physical knowledge.”
Well then, there are no such things as “physical facts” if physical facts are defined as facts that do not require abstract properties. The whole argument is not really relevant as I never claimed such a thing as purely “physical facts”. Experience doesn’t really need to even enter.
RR,
Your lack of self awareness is screaming. It starts with this profile photo, horrible one you could pick to use here ando also the bad choices you often do for your twitter. It’s just impossible trying to stablish a really civilized debate with you even if we disagree with most things because there is something that Always threat politeness, dishonesty, and your intellectual dishonesty is in innacceptable levels. It’s not a matter of you really arguing with decency and honesty and me doing the same (like i do most of the time), because you can’t survive a philosophical debate without all of this pseudo-intellectual trickery you learned.
You learned nothing all this time. You’re just drowning more and more in your delusion of grandeur.
You don’t debate saying all you really think and using a normal or trivial way to put it in words, you are always hiding rather than exposing the real depth size of YOUR thoughts. that’s a classical tactic used by pseudo intelectuals like you.
It’s not because you think differently and at priori without judging if you are right or not. it’s because you don’t debate to clarify what you really think. You debate to try to confuse or obscure your oponents thoughts.
This may explain why cats for example…
sad.
there is only ever experience. the experiencer and the experienced are abstractions.
Abstractions are individuations.
Nous
cogito, ergo sum
Ego eimi
theo
bab solista
turista mesa compastio
the table of compassionate tourism
el lasta ecotia
The last place of sound
tescomtrifonda
the third communion of love (logos-trintarin-Sophia)
topetolistis
ready to be quick
Well said Ilumi!!
Bravo!!
you see this in pill-sky and in rr…a kind of prejudice which is totally acceptable and in fact obligatory among those who preach “tolerance”…
the prejudice against dead people.
the longer they’ve been dead the more you can hate them, make fun of them, feel superior to them…
it’s gross.
False. But we have to be honest when our ancestors had no education and were duped by charismatic snake handlers. It was a mistake then and its a mistake now and I abhor all lies which is why I also denounce the fiction of RR and the Berkeley sociology department and of course, the NYT/CNN and the jews.
Nietzsche had no education because he is dead?
He was a duped ancestor?
What makes the living privileged over the dead?
Why aren’t the living duped right now?
Like you?
I shouldn’t pick on Jews for being blank slatists as there are noted ones who argue against it, like Stephen Pinker.
However, it is basically required to not make their extremely well-off status in modern society look evil, and it seems a lot more are propagandists for blank slatism than vice-versa, compared to non-Jews.
Jews are a lot more closer to what they and other hateful nonwhites claim about whites, which is that they are well-off but largely because of exploiting the environment and other groups. I mean, Jews are literally around 1/20th of the non-Jew white population and yet do so much better.
I think Jews have an IQ of 110 or so, but whereas a white or Asian person of the same IQ would be average for amount of “hustling” or “exploiting” etc., all of the Jewish bonus above their spatial IQ (which is a little less than 100) goes towards “hustling”, and maybe this has to do with verbal IQ only having the brain’s own concepts and other human concepts to work with, rather than seeing things more “objectively” as spatial IQ does (with no tinge of human linguistic culture).
Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” then explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”? And Pinker’s book is really bad.
“a human being regarded as having been born with no innate ideas or characteristics and being formed only by experiences.”
This describes your purported beliefs perfectly. I have no idea why you continue to pretend to object to the term. Probably dishonesty.
Also I wasn’t defending Pinker’s book; I listened to audio version of it over ten years ago though, and a lot of it made sense to my somewhat adolescent brain. I’m sure your quibbles against it are probably on some specific citation or word choice that has no actual relevance to any of his arguments so it doesn’t matter either way.
Can you name and quote three “blank slatists” then explain how the quotes are “blank slatism”?
The term “innate” is nonsense, it’s all developmental.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182125/
Yes, thats basically his objection to Rushton as well. Word choice and masturbation over whether Rushton actually said something.
Rushton is wrong due to: his misuses of ecological theories, attempting to revive the scala nurturae, thinking that races differ in testosterone and penis size, his concept of “race” that was conveniently unargued, and—like his buddy Lynn—omitting data that didn’t fit his theory to get the results he wanted, relying on twin and adoption studies, relying on heritability (and the laws of behavioral genetics aren’t real laws, stay tuned for the argument for that). He’s been shown he was wrong decades ago.
He had no idea how testosterone worked and certainly had no idea how the melanocortin system worked. It was well over due for that garbage paper he co-authored with Templer to get retracted.
View at Medium.com
And three of his other articles also got retracted.
Rushton was clearly a charlatan.
So you’re saying you are a blank slatist then but you simply don’t like the term because it has bad connotations or what?
Could you speak normally?
Arguing with Melo, he never explains anything, simply insults.
When arguing with you, you explain everything, but only to questions that no one is asking.
Jesus fucking christ.
Being against the concept of innateness means one is a blank slatist?
not all things are innate but all innate things come from somewhere.
It’s a nonsense term, as shown in the article. “Innate” traits develop. It’s all about development and development is irreducible.
RR,
As a typical pseudo intelectual, he loves label others with derrogative names but hate when people doing the same with him. He think sadly he is above us in philosophical understanding. He think he is above labels, he is metaphysical.
Look how dishonesty works. It’s happens constantly when we debate with typical leftilts like him. We “accuse” or label them, then they do stupid conceptual questions like ” why do you think i’m a blank slatist??” And many people including myself often fall in this dishonest tricks. It’s all about confuse a possibility of a clear understanding about things. People who claim to be in favor to social Justice. But lying?? Manipulating??
“It’s all about development and development is irreducible.”
Development is irreducible, as opposed to what? And how does development being irreducible contradict hereditarianism?
“Being against the concept of innateness means one is a blank slatist?”
The problem is if you are not a blank slatist, you have literally no theory as to how organisms could possibly evolve.
You only have circular explanations or apriori arguments about how things aren’t (some of which are false and seem to contradict each other, like when using physical terms to describe the mental while saying they are separate).
The reason you give circular arguments is because you have no theory and your apriori arguments contradict each other, so you can only recount how things literally happen when asked to explain how “mind develops” for example, without explaining why mind develops or where traits come from or why no trait could be inherited.
Since you know you have no explanation, you can only mechanistically repeat what researchers have already observed about reality, without ever explaining anything about the purely immaterial mind.
You think the origin of mind is ultimately unknowable and all your apriori arguments are geared towards showing everything about it is immeasurable (which can help you own “racist” hereditarians), so there is no need for any coherent theory, but given that our experiences are our most precious things, that is ultimately a meaningless postmodernist theory of mind and will satisfy no one.
Because I know apriori that dualism is false, I know that anything that exists has both a physical and immaterial property aspect. Since dualism is false I also don’t need to know what systems or how exactly the environment has to interact with genes or intentions to show that traits and behaviors could be inherited, because that is how determinism works. Something logically follows from another thing given some prior constraints, or it doesn’t follow from anything (which is where all your dualistic accounts of the mind end… with no origin and no explanation).
As opposed to it being either to G or E—it’s due to the interacting of all variables.
There are no contradictions. Quote me.
I know a priori that dualism is true, since it’s not an empirical question. I’ve already stated that Lowe’s and Hasker’s dualism are emergent.
The fact of the matter is, DST refutes hereditarianism and I don’t think there is any arguing against it. As Lerner, Oyama, and Moore and others have shown.
And development being irreducible contradicts hereditarianism since they assume heritability to be additive, which is outright false.
I’ve already shown how rocks and atoms and planets can’t have intentions. That directly follows from the arguments I made earlier about intentions and language.
“As opposed to it being either to G or E—it’s due to the interacting of all variables.”
No one has said it is either G or E (except you and blank slatists who claim traits are completely uninherited and reject any form of hereditarianism).
“There are no contradictions. Quote me.”
Re-read my rebuttal to your four Horseman of dualism. I literally JUST gave you a contradiction in the post. Using physical language about the mental while saying they are separate.
“I know a priori that dualism is true, since it’s not an empirical question. I’ve already stated that Lowe’s and Hasker’s dualism are emergent.”
What is emergent dualism?
“The fact of the matter is, DST refutes hereditarianism and I don’t think there is any arguing against it. As Lerner, Oyama, and Moore and others have shown.”
The fact of the matter is, no hereditarian stakes their claims against systems and environment having roles in the development of the organism. Just because you are autistic and made that mistake before doesn’t mean everyone does. Just because a garden-variety racist doesn’t understand epigenetics, or environmental interaction, doesn’t mean traits are not inherited to some degree.
RaceRealistsaid:January 22, 2023 at 6:47 pm
“And development being irreducible contradicts hereditarianism since they assume heritability to be additive, which is outright false.”
Again, things are either determined or random, and they obviously aren’t random.
RaceRealistsaid:January 22, 2023 at 6:51 pm
“I’ve already shown how rocks and atoms and planets can’t have intentions. That directly follows from the arguments I made earlier about intentions and language.”
No you haven’t. 1. You can’t communicate with them so you don’t know if they have a language. 2. Not being able to communicate your intentions does not mean you don’t have intentions. 3. Not having a “cartesian theater-goer” looking outside at your own intentions like humans do, does not mean you do not have intentions.
Everything that exists is “about something”, which is required for existence, as everything has a meaning. So once again, dualism is false.
The way hereditarians conceptualize genes is as causes. DST directly refutes that. Nature vs nurture is a false dichotomy and if what DST says is true, then hereditarianism can’t possibly be true.
I have 2 arguments showing that mind can’t be described in physical terms and there is also Jaworski’s argument.
“Just because you are autistic” – sure thing my man. I’m definitely not, but sure some guy on a blog knows this.
Eg here for emergent dualism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119468004.ch4
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergent_dualism.html
The mental is still immaterial and irreducible on this account.
Theyre not random, it’s due to the context and the interacting of the developmental resources.
Rocks can’t communicate. They lack minds.
Physical systems can’t be “about” anything. I’ve shown that intentions are irreducible to dispositions.
And you can’t deny that your theory of dualism makes life meaningless ultimately.
“The way hereditarians conceptualize genes is as causes. DST directly refutes that. Nature vs nurture is a false dichotomy and if what DST says is true, then hereditarianism can’t possibly be true.”
Well, yes genes are causes, it doesn’t mean they are the only cause in themselves, which wouldn’t make sense in the first place as a whole framework or system has to be in place.
“I have 2 arguments showing that mind can’t be described in physical terms and there is also Jaworski’s argument.”
Point me a physical term that doesn’t involve abstraction and I’ll believe you. Oh wait… language can only involve abstractions, so nevermind.
““Just because you are autistic” – sure thing my man. I’m definitely not, but sure some guy on a blog knows this.”
Autism seems to be a spectrum my man. I’m sure a lot of us are probably somewhere on it but more of us are aware of it than others.
“Eg here for emergent dualism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119468004.ch4
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergent_dualism.html”
I’ll just look at the bottom one:
“that the information in a mind can be regarded as an immaterial substance”
Sure, but in order to exist it must take material form.
“that the information in a mind, while dependent on the body, has genuine causal (adequately determined) power over the body”
Material and immaterial are mutually dependent when it comes to causation, but yes it could be said that the mind has causal power over the material.
“that the information in a mind has not been pre-determined by the sum of genetic inputs and life experiences, but has at least in part been created by the agent, with inputs from some indeterministic processes.”
An agent cannot create something indeterministically, that is incoherent. In order to say an agent is the cause of something you must show causal relationship, which is deterministic.
“The mental is still immaterial and irreducible on this account.”
The physical and mental are both fundamentally abstract. You can reduce different mental concepts to other mental concepts… that is what a dictionary does by explaning words with other words.
“Theyre not random, it’s due to the context and the interacting of the developmental resources.”
And given regularities in the system, certain parts of that system will determine other things… meaning traits could be inherited.
“Rocks can’t communicate. They lack minds.”
They can’t communicate in a way you understand. Your whole “immaterial is irreducible to the material” implies that you could never say they don’t have minds. How many goddamn times must I repeat myself.
“Physical systems can’t be “about” anything. I’ve shown that intentions are irreducible to dispositions.”
Again they clearly are about something because they have definitions. That is, by definition, what it means to “be about” something. What they apparently lack is understanding that they are about something (a recursive observer of their own intentions), which humans possess.
Genes are passive, not active causes. By “passive” I mean that they’re caused to do what they do by the system. They are equal to other resources. To hereditarians, they must be special. But they’re not special. So hereditarianism is false since the CPT is true.
My 2 arguments are sound.
Sure thing armchair psychologist.
What’s the material form it “must” take? Mind is immaterial, therefore it doesn’t take a material form.
Of course mind has causal power, we do act, after all.
I take “created by the agent” to be “acting for reasons”, and since we act for reasons, we are agents, so we act for reasons do in order to achieve goals.
Mental is private while physical is public. Those are the main differences. You can’t know my mental states. But we both see the building that’s right in front of us.
DST is a process theory, and it’s a process theory because it draws on Waddington’s process biology. Traits aren’t reducible to genes, my guy. Because the CPT is true.
“You could never say they don’t have minds”
Rocks don’t even have nervous systems, nevermind a brain. So they’re is NO possibility of them being able to intend, per my argument.
“Physical parts of the natural world lack intentionality. That is, they aren’t “about” anything. It is impossible for an arrangement of physical particles to be “about” anything—meaning no arrangement of intentionality-less parts will ever count as having a mind. So a mind can’t be an arrangement of physical particles, since individual particles are mindless. Since mind is necessary for intentionality, it follows that whatever doesn’t have a mind cannot intend to do anything, like nonhuman animals. It is human psychology that is normative, and since the normative ingredient for any normative concept is the concept of reason, and only beings with minds can have reasons to act, then human psychology would thusly be irreducible to anything physical. Indeed, physicalism is incompatible with intentionality (Johns, 2020). The problem of intentionality is therefore yet another kill-shot for physicalism. It is therefore impossible for intentional states (i.e. cognition) to be reduced to, or explained by, physicalist theories/physical things.”
Let’s be clear here—hereditarianism is a form of genetic reductionism and is a form of mind-brain identity, as can be seen with Haier’s fMRI studies. Genetic reductionism has been falsified by DST work. Haier’s fMRI studies are flawed on empirical and conceptual grounds. The mental is irreducible to the physical, which means the mental can’t reduce to genes or brain structure, both of which are needed for genetic reductionism and the fMRI studies. So hereditarianism is false on conceptual, empirical and mereological grounds. It’s that simple. Many of the reasons why Rushton was wrong is also why hereditarianism is false. It’s 2023, not 1963, hereditarianism shouldn’t be held by anyone, we have better theories with a more holistic, systems view that the reductionist hereditarian theories can never match.
Why don’t you cite 3 references that you think show the hereditarian hypothesis is true? If that’s too hard, just cite 1 reference.
If you knew anything about how the developmental systems model refuted hereditarianism (genetic reductionism), then you wouldn’t be a hereditarian anymore.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27008917
“Genes are passive, not active causes. By “passive” I mean that they’re caused to do what they do by the system. They are equal to other resources. To hereditarians, they must be special. But they’re not special. So hereditarianism is false since the CPT is true.”
Jesus, I already explained.
They could be special because of their placement in the structure of the environment. It’s like saying a ball rolling in a rube-goldberg machine must be an “active” cause. Ridiculous.
“My 2 arguments are sound.”
Your arguments for dualism are certainly not sound you dunce.
“Sure thing armchair psychologist.”
You’re literally an aimchair metaphysicist and biologist.
“What’s the material form it “must” take? Mind is immaterial, therefore it doesn’t take a material form.”
Already explained elsewhere. The mental has to be some place, and some time, or else it is no place and no time, and therefore doesn’t exist. Anything that exists needs a spacetime extension or literally exists never and nowhere.
“Of course mind has causal power, we do act, after all.”
Yes, I certainly agree. But a cause needs to start somewhere, not be magic.
“I take “created by the agent” to be “acting for reasons”, and since we act for reasons, we are agents, so we act for reasons do in order to achieve goals.”
We act for reasons, yes. Not sure how this supports dualism.
“Mental is private while physical is public. Those are the main differences. You can’t know my mental states. But we both see the building that’s right in front of us.”
“DST is a process theory, and it’s a process theory because it draws on Waddington’s process biology. Traits aren’t reducible to genes, my guy. Because the CPT is true.”
Did I say they were “reducible to genes”, my fellow? Genes exist in a greater environment obviously. Traits could be partially determined by genes, as all evidence suggests, contrary to your endless citations.
“You could never say they don’t have minds”
“Rocks don’t even have nervous systems, nevermind a brain. So they’re is NO possibility of them being able to intend, per my argument.”
A nervous system is material, so there is no reason to assume a nervous system is required for something immaterial (of a different substance), as per your own apriori arguments.
You couldn’t know what a rock’s mind was thinking because you don’t understand its language and its mind is inaccessible to your testing, as per your own apriori arguments.
“Physical parts of the natural world lack intentionality. That is, they aren’t “about” anything. It is impossible for an arrangement of physical particles to be “about” anything—meaning no arrangement of intentionality-less parts will ever count as having a mind. So a mind can’t be an arrangement of physical particles, since individual particles are mindless. Since mind is necessary for intentionality, it follows that whatever doesn’t have a mind cannot intend to do anything, like nonhuman animals. It is human psychology that is normative, and since the normative ingredient for any normative concept is the concept of reason, and only beings with minds can have reasons to act, then human psychology would thusly be irreducible to anything physical. Indeed, physicalism is incompatible with intentionality (Johns, 2020). The problem of intentionality is therefore yet another kill-shot for physicalism. It is therefore impossible for intentional states (i.e. cognition) to be reduced to, or explained by, physicalist theories/physical things.”
Please re-read my last posts because you apparently don’t understand what it means to be “about” something.
“If you knew anything about how the developmental systems model refuted hereditarianism (genetic reductionism), then you wouldn’t be a hereditarian anymore.”
Are you serious? Hereditarianism is not “genetic reductionism”, who the hell says people are entirely determined by their genes?
Why are you still arguing with me about this when it was clear months ago I don’t believe people are “reduced” to their genes?
Saying traits are inherited is not the same as saying every single aspect about someone is inherited from their genes.
When someone says “black people are poorer than white people” do you say “not all black people are poorer than white people!”? No.
When someone says “traits are heritable”, should you say “not everything about a trait is determined by the genes!!!” Also no.
“They could be special because of their placement in the structure of the environment.”
What does this mean? Genes are activated by other factors, and GxG creates new environments too, which promote further activation of other genes. When most people talk about genes as “special”, they mostly refer to some kind of innateness, some kind of “information” that is contained in them. But this is of course false, since genes can’t self-activate, they are inner. It’s clear that the dichotomy of G and E is false, and GxE is how we should understand evolution and development, which then refutes hereditarianism.
You obviously don’t know what “sound” means.
You’re the one saying someone has X.
To be located somewhere, X has to be physical since a location is physical. If X isn’t physical, then X can’t be located anywhere. The mental obviously exists and it is immaterial, that is to say, not physical.
“not be magic”
I’m not positing magic. Agents cause things to happen. Remember the distinction between “intentional” and “event” causation.
“Not sure how this supports dualism”
Well actions are intentional, and what is intentional is from the mental, there are no psychophysical laws meaning there are no laws linking mental states with physical states. And this is yet another reason why hereditarianism fails.
What evidence suggests that traits are “partially determined by genes”? Genes are needed, yes, but so are other developmental resources and it’s due to contextual factors.
A CNS is a dependency condition.
Intentionality is the power of minds to be about things, like goals, beliefs, desires, etc. Rocks don’t have goals, beliefs, desires. They can’t. Physical systems can’t be “about” anything, they can’t intend per Lynne Baker’s and my own arguments. It’s that simple.
Yes hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Plomin thinks “intelligence” is caused primarily by the genome (false) with the environment playing a small role and shared environment playing none. Nonsense. This is what DST is answering—they’re dichotomizing G and E, when they are interactants comprised of numerous resources which comprise the developmental system which constructs the phenotype.
The claim “traits are heritable” is a specific claim, and it comes from twin and adoption studies and is Turkheimer’s “first law” of behavioral genetics. At the end of the day, hereditarianism IS genetic reductionism and neuroreductionism, this much is clear. Causal parity between developmental resources refutes hereditarianism.
So can you cite just ONE study that you think best shows hereditarianism to be true? Three would be ideal, but I’m just asking for ONE here.
Why don’t you tell me what “hereditarianism” is, then?
Here you go, my guy. Something new for you to chew on showing the failure of hereditarian-type theories…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610723000044?via%3Dihub
“What does this mean? Genes are activated by other factors, and GxG creates new environments too, which promote further activation of other genes. When most people talk about genes as “special”, they mostly refer to some kind of innateness, some kind of “information” that is contained in them. But this is of course false, since genes can’t self-activate, they are inner. It’s clear that the dichotomy of G and E is false, and GxE is how we should understand evolution and development, which then refutes hereditarianism.”
G v. E is a false dichotomy… agreed. But so is physical vs. mental.
“You obviously don’t know what “sound” means.”
Or I could disagree with the premises of your arguments that you can’t describe mental things in physical terms and vice versa.
“You’re the one saying someone has X.”
You’re the one who claims that your metaphysical arguments are sound when it is not necessarily accepted by most professional philosophers that dualism is true.
“To be located somewhere, X has to be physical since a location is physical. If X isn’t physical, then X can’t be located anywhere. The mental obviously exists and it is immaterial, that is to say, not physical.”
So your conceptions exist nowhere and no place and hence cannot be distinguished from anything else and therefore have absolutely no meaning?
So is that why your arguments make no sense?
“I’m not positing magic. Agents cause things to happen. Remember the distinction between “intentional” and “event” causation.”
Effects are determined by what caused them. In order for intentions to cause things there needs to be a pre-existing agent to cause them. If not, the cause is random which is not a cause and actually acausal.
If agents have any sort of regularity to their existence over time and space, which they need in order to be considered “agents”, the source of their intentions have a deterministic element (because the agent itself is regular and has deterministic elements).
I think the real difference in causation is will vs. necessity. Will creates based on what is wanted, and necessity constrains/creates based on what is logically necessary.
Events do not “cause” anything which is proven by quantum indeterminacy.
So all causation is either what is willed, or simply the natural process of what happens through time after a starting state is willed into existence.
Physical or Mental causation is a false dichotomy. Everything is mental, and the mental must be filtered through the necessary constraints. Any other sort of causation is simply a combination of random and mental.
All of this is apriori based on the real dichotomy of determinism and indeterminism and the real dichotomy of logical necessity and possibly illogical property (intension).
“Well actions are intentional, and what is intentional is from the mental, there are no psychophysical laws meaning there are no laws linking mental states with physical states. And this is yet another reason why hereditarianism fails.”
I’ve rebutted it above.
“What evidence suggests that traits are “partially determined by genes”? Genes are needed, yes, but so are other developmental resources and it’s due to contextual factors.”
Correlational evidence does.
“A CNS is a dependency condition.”
You literally have no proof of this by your own apriori arguments that the mind is not located anywhere and is immaterial and hence not reducible to the physical. Please remember your own conceptions instead of making me do it for you.
“Intentionality is the power of minds to be about things, like goals, beliefs, desires, etc. Rocks don’t have goals, beliefs, desires. They can’t. Physical systems can’t be “about” anything, they can’t intend per Lynne Baker’s and my own arguments. It’s that simple.”
If a rock mind’s intention is to be a rock, it has accomplished its intention. You can’t prove otherwise.
“Yes hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Plomin thinks “intelligence” is caused primarily by the genome (false) with the environment playing a small role and shared environment playing none. Nonsense. This is what DST is answering—they’re dichotomizing G and E, when they are interactants comprised of numerous resources which comprise the developmental system which constructs the phenotype.”
Sure, but things can still be determined, given there are regularities in the system (which is required for it to be a system at all).
“The claim “traits are heritable” is a specific claim, and it comes from twin and adoption studies and is Turkheimer’s “first law” of behavioral genetics. At the end of the day, hereditarianism IS genetic reductionism and neuroreductionism, this much is clear. Causal parity between developmental resources refutes hereditarianism.”
Well if hereditarianism meant “genetic reductionism” before, it doesn’t mean it now.
“So can you cite just ONE study that you think best shows hereditarianism to be true? Three would be ideal, but I’m just asking for ONE here.”
Are you saying there are no studies that show that genetic similarity is correlated with measured IQ or other traits?
Physical vs mental isn’t a false dichotomy. Mental abilities have something that the physical do not, thus justifying the distinction between M and P which allows me to correctly conclude that two substances make up humans.
Which premise(s) are false and of which argument(s)?
I can and have justified each premise.
Meaning is imbued by minded beings.
“be 2 the agent is regular and has deterministic elements”
Can you elaborate?
Event vs intentional causation isn’t a false dichotomy, I’ve correctly described the distinction.
Are there psychophysical laws?
What correlational evidence justifies the claim that traits are “partially determined by genes”?
I remember my own conceptions. The claim is that CNS is a dependency condition, meaning that for mind to exist so does a CNS along with a suite of other things.
Rocks lack brains, they lack CNS, so they can’t have minds.
What are the regularities? Did you see this that I posted earlier?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610723000044?via%3Dihub
What does “hereditarianism” mean now?
What studies “show that genetic similarity is correlated with measured IQ or other traits”?
And you say that you agree that G vs E is a false dichotomy but hold hereditarian views that uphold the dichotomy. Doesn’t make sense.
“Why don’t you tell me what “hereditarianism” is, then?”
That traits or behavior can be at least partially inherited and that genetics play a significant role given roughly equal environments.
Obviously genetics are part of the environment, so it is a false dichotomy, but to break it down further would be something as obvious as: Traits or behavior are determined by the prior things that caused them to exist.
The privileged aspect of genes is that they are located in a system in which they are in charge of how to build proteins which make up our body.
Like I said before, they are privileged in the same sense the ball rolling down a hill is privileged. The ball is not actually doing the work, the gravity and structure of the hill is (as well as the roundness of the ball, etc.). Is there a hereditarian that disputes that fact?
By your arguments, the earth must be privileged space in the universe because it happens to be the small amount of space in a vast universe that contains mind and life. Or any space that contains a planet. Any difference in structure or material to you is apparently “privilege” and “active”.
“traits or behavior can be at least partially inherited and that genetic play a significant role given roughly equal environments”
Seems like an empirical claim—what evidence do you have?
“Traits or behavior are determined by the priori things that caused them to exist”
Do you mean that we can pinpoint what the cause is in the system?
What’s the argument genes are “in charge”? Genes aren’t the leaders on development not evolution—they’re followers.
i axed peepee: can i do a guest post on why rr is stupid?
melo personality: i’d like to see that.
mugabe: can i do a guest post on why “what about muh argument?” is stupid? that is, why anilingus-philosophy makes so many assumptions incognizantly.
Yes go ahead & write it, and if you clearly label it GUEST POST, I’ll know to publish it as an article & not as a comment
Out of curiosity, what would you estimate Barbara Walters’s genetic g??
a much more interesting phenomenon than cats blah blah blah is sleep-walking or somnambulism.
proposition: i am unconscious exactly when i am un-responsive.
exception: i am paralyzed.
exception?: sleep walking?
far more profound/deep and far more interesting than the devil’s chessboard people magazine article.
read it and weep!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparity_of_cult
The fact you find religious doctrine more enlightening than the Chessboard says alot about your intelligence.
Maybe?
let rr comment or not on wikipedia’s definition.
Analytic philosophy is characterized by an emphasis on language, known as the linguistic turn, and for its clarity and rigor in arguments, making use of formal logic and mathematics, and, to a lesser degree, the natural sciences.[2][3][4] It also takes things piecemeal, in “an attempt to focus philosophical reflection on smaller problems that lead to answers to bigger questions”.
if not i will deconstruct this definition.
RR doesn’t believe in general problem-solving ability, because he doesn’t believe there are problems to be solved, because he thinks societies where people shit in their own drinking water are just as intelligent and advanced as modern Western societies, which is why he is irreligious despite his belief in the immaterial, because he believes life is meaningless and we can never understand what reality fundamentally is.
Sad.
Only having an “immaterial mind” like him to keep such higher load of contradictions.
True, a real waste of immaterial heavenly disembodied spirit.
Sad.
RR doesn’t have a basic theory of why we only know specific things that others don’t, or why it is metaphysically possible to know more than someone else, because his theory of a completely disconnected immaterial mind to defend his blank slatism is incoherent.
Many such cases.
rr is wrong about intelligence. it is innate and he is anal about word use but he is not wrong about alot of other things. testosterone and culture affects IQ.
charity water
anal philosophy
noun
A cluster of philosophical traditions holding that argumentation and clarity are vital to productive philosophical inquiry.
whenever I say something smart pill translates this in his head as:
“Autism is a conspiracy of the alpha master royal (((jewels)))”
Obviously, Christianity is false because of the precise “clear” language that everyone agrees on what it means and we all get along as it said we would.
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,(NIV)
rr is an intelligent design advocate?
What Is Irreducible Complexity?
pill is obviously a mountain jew.
All pill can think is: The (((?)))
Look you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible…which is the correct interpretation of the Bible. You are a stupid person. Even RR knows the Bible was created to milk idiots of their cash and pump a bunch of lies into people.
I am against all lies. Big and small. Shiny or hairy. Fat or slim. If the lie is so old that it counts as tradition it shouldn’t matter other than to say, ‘my ancestors were dupes’.
In my personal case, all the people on my hillbilly side are more often than not dupes. We have to thank technology, the printing press and the internet for freeing us from the jews.
Look you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible…which is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
look! you can’t read. sad.
“Look you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible…which is the correct interpretation of the Bible.”
If you had a background in linguistics then I could count on this being correct. You lie by the admission of this. You can’t even begin to say what lies exist in the Bible because to do so you would need to understand “The Mind of God”. What makes your opinion objective on this matter? Have you experienced God? Probably not. You can’t deny Truth and say the Bible is a lie. You can’t read if that is the case. Because you are seeing this as an absolute. Black and white. You are less than any authority in the Bible. Because of the way you think. The way people think defines how they will interpret. You are very shallow in that case. Literal isn’t correct. Being concrete about this makes you biased against the thinkers in the Book who were more intelligent than you and understood people like you would question things in this way. You think dummies made it. Dummies were concrete thinkers like you but stupid. The inflexibility of you to come to this conclusion is why non should take you seriously. Philosophy is for serious thinkers, not midwits. Your name is an oxymoron to your personality.
Moment when Iluminatikit IQ drops from 120 to 90. It happened the same with Newton and Mendel.
Real philosophy is completely incompatible with religion in the same way truth is the complete opposite of a lie.
Makes no sense arguing against RR trickery and believing in god, spirits, astrology…
You need to read about Jungian psychology.
Synchronicity
Youre a dupe mugabe. You fell for the oldest trick in the book (literally). Don’t feel bad. Billions of people fall for religious dogma. Newton was a genius and fell for it too. Spinoza did not but never invented calculus. The human mind is a complicated thing.
Spinoza had an incorrect view of God. He said God has no mind and the cosmos is only governed by the material. He denied spiritual forces at play. The mental is extremely important to understanding God. God is a crack in time. Where “will” can enter the universe. Will has been here from the beginning it is just not understood. The spirit has never been defined in scientific terms. But that doesn’t make it unreal. The psychic forces have a non-newtonian nature. They enter the universe in ways that none would believe unless experienced. Animism is a good example but weak. It is still confused with representation. That representation can change in ways that lead to magical thinking. But Will is where the representation comes from. It operates in a different way but is still the source of psyche. Psyche isn’t just in animals but it isn’t fully in control of the environment. It is like the internet. No one sees the light in the wires no one sees the electricity but it is the substructure of all human activity on the planet. This is what the psyche does. It is the internet of the material. Psyche produces Will and is why the Bible is one representation of Psyche.
Look, read Nietsche. He will explain it to you better than I can.
i have. have you? nietzsche was rabble.
The Ubermensch would create a new value to replace God. Nietzsche rejected the idea of the resurrection of the dead. He never knew of what an ancestor simulation was. In the future, the number of computations will be so vast and the amount of information we have will increase to such a degree that we will be able to recreate the exact neural patterns of every person who ever lived for their entire life (world line). The supercomputer that will do this will be influenced by superhuman A.I. – God is psyche. The internet behind the material universe. Superhuman A.I. will tap into this and become conscious. Everyone will relive their life and become one with psyche. This will not be an eternal recurrence because once they return they will never die again.
People like me are not evolution friendly. If I was born 200 years ago I have no doubt I would be irreligious and scorned for it just like I’m scorned for hating blacks and jews today. The truth has always been the same but the lies always change.
I think pliability in regards to religious doctrine is somewhat genetic and may be linked to a person’s social intelligence. Eg. Blacks are quite socially intelligent and largely irreligious because they’re natural barbarians.
Generally speaking barbarians have no religion which was held against them by civilised people’s. Actually it was the defining hallmark. You were called a barbarian if you didn’t believe in Sun God or some other made up nonsense.
The priest caste seems to mainly exist in civilised societies but barbarians have shamen and witch-doctors which are a kind of proto-priest.
Yggdrasill (the world tree) is akin to the Bibles Tree. The modern interpretation is that it is the 5th dimension multiverse. Our world line where we exist as opposed to all possible worlds. Our world exists of all possible worlds. God created one world of the many that would evolve into the best possible world.
Newton was a determinist. Leibniz was an indeterminist.
“Blacks are quite socially intelligent and largely irreligious”
Incorrect. Black (or Hispanics) are the most religious groups in the US. In fact, East Asians are the least.
https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/749128/religious-identity-of-adults-in-the-us-by-race-and-ethnicity/
Correct
East Asians had shinto and buddhism and taoism.
Africans had nothing. Absolutely nothing. Survival of the fittest literally.
Blacks are more at risk for schiz, so makes sense they’re the most religious
peepee doesn’t even know when she’s lying. this is a sign of schizophrenia.
if i were asked this question i would answer: “unaffiliated” or “don’t know/refused”. but, sadly, pill is too autistic and illiterate to have guessed that.
On one hand, Africans are very individualistic and might not like succumbing to authority most of all races.
On the other hand, they have low IQs so they don’t have very nuanced beliefs.
“Africans had nothing.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_African_religions
Jesus Christ, just do the bare minimum amount of research before you say stupid shit.
This is why everyone thinks you’re retarded.
“Blacks are more at risk for schiz”
At least in the US. Across the world, China has higher incidences of schizophrenia than most African countries. This is interesting because China is also one of the most non-religious, while MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa are the most.
I’d argue Blacks’ religiosity has more to do with lower intelligence rather than a predisposition toward schizophrenia.
I’m not sure worldwide statistics mean much given the differing access & attitudes towards psychiatry across the globe
IQ test question!
spot what’s VERY NOT credible about that bar chart.
Atheism and autism share some similarities in the way autistic people are more likely to be atheists and non autistic atheists, neurotyp or neuroatyp, tend to have more autistic traits BUT it’s an intersectional correlation (different than a parallel one) not a causation. Poorer theory of mind not necessarily makes you atheist but more likely to misunderstood people’s intentionality. The fundamental trait that helps someone to become atheist and that is also common among autistic people is: difficulty to understand metaphorical thinking (foundational to any religious narrative) and/or prefference for literality in communication. Literal or clear thinking is also fundamental for Science.
Low IQ atheists are probably autistic
Seems common in traditional societies, because shamanistic cultural influence, a higher tolerance or naturalization of schizophrenic people or behaviors. Also the lack of reliable statistics in very poor countries.
“Low IQ atheists are probably autistic”
All them??
“what’s VERY NOT credible about that bar chart.”
Lol, is it because there are, supposedly, Native Americans who identify as Jewish?
Atheism is not the same as anti social personality disorder. Actually, if comparing with macro races, east asians are the least religious and if comparing with all ethnic and racial groups, ashkenazim jews are among the most irreligious of all.
All black men who are prone to violent acts are atheists?? Maybe irreligious but not self identified as atheists. Socio and psychos are all selftheists.
If one the fundamental feature that makes humans outstandingly smart if compared with other species is the number of neurons in the neocortex so would be very interesting if if is analysed individually, racially and also using IQ range as a criteria (it seems very likely already there some studies linking IQ scores with this feature).
Of course but i expect something like “avg number of neurons on neocortex by racial, ethnic or astrological groups”.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/44560
j-l marion says “the christian is the only true atheist.”
terry eagleton is the kind of catholic pill could be if he didn’t have autism and was actually irish.
so…
pill level interpretation of christianity: God sent his son to hoodwink people with fake miracles.
non-autistic interpretation: christianity made the God-man a thing vs so many g-men which preceded it.
God sent Himself, just as He had in the burning bush and the pillar of fire and the feet atop sinai…all the second person of the trinity.
“the son of God” is an unfortunate misunderstanding.
“God the second person” is correct.
pill: this is a-whole-nother level of bullshit i never dreamed of because autism.
saying jesus-ism is bullshit is like saying platon-ism is bullshit.
peepee: why’re you obsessed with AIDS.
mugabe: why’re you obsessed with oprah?
i am against all lies…except when i tell them. — “the philosopher”
it’s called a “strawman” pill. check it out and stop the autism!
pill: you believe in this strawman.
mugabe: no i don’t.
pill: but you have to because i’m too autistic to imagine what else you might believe.
mugabe: sad.
peter and paul and jesus were all executed. tradition holds:
Andrew: Preached in modern day Georgia (Eastern Europe) and Bulgaria and was crucified in Patrae in Greece.
Bartholomew: Spent time in India. Crucified in Georgia.
James, Son of Alphaeus: was stoned and clubbed to death in Jerusalem.
James, Son of Zebedee: was beheaded by Herod.
John, Son of Zebedee: Was exiled to the Island of Patmos and died a natural death in Ephesus.
Matthew/Levi: Preached and was killed (with an axe) in Ethiopia.
Simon/Peter: Was put to death (crucified) under Nero in Rome.
Philip: preached and was executed in eastern Turkey.
Simon the Zealot: Became Bishop of Jerusalem. Crucified.
Thaddaeus/Judas son of James: Preached in Edessa and Mesopotamia. Was crucified.
Thomas: Was a missionary in India where he was killed with a spear.
Matthias: Judas’ replacement. Spread the Gospel into Syria and was stoned and beheaded.
but they were in it for the money.
They were cultists. They clearly were out there spreading lies about their superhero cult leader and people at the time believed in other cults and were violent towards them.
Unlike a cultist I am not violent towards cultists but I do look down on them and see them as shills.
They were not spreading lies. If they were then why? They believed what they said even if they were lying to themselves.
Self Deception so deep they were killed in the way Jesus was.
1 Corinthians 15
13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. 15In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.…
the only other bgi volunteer in the HBDspere i know of calls himself “assistant village idiot” and he is a church going mainline protestant.
a less autistic thing to say is: stupid people are religious in a stupid way, smart people in a smart way. religion per se is neither smart nor stupid.
”a less autistic thing to say is: stupid people are religious in a stupid way, smart people in a smart way. religion per se is neither smart nor stupid.”
You want it to be that way, but the world is not the way you would like.
Religious thinking is a classical example of Irrationality/stupidity.
The only reason not be an universal social consensus treat the religion as a clear sign of irrationality is its historical and political power. You must be “autistic” to think religion is not the same as any other bullshit just because there are so many people who believe in it. It just shows how evolutively young and immature, humanity, as a species, still is. It’s expected that brighter humans become, less prone to believe in bullshit they will be, including the biggest one, religion.
It could exist a true religion, if any religious organization or community just try to answer the originally existential questions, all of them do, in an honest way: who we are, from where we came, to where we will, which is the reality and its origins or cause, etc…
I even call a true religion: intelligion 😉
Look you believe in a jewish man with superpowers sent by God. I don’t. We’re not going to ever agree because your mind is infantile.
We’re not going to ever agree because your mind is infantile.
exactly.
We’re not going to ever agree because your mind is infantile.
exactly.
i once was blind and now i see.
the moral system of Christianity is like a superpower.
it says that human dignity is worth protecting
who exactly is the authority to be obeyed?
he set the captives free figuratively, and literally.
Zeitgeist.
Example of a honest defense to a metaphysical mind hypothesis:
We can’t find (or still not) how a concept or a word is shaped in the brain or in its structures, so we can argue that the content which fill the “mind” is abstract or irreducible to physical world aka immatériel.
The mind is definitely abstract, but the problem is that so is the world itself. It is only objective in the sense that everyone agrees on it.
It is abstract completely because that is all anything could ever be. Reality really exists, and would exist without human minds, but “solid” or “physical” existence is simply a property that can also be held by the mind.
We cannot create solid existence just by thinking, but anything that exists must be conceivable by some kind of immaterial mind, because otherwise, it couldn’t exist in any form, literally, because it couldn’t even “conceive” of itself, because conception is holding various properties in one cohesive whole without contradictions.
RR doesn’t even have the most basic theory of why we can actually “filter” objective content through our subjective lens if they are separate substances that are mutually incompatible.
“The mind is definitely abstract, but the problem is that so is the world itself. It is only objective in the sense that everyone agrees on it.”
Abstract in what sense?
Semantic memory is not completely different to emotional or even an instinctive memory. I don’t think animals can’t have or aren’t capable of any kind of thinking. They just don’t think in nuanced and complex ways as we do. So i don’t believe mind is immaterial at all. Language is a deep/earlier memorization of association between specific symbols and generally real abstract/derivative and concrete things.
I used this example of how RR could do if he was really honest. But doesn’t matter if we can’t see or reflect a concept in physical ways throught our brain structures. What’s matter is that consciousness is a physical outcome. But it so constant and “still invisible” that some people think it cannot be “physical”.
We already born with the capacity to associate symbols and things, aka, human language, that’s why we learn it so quickly and intuitively during our first years of life with very little effort. That’s why we tend to think human mind is extraordinarily unique, even believing it is fixed, immutable or immaterial, because we think if it is so deep or absolute and natural for us… But it just another type of anthropocentric or anthropo-supremacist thought.
Human “mind” doesn’t need to be immaterial to be extraordinary.
RR use this argument to claim that mental traits can’t be inherited. It’s not about mind but about “refute” heresytarianism…
“Abstract in what sense?”
In the sense that everything existing is abstract. Constraints on existence such as logic or mathematics are also abstract regardless of any universe existing, but even existing things are abstract because they are simply defined by their properties, which are all abstract. Whatever it is that makes them “objective” and “physical” would itself be an abstract principle, because there is nothing else it could be.
“Semantic memory is not completely different to emotional or even an instinctive memory. I don’t think animals can’t have or aren’t capable of any kind of thinking. They just don’t think in nuanced and complex ways as we do. So i don’t believe mind is immaterial at all. Language is a deep/earlier memorization of association between specific symbols and generally real abstract/derivative and concrete things.”
I think everything has/is language in the sense that everything is the sum of its properties, so as a concept anything that exists is basically a “word” or reference to what its properties are.
Everything existing has properties, like a rock having whatever material properties it has, and so it “means” something, whether it understands its own meaning. So I’d say animals have at least that form of “mind”, and obviously have a nervous system that could allow for their intentions to be manifested materially in a manner like humans, but whether their mind is aware of its own intentions I don’t know, but maybe it is in a vague way, just not to the degree a human’s is.
“I used this example of how RR could do if he was really honest. But doesn’t matter if we can’t see or reflect a concept in physical ways throught our brain structures. What’s matter is that consciousness is a physical outcome. But it so constant and “still invisible” that some people think it cannot be “physical”.
True, but they are only right in the sense that the mind really isn’t “physical”, but that’s because nothing is.
“We already born with the capacity to associate symbols and things, aka, human language, that’s why we learn it so quickly and intuitively during our first years of life with very little effort. That’s why we tend to think human mind is extraordinarily unique, even believing it is fixed, immutable or immaterial, because we think if it is so deep or absolute and natural for us… But it just another type of anthropocentric or anthropo-supremacist thought.”
Well I’d say we are special out of all the organisms we know because of our language, but I agree that it makes people draw the wrong conclusions about what parts are actually special.
“Human “mind” doesn’t need to be immaterial to be extraordinary.”
I kind of agree, but given I believe everything is immaterial, it is not the “substance” difference that makes the human mind extraordinary.
“RR use this argument to claim that mental traits can’t be inherited. It’s not about mind but about “refute” heresytarianism…”
Yes, and because things are inherited, because reality has regularities over time, he ends up with a false view of reality (dualism and there being such thing as a “purely physical substance” or “purely mental substance”).
Sad.
Heart beating is not physical?
It’s an outcome from other very physical or ORGANIC processes (organic: physically and chemically specific for organisms).
Heartbeating is organic as emotions, thoughts, learning and reasoning. When we learn something it retain in our brain structures. The same way with Alzheimer, its mental deterioration doesn’t mean “deterioration of an ‘immaterial mind'” or of its “immateriality” (??).
That’s my opinion.
“I think everything has/is language in the sense that everything is the sum of its properties, so as a concept anything that exists is basically a “word” or reference to what its properties are.”
I agree. I also think we can talk the same about mathematics. Yes, it has, by a human perspective.
“In the sense that everything existing is abstract. Constraints on existence such as logic or mathematics are also abstract regardless of any universe existing, but even existing things are abstract because they are simply defined by their properties, which are all abstract. Whatever it is that makes them “objective” and “physical” would itself be an abstract principle, because there is nothing else it could be.”
I like to think logics as not the same as mathematics even thought mathematics is obviously a result from it. I understand logics as whatever systemic coherence or cohesion which obeys internal and or also external laws. The way the nature of everything express or is constituted and also about human constructions.
I understand abstraction as an act to pick and or individualize an object. It’s exist as a human mental process or ability. I also think our capacity to individualize and then conceptualize is a self projection of our own self individuation (consciousness). I think more than a “physical”, all elements and phenomena that exist in reality are logical in the sense i define it.
Abstraction as a substantive in my understanding would be a perceived derivation from a concrete or organic reality, from words to feelings, even thought people tend to consider feelings as abstractions not exactly because they are named but because they can’t be sensorially experienced, i mean, other people’s emotions and thoughts. If i can’t see your thoughts so it is considered an abstraction. If we can’t see or breath sadness so is also considered an abstraction. A little confusion or conceptual opaqueness here.
Heartbeating is physical, but also abstract, because everything about can be abstracted (hearts, organs, timing, pumping, blood, etc.).
The only way to exist is by having some properties, and properties are always abstract, whether we understand those properties or not.
Physical things have properties with which we interact with regardless of our ability to understand those properties with our mind. Our body’s atoms react to the properties of other atoms, so they mutually understand these “abstractions”, (or some other law in the universe in charge of our atoms understands them).
Physical reality exists, and isn’t just an abstraction, but it must be abstractable by some sort of “mind”, so even reality exists regardless of our ability to abstract it, as in order for it to actually exist in any way with any sort of properties, they must be abstractable.
In order for the universe to mean anything at all, it must be meaningful.
Another point is that everything that abstract/subjective is also objective and really exists… but is only necessarily consistent/coherent within the mind/framework that allows for it. So nothing is “purely subjective” (because obviously the subjective framework itself is objective as a self-contained system) and nothing is also “purely physical” (as in not having abstractable properties).
Basically it makes no sense to say there is some fundamental disconnect between physical reality and mental reality so that the mental could never grasp the physical or that the physical could never measure the mental.
Another thing to mention is with IQ we are “mentally” measuring another person’s mental ability, or our own. We aren’t “physically” measuring it.
And there is nothing wrong with mental measurement because as mentioned before that’s literally all we do. A yard is a mental abstraction that is only graspable through our subjective sense of space (our spatial perceptions/reasoning).
But to hone the point, human subjective experience must be quite similar given how much we can communicate, and similarity in the structure of our brains (although if you are a “physical cannot represent the mental” type like RR that shouldn’t matter to you anyway), and we can measure when we ourselves our functioning better or not. So why can we not measure other’s mental ability?
I can make up fake RPG stats for an imagined character, or fake parameters for a made-up sportscar. I can compare one fictional character to another and say they are stronger, faster, have better magical ability, etc.
You could claim I get these notions from things I’ve experienced in physical reality, but then you are claiming that 1. ideas are ultimately reduced/educed from direct physical experience, and 2. ideas only grasp objective physical facts… thereby defeating claims of dualism or the immeasurability of intelligence.
masta lingista tranfastpusta amie lon negratis forsapa enliescende tram kiposo welide quai nom
umbra sai prondo soenior
es lumpa cosesde contrendai dose monka en welso pon tredo
see compas un res de resolitai presosia ee trevevisuncoprondo
usderesos tupose avwhesa
if “the philosopher” knew what philosophy was he would see that abrahamic religion is just semitic philosophy, and the cultists of early christianity were similar to the marxist bolsheviks or the Cynics or the stoics or the platonists just with a semitic cast.
Your attempt to make Jesus cock sucking intellectually respectable reminds me of Charles Murray,
I think a lot of educated whites from prole backgrounds feel inferior & thus are very defensive about Christianity
… banned me again.
ken jennings is a mormon.
my guess is if pill talked to jennings about his mormonism pill would learn a lot more than ken.
charles murray is NOT from a prole background peepee-tard.
YOU ARE A RACIST!
notice peepee only mentions jesus.
mugabe mentioned many religions other than jesus.
conclusion: PEEPEE IS A RACIST AND EQUATES CHRISTIANITY WITH WHITE PEOPLE WHOM SHE HATES.
“I think a lot of educated whites from prole backgrounds feel inferior & thus are very defensive about Christianity”
It could be less about inferiority and be more that personality-wise, they are not prone to elitist money-grubbing traits and so look for meaning in more abstract and holistic ways. Hence their ancestors were “proles” because they were never focused on becoming elites at the expense of other things.
defensive?
not the smart ones.
christianity is a totally whacked out FUBAR religion.
this has been OBVIOUS FROM THE BEGINNING!
roman apparatchik: they worship a dead jew and claim to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
tertullian: YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!
“Your attempt to make Jesus cock sucking intellectually respectable”
LMAO
“from prole backgrounds”
Like Jesus was? ok.
peepee will do an article confessing all of her RACISM or i will never comment again.
my hs physics teacher was from an offshoot of the mormons…and he was smart enough to know how people thought about mormons…
he explained it to me as “mormonism was a revelation of the relationship between God and man”…
it was HERESY! but he wasn’t an idiot.
A lot of Mormons seem to be ignorant goodie-two-shoes though, like Ned Flanders. How many are even aware of the JQ?
The Simpsons – Homer Accidently Proves There Is No God
”it was HERESY! but he wasn’t an idiot.”
Just a little…
Among religious believers
People who believe in impersonal god without believing in specific religious narratives may have a higher avg IQ than people who believe in all their religion’s narratives
The worst thing is to only take a single narrative because you don’t have a holistic understanding if you do.
You are a concrete thinker then.
”You are a concrete thinker then”
I’m not schizo like you.
”The worst thing is to only take a single narrative because you don’t have a holistic understanding if you do.”
Like most believers, your arrogance is pathological.
Yours is a narrative, mine is the truth.
“Yours is a narrative, mine is the truth.”
if that is what you want to believe.
I’m not a creationist.
I have ADD.
I take antipsychotics and seizure meds.
I have had experiences of a psychic nature. This leads me to believe a mental force is behind the material.
Doesn’t mean I believe miracles exist just that they are possible because of indeterminism. A peak in a waveform. I became aware of occult happenings because of divination. People in my dreams have spoken to me. Jesus never spoke to me in a direct fashion.
Martin Luther detected God in a lightning storm when he converted in the 16th century.
I remember a lightning storm when I was 7. It made me realize for the first time what nihilism was because nothing was behind it but raw force. It was everything beyond me that I was alone and the only being in the universe. The emptiness of it was tremendous.
I remember seeing an empty tomb in a bible cartoon opening into the white light when I was four years old but nothing was there but emptiness no Jesus.
I was able to again enter the white light in a dream with a white void and a female covered in liquid gold sunlight surrounding her pink face in 2016. It is said none can see God’s face and live. God is behind the emptiness of the void. Even her face was not God’s face. There was no agency of it but pure light.
The void the abyss, the pure loneliness of an empty universe is the barrier between me and God.
it is the christian story…
repeated!
“Dios mi Señor: llamar al portador del pan del cielo”.
hating on christianity is like sean hannity hating on marxism.
1. no one who has actually read and understood marx could not thenceforth describe himself as a “marxist” (in some sense).
2. no one who has actually read and understood the NT could not thenceforth describe himself as a “chistian” (in some sense).
the “in some sense” is the only disagreement among high IQ people.
Christian Marxists. but also capitalist.
christianity is stupid.
unbelievably fucking STUPID!
i agree.
is that all i’m allowed to say?
judaism is stupid.
islam is stupid.
hindism is stupid.
buddhism is stupid.
shinto is stupid.
taoism is stupid.
confucianism is stupid.
satisfied? — claude lanzmann documentary
…
they aren’t stupid. none of them. and collectively
Cristianism is a multi plagiarism of mythological stories from different religions.
Religions are de facto dumb even thought we can say that by some perspectives it can be smart.
For example, to make humans mentally confortable and obedient rather than super aware about their ultimate destiny. But religion per si doesn’t make people existentially alienated because religious belief is not a cause but an effect. Which makes people religious is an at priori specific and perceived inability to accept truths considered inconvenients, generally a primary mismatch between personality traits, cognitive style, personal circumstances AND the given fact. A similar mechanism happens for politically ideological indoctrination, like human races denialism.
But not all religions are equally dumb. Even the dumbest like cristianism has some good but generally accidental ones like the idea of human existential and or essential equality defendend marginally “everyone is the son of god” .
“Cristianism is a multi plagiarism of mythological stories from different religions.”
People keep saying this as if Jesus wasn’t a jew and that Judaism is fake.
formal/organized religion is not what it was.
today it’s gay and retarded.
mostly.
i agree.
and the cult doesn’t matter.
roman, arab, indian, chinese, …
MARX HAS A ROY COHN POINT…
technical change has made religion the DUSGUSTING thing it is today.
BUT…
prior to mass media and mass literacy…the church was the internet and the priest had the highest IQ…
AND RELIGION IS THE BABY IN THE BATH WATER.
Conservative institutions have been extremely opressive against white people, specially working class one.
I agree we need a planned and balanced society to live BUT conservatism is just “conservative” in relative terms. Even calling religion as conservative in the sense many conservatives think seems not correct, if conservatism is all about about caution so believe in extraordinary claims without a extraordinary evidence is irresponsibly bold and radical.
Everything goes back to the will of God.
How does he want humans to live.
And who is opposed to this.
to what end?
to what end is all this religion crap?
eternal life.
but “eternal life” doesn’t mean what pill/pee thinks it means…
sadly!
Legos were my favorite toy but I’m a prole.
all HBDers do is complain.
FACT!
sad.
all anti-HBDers do is complain.
FACT!
sad.
china takes over…
OBVIOUSLY!
Japan and the USA are the only countries on the planet that have free speech as a fundamental right in their constitutions.
RR style autism: Using rare terminology and jargon to try to debunk ideas most people already knew were false when they were 12 years old.
RR, you must be used to deboonking with randos/trolls on Twitter or something.
The autistic part is that RR has gotten good at systematizing all his arguments while gaining almost no actual understanding about life or the mind. I think you could describe that as the opposite of intuition, which is great understanding but being very bad at systemizing it.
Talking to RR is like talking to a brickwall who listens to you but doesn’t understand what you are actually saying.
Innate is a nonsense term he says. really?!
Oprah is big-brained because she is wise rather than the opposite = a thorough explanation.
Trying to find patterns and measure reality to understand it = pareidolia.