No need to give example of million ping pongs...we already have real life problems equivalent to that. Weather - Trillions of particles interacting with each other, with sun's energy and what not. Each particle still behaves according to Newton's laws of motion and in every sense pre-determined. But even supercomputers can't solve the equations for this big a system so we can only make guesses and there is no real way of knowing even when weather is predetermined.
Wait a minute... did this guy just compared neurons and how they work with ping pongs falling off in the Grand Canyon? FTW? XD Yup... that was enough to close the window. 2 minutes of my life wasted.
@cre599 you are making such a crazy joke by twisting what was said. He, which is me, BTW, said that just because we cannot determine what the trajectory and movement of a ping-pong ball will be when it is falling into the Grand Canyon does not mean the movement and trajectory were not determined. Likewise, just because we cannot determine all there is to know about the brain does not mean that the brain is magically free from the laws that govern falling balls and everything else in the universe
Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.
Actually Pinker is a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and pop-icon. And yes it seems to me too that he is a "linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like." That is what make him a pop star. Crowds love eloquent rhetorical dismissals of ideas that they themselves do not understand. Certain politicians are popular for the same reason. Pinker's only contribution to "real" science has been in linguistics general theory
@unseenstrings Yeah, Pinker's not that bad. That comment was terrible. I'm at peace with Pinker now. I think it was my ego and the need to show off on the You Tube aka trolling. But still he's not my idol and I dislike his writings peppered with anti-theistic bias. Atheism is not a scientific position because it deals with metaphysical existence of a purported higher being. i understand that new-atheists try to fight the creationists with their methods. But imo that's an ideological clash
@pawsoned, I suspect some of the anti-atheist biases atheists experience at the hands of theists have something to do with them expressing anti-theistic sentiments. Otherwise, the atheist could care less what the other person believes. And some of the anti-atheist biases expressed by theists are the result of fear of atheism or what they suppose belief in atheism will lead to. The "Jesus Camp" DVD and the present problems with Muslims has some atheists feeling a similar fear in regard to theists
But as you say "atheism is not a scientific position." However naturalism is. Methodological naturalism is another term for the scientific method. Phenomena are assumed to be the result of natural laws instead of supernatural laws because that is what has been found to work best for dissolving illusions and getting to the gist of the matter. Besides, supernatural causes and effects would be undetectable by definition
Evolution is called by some theists as "God's Plan." Evolution is scientific
@unseenstrings. I don't need language when I think about sex. Which fortunately or unfortunately takes up a dispraportionate amount of my inner thoughts.
@Dalychomsky, you are not the only one. In "The video that got Coughlan666 Banned Permanently" a mirrored video in my Social Issues Playlist, Richard Coughlan goes into detail to give statics. I am somewhat surprised that the flagging of his account still stands. George Carlin rhetorically asked, "I don't get it. Buying is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't buying fucking legal?" He saw what you are experiencing and Coughlan gave statics of. But he didn't understand why sexuality is suppressed.
I have my suspicions. You see, when sexuality is suppressed, the deprived individual starts suffering discontent. This is like lighting a fire under his ass. He does everything possible to ease the pangs of the ongoing discontent. These striving can then be directed by those who are aware of some of the factors involved. A sexually satisfied woman may not feel the compulsion to shop till she drops. The sexually satisfied Muslim may not feel compelled to spread the word of Islam.
@unseenstrings. How can an organism contemplate his own thoughts and desires and conduct without complex language? Simple, when he composes music or works on mathematics.
@Dalychomsky, I suspect human language is built upon the foundation that our prehuman ancestors had evolved for song. But that is another story. Nevertheless, if you'll step back and look at the big picture, you may see that a person cannot comprehend music composition nor trigonometry without first being taught such via complex language. A person without the capacity and knowledge of human language would be justifiability considered "retarded." Oh, and nonhumans are self-aware to a degree.
@roxasroks, I've already given you my definition. Were you paying attention? Hows your memory? "To the average person (myself included) the word conscious means being aware of one's surroundings and later being able to recall that awareness. To use the WordWeb definition: Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts." I include memory because I feel memory is necessary for conscious awareness. Maybe you were unconscious when I gave my definition. LOL!
@unseenstrings I will explain why what you have said in other posts are wrong.
Quote: Redefining consciousness to mean basically the capacity for complex language.
Wrong, he says consciousness is being self aware and explains how this happens through varies degrees of self introspection. He also goes into detail about the science behind his ideas.
Secondly, the Definition of consciousness has always included "self awareness".
Lastly, we CAN'T introspect without first being self aware.
@roxasroks, the reason you presume the facts I presented are wrong is probably because you haven't thought through the implications of your presumption. Please tell me how any organism can contemplate his (or her) own thoughts and desires and conduct without the aid of complex language? That is, tell me how introspection is possible without the capacity for complex language, the acquisition of said language, and the training necessary to use said language for introspection?
@unseenstrings Do you think animals are self aware, there is nothing in their behavior that indicates it, it's always been exclusively human.
And also I think you're deliberately being argumentative, why did you bring religion into this? If your talking about his cult following your crazy. Look at video games and their followers.
Whales have a complex language and may very well be self aware. No one really knows the truth of the matter. Would you feel insulted to include whales in the Julian Jaynes Religion of Consciousness? Although, undoubtedly not even humans all have precisely the same self-awareness. Does that mean those humans ought to be excluded from Julian Jaynes' Religion of Consciousness? Obviously those humans who didn't fit Julian Jaynes' religious definition of Consciousness would be required exclusion.
I may speak jokingly at times. I may be a bit sarcastic or speak ironicly at times. But at no time have I been "deliberately argumentative" just for the sake of arguing with you. I am arguing my point because it is a valid one. Does your accusation mean that anyone who disagrees with you is being "deliberately argumentative?" No doubt such a accusation could be a stratagem used in an attempt to silence dissenting opinions.
@unseenstrings I asked because you said "Julian Jaynes Religion"? Why, you know its going to stir anger, that's why I avoid insulting you? Though it isn't so much offensive as it is annoying.
@unseenstrings Whales "language" is about as complex as body language and facial expressive communication.
What marks our language apart from all others is the capacity to develop not only concepts, but metaphors.
A whale can not develop a metaphor because not only does it not have the capacity to, the communication between them isn't anywhere near intricate enough.
And why don't whales have the capacity? Well besides the semantics, they aren't self aware. You should know this?
@roxasroks, if any nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) is not self-aware, then the lack of awareness is only because the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) doesn't have the capacity for the language necessary for self awareness, or the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) hasn't acquired the necessary language and/or hasn't been taught to use said language in such a way to be self aware. The reason dispute exist over nonhuman language theories and studies is because humans don't know.
@roxasroks, the language of every species is the result of "random" mutation, genetic drift, and selective pressures. Any difference in the language of one species in comparison to another would be the result of the difference in the "random" mutation and genetic drift of those two species and the difference in the selective pressures that the two species had been exposed to. That is to say, all communication capacities and skills of different organisms are the result of evolutionary processes.
@roxasroks, nonhumans and unlearned/retarded humans are not un/non-conscious when and only because they don't have the capacity for the language necessary for self awareness, or the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) hasn't acquired the necessary language and/or hasn't been taught to use said language in such a way to for self-awareness/introspection. I mean, you can knock one out and he (or she) would be un/non-conscious. Consciousness isn't dependent on complex language. Introspection is.
@unseenstrings Communication is shaped by evolution, not language. Metephors are not the result of "random mutations". Evolution only shapes our capacity to development them.
@roxasroks, metaphors are the result of necessity and shaped by selective pressures, just as in the case of biological evolution. The study of the evolution of metaphors and other cultural units (such as an idea or value or pattern of behaviour) that are passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation) is called memetics. Human language is shaped by evolution as much as nonhuman communication is. Do nonhumans have the capacity for complex language that humans have?
@roxasroks, did humans develop language prior to evolving the capacity for it? Can language to taught as we know and use it without emotion and "body" language being "learned" in the process? That is, can language be taught by using a speech synthesizer to remove all emotional tonal variances, and teaching from behind a screen so that gestures and grimaces may not become associated with the language being taught? I say communication and language are too intricately interwoven to be separated.
Thought isn't a behavior, its a product. Behavior comes from thought not the other way around. Unless of course you mean self introspection or something like that.
Yes, well, in the same sense walking isn't a behavior but a process of the legs. In that sense thought isn't a behavior but what the brain does--also sort of like, the mind is what the brain does. Both walking and thought are phenomena that arise as the result of physical processes. And neither thought nor walking could exist without the biological units that preceded and gave rise to the phenomena. Plus self-introspection is made possible by the capacity for and learned use of complex language.
@unseenstrings Last part. You been reading Julian Jaynes? And I disagree, you can't compare Thought and Behavior in the same way you can Walking and Behavior.
Anyway I understand what you mean so don't fret, you are right at the moment.
The first time I ran across anything by Julian Jaynes was in Loompanics, Ltd. book catalog. Huxley amd Leary come to mind (?). Although, I never read any work by Jaynes that I can recall. Besides a quick visit to the Julian Jaynes Society Web Page gave me the impression that we have strong differences. He believed "consciousness" is fairly recent on the evolutionary scale and acquired only by humans. I believe human consciousness only seems different than other animals' because of human language
@roxasroks, Julian Jaynes invented a definition of consciousness as confusing as the pantheistic definition of God. It is all inclusive and exclusive at the same time. It excludes the consciousness of all other organism by making up a definition that encompasses only human consciousness. This is equivalent to redefining free will to be a phenomena arising purely from physical processes. The original illusion is kept alive in the average person's mind by the use of the new fangled definition.
We can be even more exclusive and say that consciousness is apparent for those humans who wear classic red Converse All Stars. Why not? If he can make children and nonhumans into zombies by saying that the only beings who have consciousness are those who happen to have the capacity for complex language, and happened to acquired said language, and happened to have been trained to use said language in a way necessary to achieve introspection, then why can't we do the same with red tennis shoes?
@unseenstrings I don't understand your point here? Can you rephrase? And don't use zombie, A non conscious person is not mindless, in the same way a dog is not. Please read my other message first.
@roxasroks, I was referring to the common and inevitable conclusion and confusion caused by redefining consciousness to mean basically the capacity for complex language, the acquirement of said language, and the discipline and training necessary to use said language in a ways to achieve introspection. The redefinition makes as much sense as making up consciousness to mean the wearing of red tennises. Imagine the ad campaign: You can become conscious with our new classic red Converse All Stars.
@roxasroks, 20 years ago and the definition hasn't caught on yet?! Apparently I'm not the only one who feels Jaynes' definition is so far fetched from the original definition that it can only lead to miscommunication and confusion. I'll betcha the definition is real popular over at the Julian Jaynes Society. In fact, Jaynes' redefinition is reminiscence of religion. Is that what he was trying to do--invent a new religion? Yes, Glory! Verbally adept humans are the only conscious beings on Earth.
@roxasroks, but Julian Jayne's redefinition can only lead to confusion in public discourse. To the average person (myself included) the word conscious means being aware of one's surroundings and later being able to recall that awareness. To use the WordWeb definition: Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts. [which includes animals] Julian Jayne would have done better to have invented a new word for his new definition, as Richard Dawkins did with meme
omigod! I hate you. I find Pinker's topic to be quite serious, but I keep laughing at your simplification of it. You should change the title to "Determinism for Rednecks"
@Nades129, more people in this world love to hate than love to love. Such words as nigger, spic, chink, greaser or redneck are quickly spouted by the hatemongers. But hate usually comes from ignorance. Trying to teach people about psychological determinism is one way of combating the ignorance. But the Dogma of Free Will being preached from the pulpits & broadcast by the Major Media across the land are near impossible to counter by a few YouTube Videos. And ridicule only increases the ignorance.
I've always felt that homosexuality could be determined by the nature around us. Perhaps some have the "proper" genes for being molded into becoming homosexual. I think though that the constant population of gays and the studies coming out that fetuses that are the third baby or higher from a given mother often leads towards being gay may show that the baby is conditioned before it leaves the womb. Or it could be genes. Or, in addition to all of those causes, some people may choose to be gay
Well being the third baby or higher also involves the possibility of the younger boy being exposed to the developing hormone driven sexual curiosities of the older boys. After all, once a coworker offered to give me a BJ. When I said no, he became afraid I would tell others and started acting apologetic. He claimed that as a child his older brothers threatened to beat him up if he didn't do "it." And he claimed that after awhile, he got to where he rather enjoyed the performance. You comprehend?
Besides, saying a person "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex adds nothing but obscurity to the issue. Every animal "chooses" according to the particular brain it has developed. No two animals of the same nor of different species think and thus "choose" to act precisely alike, because no two animals have developed precisely the same brain. And humans are animals too you know. Attraction isn't determined by what the organism "chooses." Instead "choice" is determined by "needs" perceived.
@unseenstrings I do understand what you're saying. What I was saying is that these experiments tested something to do with the mother's body treating each successive baby as a foreign invasion, it has to do with antibodies, etc. Somehow that effects the child's sexuality. It's far from determined though in the scientific community, I believe.
What I was saying regarding choice is that some may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex but may be open to experimentation. I would also say
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV, I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. And I suspect the ones open to experimentation are like Hindus who are open to try meat. In fact, I feel the sexual tastes one has acquired to be analogous to the taste one has acquired for food. (A vegetarian eating another man's "meat." LOL!) Both are the result of genetic-environment interaction. We may be born with a repulsion to the smell of blue-cheese, but under the right circumstances, we acquire a taste for such
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV said, "I would also say that's a manifestation of the brain you developed"
And I would agree wholeheartedly. Brain development always precedes "conscious" functionality.
The taste one has acquired for food and one's sexual taste are not the result of consciously arranging the brain in such a way that you are attracted to a particular food or sexual orientation. The particular tastes one possesses and his (or her) sexual tastes are manifestations of the brain's development.
Ah, good to find another person who realises that free will is just an illusion. Yes, everything we do is caused and determined by physical laws. "Unseen Strings" is a good metaphor. I always like to say that humans are actually puppets - controlled in every way by puppet strings (which are the physical laws of the universe). Someone thinking they have free will is analagous to a puppet thinking it has free will, despite everything they do being completely outside their control. Nice video
True! Human behavior is no more free from the laws of cause and effect than is the behavior of a puppet. However--and this point cannot be stressed enough--one must be careful not to use analogies that over-simplify the complexities involved, because the average individual may reject the facts as ridiculous. The Big Bang, causality, and any philosophical speculation that would be irrelevant when discussing ant brains and cognition are also irrelevant when discussing the human brain and cognition
Yeah that's true. In order to explain this to the average person you need to explain a lot of things first, including neuroscience, biochemistry, physics, cause and effect, determinism, how biology is all due to chemistry, and how chemistry is all due physics. Also, it helps to talk about psychology, and things like operant conditioning. It is not until you have explained these things in a lot of depth that you can them say analogies like the one I did.
as for time, physical observations of reletivity prove that it exists outside of being a merely perceptual phenomenon or cognitive function. however, it exists in the same way that a dimension exists, and the perception of it FLOWING from past to present is probably simply a function of entropy as it pertains to the human mind's predictive powers{or maybe that is oversimplifying the issue}. time is a neutral phenomenon, our PERCEPTION paints it with our beleif of WHAT IT IS. so its subjective
oh btw, what you are referring to as the "unknowable" reality of things outside ourselves, i wud refer to not as REALITY, {because all that we know of and call reality is the EXPERIENCE that "WE" have of perceivING/existING} but rather as neutral entities, or objects without subjects{without putting too much metaphyisical emphasis on the word subject}. i refer to such neutral entities in the same way that bertrand russel and others refer to such objects in the "analysis of mind" etc.
Every generation has illusions that later generations often can see beyond. The illusions of the time were thought to be reality and only later were discovered to be illusions. Omniscience would be required for knowing all there is to know about reality (Ultimate Reality). And since humans are not and never will be omniscient, they can never be fully aware of, and never fully understand reality as it truly is. However, we have only our intellect, our senses, and the scientific method as a guide.
i think omniscience wud simply expand your interpretation of neutral entities to a titanic but finite extent{if u dont factor in time}. i think "reality" though is simply the sum total of the neutral entities YOU interpret, whether it be a pee or the entire realm of omniscient possibilities past present and future that ever cud or did or cudnt exist.
I think the major difference in our opinion is one based more on definition. To me, the perception (of reality) I have developed as a consequence of genetic-environmental interactions is not the ultimate judge of reality in any sense except in giving me functionality. Oh, and by the way, does time actually exist or is it a name given to a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future? If time exists, what is it?
i agree with the definition part. i dont call "the unseen world that exists outside a perceiving entity/human.animal" REAL. instead i call it NEUTRAL. i think our very core concept of REALITY is one based firmly in our OWN reality and the sense of our OWN existance. neutral things which r not perceived are not REAL to me in any way which human beings are familiar with the concept of "reality". they are merely neutral. maybe it wud be easier to seperate the definition of EXISTANCE from REALIITY.
I have a relative notion but I'm not sure you will agree it is identical. You said "things which r not perceived are not REAL to me..." In a similar line of reasoning I said that reality is perceived by means of the senses and with sensory enhancement mechanism such as infrared detectors and microscopes. And things thought to exist but can't be detected with the senses nor with sensory enhancement mechanisms are unreal things. They actually don't exist except in the vivid imagination of humans.
there are types of reality which are not perceived by the senses, namely, introspection/dreaming/higher cognitive functions etc, or rather, they are not perceived by the 5 outrospctive senses.
of neutral entities. i wud say they EXIST in that they and their effects are not illusions of our generation, but i wud say that WHAT we sense/feel them to be is merely how we feel/sense OURSELVES to be when we are physically effected by those things. which isnt indicative of what the THING itself is.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say, "things which r not perceived are not REAL to me..." Then basically you suggest that anything imaginable is real. You would fit quite nicely into the religious community.
Also, your supposed senses of "introspection/dreaming/higher cognitive functions etc" could not exist without your 5 so called "outrospctive" senses. Imagine a baby born blind, deaf, and without a sense of taste, touch, or smell. No practical brain functioning could exist.
In fact, a baby born blind, deaf, and without a sense of taste, touch, or smell would be--in a sense--dead, and would surely die if not put on a life support system.
The brain requires input from the eyes in order to wire itself up for sight. The brain requires input from the ears in order to wire itself up for sound. The brain requires sensory input from the skin, the nose, and the taste buds in order to wire itself up to perceive reality in those ways and thus give the organism functionality.
Dreaming does not prove the ability for introspection. Animals dream.
And you cannot state logically that dreams definitely occur in organisms that have no sensory input to the brain from any of the 5 senses. Developing fetuses dream in the womb but developing fetuses are not disconnected from the 5 senses of the body.
Lacking one or two or three of the senses would not mean the brain is totally disconnected from reality. Sensory input would still be being received from the remaining senses.
ofcourse it does. dreaming/remembering/corellating are all examples of MENTAL/cognitive processes that are fundamentally different from SENSING. the fact that they can use data collected and stored by the 5/6 senses is in NO way indicative of them being the SAME AS "sensing".
you seem to be unable to make this distinction. ur arguing like a classical hard line behaviourist.
I reiterate: you do not know if a brain that has never received any input from the senses can dream and neither do I. We know it can't remember what it hasn't experienced. It can't correlate without something to correlate. It can't introspect without language. It can't acquire language without the senses. Also I remind you this is not a philosophy forum. We do not use the weird jargon and definitions of philosophers. We use the language of everyday people to avoid confusion. And we use the 3 C's
Therefore, please try to make you comments Clear, Concise, & Cohesive in order to avoid confusing/miscommunicating (to) readers, one of which happens to be me.
Two different realities would not exists for two very different people. Instead, two different perceptions of reality would exist. Bookshelf 98 defines reality as "The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence." This is the common usage and the one I shall use for that reason.
@unseenstrings Animals dream but unlike humans, their dreams manifest devoid of language. We form thoughts congruent with combinations and permutations of symbols used to illuminate on experience & events. For humans, dreaming can present as a form of introspection.
The one problem with your hypothesis is that babies in the womb dream and they have never learned the language necessary for introspection. I've suspected and said myself before that dreams are the way the unconscious part of the brain communicates with the conscious part. But I was including non-humans too. Undoubtedly it is much more complicated than that. I don't believe anyone knows for sure. And the human animal is too embarrassed/ashamed to admit there is something he really doesn't know.
no, u seemed to have missed the part where i made the distinction between "existance" and "reality". existance wud be a set of known and unknown elements extrapolated from its subset "reality". reality is what WE think exists, EXISTANCE is the combination of what we think is real as well as extrapolated neutral entities from our experience of reality which contain in their identity, unknown elements.
the fact that they are complemented by outrospective senses doesnt negate their seperation
I'm sorry but your "neutral entities" bear too much resemblance to metaphysical entities, which are nonsensical to science. They are the concerns of myth, religion, philosophy, and in some cases, linguistics and anthropology.
Once language is acquired, words have an effect on mental processes. Otherwise, words are nonsensical to the individual. With words, Santa and Peter Pan can be made to seem real to a child. But the child would be suffering from an illusion created with words. Real unreal!
completely untrue. you shud read russel/dewey/dennet/chomsky on neutral entities. they bear NO resemblence to metaphysical entities. they are infact part of the exiomic makeup of the universe.
and what does language have to do with neutral entities. the mental image of a santa can me tranmitted to a child without language using pictures.
You seem incapable of fully grasping the significance of the different statements made during our conversation. And then you wildly assert something that contradicts your previous statements. For example, a child without language wouldn't be much different than a chimp. The capacity we've evolved for language, and the ability to use language is what makes us human. Showing a child a picture of Santa does not evoke introspection. Introspection is impossible without a language formable to the task
A critical period of development exist for language acquisition. That is, should the child not be taught language during the first 10 or so years of life, the individual will not be able to learn and use it in any but a retarded capacity. Also language acquisition is dependent on the senses. Without the senses no language. No language, no introspection
Also this is not a philosophy forum. We do not use the weird jargon and definitions of philosophers: we use the everyday language of real people
@unseenstrings Are you even familiar with concepts in the neurophysiology of language? Research Broca's area and Wernicke's area in the brain. I seems that your thinking is highly dichotomized when it comes to conceptualizing aspects of language. the neural circuitry of language is not centralized, since there are separate regions for language input, interpretation, and formulation of language.
Yes, I realize the brain does not have a central control center. And I'm somewhat familiar with neurophysiology of language in the sense that I've picked up bits and pieces from different scientific literature. And I have Broca's Brain, by Sagan. And I'm somewhat familiar with both Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area. Moreover though, I realize no -ology could be an -ology without the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.
heres a thought. the criteria for REAL is what the brain perceives to be real, including, itself, introspectively or outrospectively. so if conciousness{and such things as unity of the mind or a perception of qualia} is an illusion created BY the brain, for the brain and functioning through the brain. then doesnt that illusion have the same credit as REALITY? or rather, isnt the difference, between illusion and REALITY{talking in relation to the perceived/felt SOUL as people call it} linguistic?
Very interesting. However, according to your definition, reality would be constantly changing, according to the perception developed by the individual and according to the awareness developed within the scientific community. The reality of our ancient ancestors would have been different than the reality of today. At that point, reality would become merely a linguistic or imaginary construct, which to a degree, it is. Ultimate reality is beyond our cognitive ability to perceive and decipher.
entirely true. it wud be different for different people{or rather is CUD be, if quals are not generally universal physical components}, reality wud simply be sumthing that inconrporated content and context in itself, kind of a self definition or self evident entity{which wud include a self evident illusion}. what you are referring to wud be PHYSICAL reality which we can never really know, only INTERPRET with our perception and the experiences they cause in our sense of self{real or imaginary}.
Surely you can be a bit more clear and concise than acknowledging the point of the video and then asking the point of the video, as in, "Yes, but what is your POINT?" You see, the video presented a number of facts to the viewer. I would need to know which fact you are referring to in order to provide you with a summary (the point) of why that particular fact was presented.
But a series of facts presented to no end is an exercise is fatuity and aimlessness. Why would anyone do that? There has to be some kind of argument, some kind of goal.
Interesting that you are the first one who has admitted to failing to recognize the points of the video. Here are a few for you to see in simplified form:
1. The soul is an illusion.
2. Free will was thought to be a process of the soul, which would make it an illusion also.
3. The brain is purely physical and the mind is what the brain does.
4. Cognition grows in accordance to natural laws.
5. Regardless of whether homosexuality is hardwired or softwired, it is not freely chosen.
Sir, the only thing I "fail to recognize (sic)" is the point of posting or even making the video. It's nice to hear these interesting snippets from experts in the their field, but your conclusion of "homosexuality ... is not freely chosen" is rather a paltry one. It is obvious. Ask any thinking gay person and they would have told you that.
I felt you were being a bit snotty when you rhetorically asked, "Yes, but what is your POINT?," especially considering the EMPHASIS. So I responded accordingly. And if I mistook your intent, for that I apologize. Other commenters had argued some of the points of the video with me, but you pretended my creation had no point, which is the best way to insult an artist. I should have merely said that all art has a point. You may not understand it, but it does. But I don't think you wanted to know.
Oh, and just because you are homosexual doesn't mean your opinions align perfectly with those of all "thinking gay" people. Logically speaking your assertion also means that any gay who disagreed with you was an "unthinking" person. Rather than accuse me of being "rather a show-off," take a look in a mirror
And I reiterate, sexual desires felt towards members of one's own sex are not freely chosen, but merely experienced. Homosexuality is either hardwired or softwired into the brain, not chosen
But then, so is heterosexuality, and bestiality, and paedophilia, and ALL sexual desires. You are offering nothing more than a tautology! That's what I want you to clarify. Why single out homosexuality? Why not choose another sexual orientation, or indeed something different, such as a penchant for ice cream?
And come on - "artist"? Please. Talk about pretension.
The tautology exists only in your mind. And of course all sexual desires are the result of psychological causality. Where else could they come from? "Demon spirits"? "Cupid"? The magic of "free will"? Kinsey discovered long ago that bestiality was prevalent in settings where males had direct access to animals but didn't have direct access to females. And homosexuality was most prevalent in settings where males had direct access to each other, but didn't have direct access to females nor animals.
Sexual orientation is the result of psycho-sexual development. And it doesn't matter whether the brain was hardwired by genes or softwired by experiences during dendrite development, the end result is the same: The brain is wired up for a particular sexual orientation that is extremely hard to change. However, all animals will adapt do differing and sometimes unusual circumstances. Some heterosexuals have have been known to adopt homosexual behavior as a result of certain circumstances.
And oh yeah, I would appreciate it if you quit acting like a pretentious jerky-boy by pretending you know all there is to know about art, and pretending you are the ultimate judge of what is art and what isn't.
There is no ultimate judge of art - the pretension comes when you unselfconsciously describe your own rather slapdash efforts as "art", without throwing the question open to the floor.
I'm still waiting for your point - you simply reiterate the same basic statements over and over, which I understand perfectly, but fail to see the reason for your broadcasting of them. What are you trying to achieve?
I agree with you in every regard - your knee-jerk defensiveness does not help the discussion.
Again you are pretentiously judging my work. In 1989 Andres Serrano received a $15,000 winner's prize for a picture he took and titled, Piss Christ. His art was claimed by many to be a slapdash effort at art, instead of "genuine" art (whatever in hell that is). But still the picture was an image he was inspired to take and display. And his work has affected many on both a conscious and unconscious level. Regardless of what you personally think of my art, it is my artistic expressions nonetheless
According to your profile you live in the United Kingdom. You need to realize that the perception of the average individual in this country isn't like the perception of the average Brit. My videos may be old news to you, but they are an attempt to educate my fellow citizens to facts that they are generally wholly ignorant of. I think the majority of the world feel Americans are ignorant assholes for good reason. I try to dispel some of the ignorance for the sake of those who remain once I'm gone
My reiterations and redundancy isn't broadcast near as wide and far of those of the Major Media of this country. George Carlin tried to educate his follow citizens as he started getting older. I probably feel the same internal stimulation to educate my fellow citizens as Carlin felt. And why was that? Well, it probably has to do with a trait we inherit called altruism. I selfishly seek the good feeling I get by helping others while thinking I am doing so unselfishly. LOL!
How annoying that I've been arguing with you - all because you took offence to my sweeping dismissal of your work, that you describe as art.
I say it again - I've agreed with everything you have said so far (apart from the "not praising homosexuality", which is my defensive reflex) and, you may not have noticed, also an artist of sorts.
I would voice a note of caution, however, that everything in the video is relatively new science and therefore still in contention in some fields.
Yes, I used the line, "...not praising homosexuality." But neither was I condemning it. In fact, I look upon my heterosexual orientation as being as restrictive as your homosexual orientation. I feel bisexuals have more avenues of opportunity and thus more freedom. Or maybe, omnisexuals. I'm not prejudiced towards the female who can satisfy herself with a dog when she has no other option. Nor do I look down my nose at the male who can satisfy himself with a nice warm melon when necessary.
My reference to Left field is a sporting one, not a political one. It means that the issue was introduced unexpectedly and seemingly without connecting to the topic at hand. However I now see that there is a connection. As for not grasping the concepts, I had no difficulty in doing that. It was your commentary and subsequent comments that confuse me. One of the great things about Pinker and Dawkins is their ability to communicate complicated concepts in an easily understandable way....
Far from clarifying the issue, this video serves to complicate it. In addition there is sequence at the end which introduces the issue of homosexuality, from a place commonly known as "left field".....
Well you certainly didn't say anything clear and concise that I can reply to. Who precisely is it that you accuse of using the term "left field?" Liberals are commonly called "left-wingers." But most liberals believe homosexuality is a "freely chosen" lifestyle. Many "right-wingers" on the other hand believe homosexuality is genetically determined. My video presents the prevalent scientific perspective. I'm sorry if you couldn't grasp the concepts presented therein.
I suspect the belief is like a pendulum swinging to and fro, according to whatever idea is being promoted by the Major Media at the time. (Fox News for the "conservative" stance, and a few news magazines and newspapers--such as the Boston Globe--for the "liberal" stance.) Bear in mind that even though both genetic determinism and "free choice" are opposing ideas, both notions are supportive of the Status Quo. Both notions detract from the environmental circumstances that could have contributed.
The main purpose of the Major Media is to make money. And if they can sway a few minds to be supportive of their agenda in the process, then why would they not? Surely they wouldn't want you wise to the ploys and stratagems by which you are manipulated. Why would the Major Media disclose to you that proven techniques of persuasion and manipulation are used scientifically to sell you products and services? Wouldn't the Major Media tend to deny human behavior can be anything but free or genetic?
Whose fault is it that US has the most obese population in world? Well, according to the Major Media, people are genetically prone to be fat or they are "free" to be fat. Supposedly, the imagery, the programs, and the advertisements the individual is bombarded with daily in this country don't have anything to do with the individual's obesity. Why are we such good consumers? Why do we want to shop till we drop? Why do we want to purchase gym memberships and exert more energy than we do at work?
Actually Jake, I probably wouldn't have used the term "for dummies" if it wasn't for the popular series of books in print that deal with subjects on a basic level. Calling a person a dummy is derogatory as far as I'm concerned. We are all ignorant at least to a certain degree; we don't know all there is to know. And anyone who is capable of reading this comment, or who is capable of entertaining the fact that free will is an illusion, is no dummy.for sure. Would "Free Will 101" have been better?
christians are hypocritical. They are using illogical emotion to explain the bible.
A scientist is just reacting to his crappy car for not working. It is inconsistent in logical procedure of dealing with questions....why doesn't my car start...you better start you no good car..which he is responding out of frustration for not knowing why it's not working, or that it is'nt working.
a christian works backwards.."knowing" god did it cause he "feels" it's true.making a leap of faith to knowing it.
Language is basically the association of imagery and emotion to vocalizations and symbols in the mind of the person learning the language. If a teacher tried to teach a student language by wearing a mask so the facial gestures couldn't be seen, and speaking through a voice synthesizer so that emotional variances would be removed, and the teacher was prevented from showing the student any image, so that the association of the symbol and/or the sound to the image couldn't be made, then the (GoTo2)
(2) student wouldn't be able to learn language as we know and use it. No human can use language without being effected by the emotional content and imagery at least to some degree. The emotion and imagery in your head isn't the same as the emotion and imagery in my head. And you will find it more or less impossible to convey precisely the imagery and emotions in your head to mine. The Christian & the scientist are exactly alike in this regard. The Christian is only emotional because the (GoTo3)
(3) info he (or she) was taught has a strong emotional foundation. If the teacher was to beat on the podium and express lots of emotion while teaching science as the preacher beats on the pulpit and expresses emotion while teaching religion, then scientific beliefs would have more or less the same emotional foundation that religious beliefs have. The difference between the Christian and the atheist is the difference in the environmental circumstances to which they've been exposed as individuals.
Don't compare the wiring of the brain with the wiring of the house. The brain is biological. Biological systems are dynamic, unlike houses. Not only are biological systems capable of change, but they are incapable of not changing. Still, this doesn't answer your question.
Three terms (maybe more) are used in association with someone undergoing a shift in perspective. Religious conversion, psychological therapy, and brainwashing. In her book MM, Denise Winn says the processes are very similar.
The psychological phenomena of homosexuality is comparable to alcoholism. You can shame the drinker into not drinking, but that doesn't make the craving go away. AA is big business because of the difficulty in changing the way a person's brain is wired. Homosexual support groups fashioned on the model of anti-drinking support groups possibly could "help" individuals avoid homosexual encounters. And they may even curb homosexual desires to a degree. But convert homosexuals to heterosexuality?
I doubt it. However, some drinkers have an accumulation of experiences that result in their mind changing as if in a snap; and they loose all desire for alcoholic beverages. I'm sure the same has happen at one time or another in regard to homosexuality. However, in an age where overpopulation could become more and more problematic, I see not reason to discourage homosexuality or "treat" it as if it were a disease. So there, I doubt any homosexual can instantly be deconverted/brainwashed/"healed"
Anthropologist Nigel Davies discusses different attitudes around the world and how those attitudes have changed over time in his out of print book titled, The Rampant God: Eros throughout the world. Some sociological theories hold that in order to control the masses their sexuality must be suppressed. In other words, the dominate apes are less concerned about a person's sexual orientation than they are about suppressing sexuality. Also, Google "encouraged homosexuality" and check out the results
A reasonably interesting and more or less informative video... But I fail to see the relevance of calling Dawkin's comments hypocritical and how it in any way relates to religious hypocrisies.
Don't get me wrong. I rather admire and respect Richard. And I realize he is in somewhat of a spot. His priority is to put religion in its place, which religion's place certainly isn't having the final say in non-religious affairs, which has been happening here in the US. And he has to avoid the free will issue whenever possible, because it (debates concerning free will) tends to side tract the issue of The God Delusion. Free will is important to me. I guess I was venting frustration on Richard.
I didn't get the feeling that he was dodging it in this case. Admitting that taking an objective stance on mental activity, and yet still being subject to its foibles doesn't strike me as any kind of contradiction.
As for free will, and its importance to you, me, or society, I think we run into a situation where we have a phrase that can have different degrees of meaningfulness at different levels of complexity. And so context becomes key.
Richard has tried to avoid the free will issue on other occasions. And if you had gotten to see the whole video that this short clip was taken from, you'd realize he stumble and stammered over the issue, indicating he does have problems discussing the free will illusion publicly.
I once got into a serious argument with my daughter-in-law over the free will issue and her tendency to blame her children for things not their fault. I followed up with "Dear Robin: An Open Letter"
Richard Dawkins summed up the most recent findings of science when he stated the fact that the individual's behavior is determined by the neuroanatomy and biophysiological chemistry of his (or her) brain. B.F. Skinner said essentially the same thing when he stated "...a person's behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed." In brief, free will is an illusion
"Richard Dawkins summed up the most recent findings..."
There is a rather wide gap between saying that our neuroanatomy can account for all of our behavior, and reverting to the crass oversimplifications of Skinner.
There is a reasonable middle ground between the epiphenomenalists and the crypto-dualists. Chaos theory showed the dramatic results of the butterfly effect in simple deterministic systems... how much more wild such an effect must have on the emergent behavior of a complex system.
"epiphenomenalists" - Wow! that is a rarely used term that has made its appearance twice by "different" people commenting within 24 hours of "each other" here on my channel. Using the same jargon could mean the two of you belong to the same sect, or you are the same person.
Supposedly there are about four pounds of organisms within the human body. One YouTuber commented that some parasites can cause you to crave certain foods. Gee, think about the Butterfly Effect all those organism have on us.
""epiphenomenalists" - Wow! that is a rarely used term..."
It isn't such a rare term in philosophy of mind and neuroscience. I don't know about the other fellow commenting in your channel, but it is the philosophical standpoint of several of the researchers in my prospective field. Whether I agree with it or not, I have little choice but to be familiar.
A butterfly effect in our symbiots is still going to be much less significant than in neural tissue.
The other fellow was English speaking but not as a primary language, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, he got pissed because I asked him to define the Psyche, since that was the object of his discussion, and tell me how we could determine whether it exists or not. There are more than one definition of psyche, and I'm not sure what he meant. I'm and old retired construction worker, and as such, I'm probably a bit more blunt and abrasive than I should be, I'm unsure. But he slammed the door and left.
"There are more than one definition of psyche, and I'm not sure what he meant."
Yeah. Most modern philosophers of mind would consider it an archaic term, and not much use outside of material written for the laity.
I have certainly had more than one person give up and run away when they couldn't provide a concise description of what they are on about. There are times when I can't martial my definitions quickly... but I can usually state them in a concise way eventually.
"There are times when I can't martial my definitions..."
That is the reason I'd rather leave comments or converse via email than use a chat box or otherwise talk directly. Some of my conversations with my 31 year old son using a chat box are a bit embarrassing upon careful reconsideration. I tend to worry more about not keeping the other party waiting for a response than I do giving a deeply thought out response. Comments (and other forms of writing) are different unless emotion gets involved.
Weirdly enough, I used to be exactly like this as well, but as of late that has changed, I am 20 years old. I can't figure out why or how that would be though. Maybe it's because i've become more negetive. Which I can say I have. This stage of my life etc. So yeah, it's an unkown at the moment.
"And if you had gotten to see the whole video that this short clip was taken from, you'd realize he stumble and stammered over the issue"
I have seen it... and I still am not seeing what you are seeing. There are clear signs that it is a complex problem, still lingering in the murky realm of philosophy at least as much as it is coming under the light of scientific inquiry...
As for my own stance on free will, at any levels that it can be talked about meaningfully, my opinion is in flux.
"Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind.... We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different. But we scientist are inconsistent... In short when we are thinking like academics, we regard people as elaborate and complicated machines... But when we revert to being human, we behave more like Basil Fawlty, who we remember thrashed his car to teach it a lesson when it wouldn't start on gourmet night." Dawkins
Descartes Error was major. Too bad some people still read his works without realizing his mistakes. And those people are more likely to be persuaded by his eloquent rhetoric than by the logic of his discourse.
Free will is religious dogma. It is preached from every pulpit in the land. The Major Media preach The Dogma in order to preserve the status Quo. The average individual cannot escape the effect of such a bombardment and succumb accordingly. Parents who succumb pass the notion on to kids.
That's just the literalist, metaphysical meaning. Free will can also be used to describe the effect of mental processes that are currently too complex and dynamic to be reliably described (much less predicted) in a meaningful way. So to an extent I lied... I am in no way ambivalent in my rejection of dualistic free will.
But there are other ways of talking about it which may still be useful.
The only problem with using the term free will in a new non-metaphysical way is that the use keeps the old metaphysical illusion alive and healthy in the average person's mind. But of course, the word is too fixed in language to eliminate. Besides, preachers will still fill their sermons with illusions promoting free will. And the Major Media will still promote the notion in order to preserve the Status Quo. Newspaper Headlines: The Roman Empire Fell Because People Freely Choose To Be Bad. LOL!
"But of course, the word is too fixed in language..."
The crux of the matter is the legal use. How the law defines a person, a crime, consent, testimony and a slew of other key concepts may be on the cusp of major overhaul... we are going to have to find a definition of free will that takes what we know into account, or the whole system may very well collapse.
Facts4u com/free/ has a 2004 article title "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything," which deals with that issue. Want to add anything? I could see that understanding crime as a consequence of a particular mindset-one-has-developed (instead of freely chosen) could result in a different approach than is currently applied. Besides, prison often causes a maladapted mindset (AKA, the individual) to acquire even more antisocial attitudes and opinions, and thus behavioral tendencies.
I did say I've seen it. I know its contents... What I am saying is that you are finding an interpretation in those words that I do not share. If you want to try and explain in different words fine... but parroting it is no more going to convey your point than shouting at someone from China will make them suddenly understand English.
"parroting"?? Say, have you been a construction worker before? LOL! I quoted Dawkins because I was hoping you'd note that he provided a scientific position concerning behavior (including thought behavior) but then turned around and said, "But we scientists are inconsistent..." At that point I said something like, "No Richard! If you call Christians hypocrites for their inconsistencies then scientists are hypocrites too." And as stated, I was being inconsistent because like Richard, I'm human too
What I took away from that part of his lecture was that knowing about the quirks of the brain does not make you immune to them.
An acoustical physicist may have intimate knowledge of how sounds are actually made, and shaped, but chances are he isn't calculating sine waves or harmonic differentials when he enjoys his favorite music.
And yes, I was an apprentice carpenter when I was 17... though I don't recall the term "parroting" being part of that.
"...knowing about the quirks of the brain does not make you immune to them."
No doubt! As you know, emotion overrules logical thought processes. I'd like to add that the herd instinct (peer-pressure, conformity, status strivings) also overrule logical thought. I'm sure more than one German often had second thoughts about the "Truths" of the Nazi Party. But emotion and the herd instinct repressed those thoughts and feelings.
In my "Dear Robin" video I also stated "scientists are hypocrites too"
True. Though, one who knows what is going on usually has to be taken by surprise. Experiments with magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobe show that people who are unaware of that area's connection with religious feelings will experience deep religious emotions far more frequently than subjects who are aware of the possibility.
I would only say that scientists CAN be hypocrites too...
"I would only say that scientists CAN be hypocrites too..."
Hmmmm. Well, maybe we'd both be better to say all humans are capable of being hypocrites. And scientists are human. But once a human becomes hypocritical, he (or she) is no longer being scientific; therefore, he (or she) at that point in time is not a scientist but a pseudoscientist/quack.
That is a fact but do you think it may be a bit too abrasive for the average person to accept?
"That is a fact but do you think it may be a bit too abrasive for the average person to accept?"
In response, I would like to quote Dawkins, quoting the editor of New Science... "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off"...
The reality of what an honest scientist should and shouldn't be expected to live up to is so important, that I honestly can't take seriously the opinion of anyone who can't get this right.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off"...
Good point. I've seen a video of Richard making the statement. And it is pretty accurate in this case too. We could say the scientists who contradict scientific findings with their attitudes and behavior are not only being pseudoscientific/quacks, but they are being fuck-offs. LOL Yeah!
Language is fun isn't it? I'll bet Richard has a sense of humor and would get a chuckle out of me poking fun at "inconsistent" scientists.
The text was put there for the hearing impaired. I felt it was a small sacrifice for people with good hearing to "endure." And it was bit more work for me, but what the hell, you know, life is not a bed of roses without thorns.
Sexuality is established very early during embryological development and is the result of a combination of several physiological and hormonal factors. Nothing which happens in embryological development is either simple or without risk of developmental error. Homosexuality can be considered a developmental insult (which means an error occured) but it is determined in the womb. If you really want to see what happens when development goes badly for a guy, check out the condition AIS.
The riddle of gene-environment interaction still has not been solved to the satisfaction of all scientists. Only after indisputable proof is offered will we start to see harmony in discourse. And until that time we will continue to see agnosticism, atheism, and blind belief in regard to what factors do and do not determine the individual's sexual mindset. I know of no finding that firmly establish that homosexuality, pedophilia or any other sexual orientation is wired into the brain before birth
this is correct as far i as my experiences. this knowledge is how i learned to truly forgive my stepfather, a repeat pedophile. I understand the bombardment of subliminal suggestion within the structure. not really his fault. just a product of the environment....yep.
I don't know what your definition of subliminal suggestion is. But to me it is the conscious effort made to effect an individual's intuition (on an unconscious level). And I don't think your stepfather acquired his deviant sexual tastes in such a manner. I suspect the behavior may have been acquired as a result of childhood experiences. Then undergoing stress that resulted in him reverting to more satisfying childhood mannerism. But his brain could have had a malfunctioning/damaged limbic system
Contrary to the implications of the video you advised, pedophilia isn't being subliminally suggested in Disney Movies. The first example seemed to me to be building a negative character that the audience would love to despise. In the second example the man looked at the other man's arm and asked "How's the arm?" Evidently the man was in a pitcher who was soaking his pitching arm in the whirlpool hot tub. The person making the video seemed to have the paranoia common in this age--pedophillaphobia
ADD? That was a hateful insinuation? Besides, I would suggest you watch the following three videos from my "Learning, Behaviorism, & Psychology" Playlist and tell me whether ADD truly exists before you pretend you are qualified to make a diagnoses without ever having met the "patient": watch?v=Qj7GmeSAxXo watch?v=j-wMP2Q0Ifs watch?v=_sYhTdeLRM8 Also, being from a "credible" source or being written in a popular book wouldn't have made me blindly accept LenonHonorFilms' opinions. Too illogical!4me
English speakers around the world speak slightly different variations of the same language. For example, YouTube User, RentTheSpokeMan made a video titled, People are cunts, which probably makes sense to a person from his area. But the meaning is unclear to me. Also, above, YouTube User, Iambecome made the comment that my video was interesting but had a slightly odd tone. Which means what? Oh, and I always reply to comments, unless I get a comment that uses straw man &/or ad hominem fallacies.
No need to give example of million ping pongs...we already have real life problems equivalent to that. Weather - Trillions of particles interacting with each other, with sun's energy and what not. Each particle still behaves according to Newton's laws of motion and in every sense pre-determined. But even supercomputers can't solve the equations for this big a system so we can only make guesses and there is no real way of knowing even when weather is predetermined.
amiyaiitkgp 4 months ago
Just because some neurons can be rewired doesn't mean all can be re-wired
Artifactorfiction 6 months ago
Wait a minute... did this guy just compared neurons and how they work with ping pongs falling off in the Grand Canyon? FTW? XD Yup... that was enough to close the window. 2 minutes of my life wasted.
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 you are making such a crazy joke by twisting what was said. He, which is me, BTW, said that just because we cannot determine what the trajectory and movement of a ping-pong ball will be when it is falling into the Grand Canyon does not mean the movement and trajectory were not determined. Likewise, just because we cannot determine all there is to know about the brain does not mean that the brain is magically free from the laws that govern falling balls and everything else in the universe
unseenstrings 9 months ago 3
Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.
pawsoned 11 months ago
Actually Pinker is a Canadian-American experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist and pop-icon. And yes it seems to me too that he is a "linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like." That is what make him a pop star. Crowds love eloquent rhetorical dismissals of ideas that they themselves do not understand. Certain politicians are popular for the same reason. Pinker's only contribution to "real" science has been in linguistics general theory
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings Yeah, Pinker's not that bad. That comment was terrible. I'm at peace with Pinker now. I think it was my ego and the need to show off on the You Tube aka trolling. But still he's not my idol and I dislike his writings peppered with anti-theistic bias. Atheism is not a scientific position because it deals with metaphysical existence of a purported higher being. i understand that new-atheists try to fight the creationists with their methods. But imo that's an ideological clash
pawsoned 9 months ago
@pawsoned, I suspect some of the anti-atheist biases atheists experience at the hands of theists have something to do with them expressing anti-theistic sentiments. Otherwise, the atheist could care less what the other person believes. And some of the anti-atheist biases expressed by theists are the result of fear of atheism or what they suppose belief in atheism will lead to. The "Jesus Camp" DVD and the present problems with Muslims has some atheists feeling a similar fear in regard to theists
unseenstrings 9 months ago
But as you say "atheism is not a scientific position." However naturalism is. Methodological naturalism is another term for the scientific method. Phenomena are assumed to be the result of natural laws instead of supernatural laws because that is what has been found to work best for dissolving illusions and getting to the gist of the matter. Besides, supernatural causes and effects would be undetectable by definition
Evolution is called by some theists as "God's Plan." Evolution is scientific
unseenstrings 9 months ago
@unseenstrings. I don't need language when I think about sex. Which fortunately or unfortunately takes up a dispraportionate amount of my inner thoughts.
Dalychomsky 1 year ago
@Dalychomsky, you are not the only one. In "The video that got Coughlan666 Banned Permanently" a mirrored video in my Social Issues Playlist, Richard Coughlan goes into detail to give statics. I am somewhat surprised that the flagging of his account still stands. George Carlin rhetorically asked, "I don't get it. Buying is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't buying fucking legal?" He saw what you are experiencing and Coughlan gave statics of. But he didn't understand why sexuality is suppressed.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
I have my suspicions. You see, when sexuality is suppressed, the deprived individual starts suffering discontent. This is like lighting a fire under his ass. He does everything possible to ease the pangs of the ongoing discontent. These striving can then be directed by those who are aware of some of the factors involved. A sexually satisfied woman may not feel the compulsion to shop till she drops. The sexually satisfied Muslim may not feel compelled to spread the word of Islam.
Any thoughts?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings. How can an organism contemplate his own thoughts and desires and conduct without complex language? Simple, when he composes music or works on mathematics.
Dalychomsky 1 year ago
@Dalychomsky, I suspect human language is built upon the foundation that our prehuman ancestors had evolved for song. But that is another story. Nevertheless, if you'll step back and look at the big picture, you may see that a person cannot comprehend music composition nor trigonometry without first being taught such via complex language. A person without the capacity and knowledge of human language would be justifiability considered "retarded." Oh, and nonhumans are self-aware to a degree.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
And whats your definition of consciousness then?
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, I've already given you my definition. Were you paying attention? Hows your memory? "To the average person (myself included) the word conscious means being aware of one's surroundings and later being able to recall that awareness. To use the WordWeb definition: Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts." I include memory because I feel memory is necessary for conscious awareness. Maybe you were unconscious when I gave my definition. LOL!
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I will explain why what you have said in other posts are wrong.
Quote: Redefining consciousness to mean basically the capacity for complex language.
Wrong, he says consciousness is being self aware and explains how this happens through varies degrees of self introspection. He also goes into detail about the science behind his ideas.
Secondly, the Definition of consciousness has always included "self awareness".
Lastly, we CAN'T introspect without first being self aware.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, the reason you presume the facts I presented are wrong is probably because you haven't thought through the implications of your presumption. Please tell me how any organism can contemplate his (or her) own thoughts and desires and conduct without the aid of complex language? That is, tell me how introspection is possible without the capacity for complex language, the acquisition of said language, and the training necessary to use said language for introspection?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Do you think animals are self aware, there is nothing in their behavior that indicates it, it's always been exclusively human.
And also I think you're deliberately being argumentative, why did you bring religion into this? If your talking about his cult following your crazy. Look at video games and their followers.
roxasroks 1 year ago
Whales have a complex language and may very well be self aware. No one really knows the truth of the matter. Would you feel insulted to include whales in the Julian Jaynes Religion of Consciousness? Although, undoubtedly not even humans all have precisely the same self-awareness. Does that mean those humans ought to be excluded from Julian Jaynes' Religion of Consciousness? Obviously those humans who didn't fit Julian Jaynes' religious definition of Consciousness would be required exclusion.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
I may speak jokingly at times. I may be a bit sarcastic or speak ironicly at times. But at no time have I been "deliberately argumentative" just for the sake of arguing with you. I am arguing my point because it is a valid one. Does your accusation mean that anyone who disagrees with you is being "deliberately argumentative?" No doubt such a accusation could be a stratagem used in an attempt to silence dissenting opinions.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I asked because you said "Julian Jaynes Religion"? Why, you know its going to stir anger, that's why I avoid insulting you? Though it isn't so much offensive as it is annoying.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Whales "language" is about as complex as body language and facial expressive communication.
What marks our language apart from all others is the capacity to develop not only concepts, but metaphors.
A whale can not develop a metaphor because not only does it not have the capacity to, the communication between them isn't anywhere near intricate enough.
And why don't whales have the capacity? Well besides the semantics, they aren't self aware. You should know this?
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, if any nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) is not self-aware, then the lack of awareness is only because the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) doesn't have the capacity for the language necessary for self awareness, or the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) hasn't acquired the necessary language and/or hasn't been taught to use said language in such a way to be self aware. The reason dispute exist over nonhuman language theories and studies is because humans don't know.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@roxasroks, the language of every species is the result of "random" mutation, genetic drift, and selective pressures. Any difference in the language of one species in comparison to another would be the result of the difference in the "random" mutation and genetic drift of those two species and the difference in the selective pressures that the two species had been exposed to. That is to say, all communication capacities and skills of different organisms are the result of evolutionary processes.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@roxasroks, nonhumans and unlearned/retarded humans are not un/non-conscious when and only because they don't have the capacity for the language necessary for self awareness, or the nonhuman (or unlearned/retarded human) hasn't acquired the necessary language and/or hasn't been taught to use said language in such a way to for self-awareness/introspection. I mean, you can knock one out and he (or she) would be un/non-conscious. Consciousness isn't dependent on complex language. Introspection is.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Communication is shaped by evolution, not language. Metephors are not the result of "random mutations". Evolution only shapes our capacity to development them.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, metaphors are the result of necessity and shaped by selective pressures, just as in the case of biological evolution. The study of the evolution of metaphors and other cultural units (such as an idea or value or pattern of behaviour) that are passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation) is called memetics. Human language is shaped by evolution as much as nonhuman communication is. Do nonhumans have the capacity for complex language that humans have?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@roxasroks, did humans develop language prior to evolving the capacity for it? Can language to taught as we know and use it without emotion and "body" language being "learned" in the process? That is, can language be taught by using a speech synthesizer to remove all emotional tonal variances, and teaching from behind a screen so that gestures and grimaces may not become associated with the language being taught? I say communication and language are too intricately interwoven to be separated.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Oh and when you say Determined you mean the trajectory is deterministic?
roxasroks 1 year ago
Thought isn't a behavior, its a product. Behavior comes from thought not the other way around. Unless of course you mean self introspection or something like that.
roxasroks 1 year ago
Yes, well, in the same sense walking isn't a behavior but a process of the legs. In that sense thought isn't a behavior but what the brain does--also sort of like, the mind is what the brain does. Both walking and thought are phenomena that arise as the result of physical processes. And neither thought nor walking could exist without the biological units that preceded and gave rise to the phenomena. Plus self-introspection is made possible by the capacity for and learned use of complex language.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Last part. You been reading Julian Jaynes? And I disagree, you can't compare Thought and Behavior in the same way you can Walking and Behavior.
Anyway I understand what you mean so don't fret, you are right at the moment.
roxasroks 1 year ago
The first time I ran across anything by Julian Jaynes was in Loompanics, Ltd. book catalog. Huxley amd Leary come to mind (?). Although, I never read any work by Jaynes that I can recall. Besides a quick visit to the Julian Jaynes Society Web Page gave me the impression that we have strong differences. He believed "consciousness" is fairly recent on the evolutionary scale and acquired only by humans. I believe human consciousness only seems different than other animals' because of human language
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Depends on how you define consciousness. He defines it as self introspection, not JUST being aware.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, Julian Jaynes invented a definition of consciousness as confusing as the pantheistic definition of God. It is all inclusive and exclusive at the same time. It excludes the consciousness of all other organism by making up a definition that encompasses only human consciousness. This is equivalent to redefining free will to be a phenomena arising purely from physical processes. The original illusion is kept alive in the average person's mind by the use of the new fangled definition.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
We can be even more exclusive and say that consciousness is apparent for those humans who wear classic red Converse All Stars. Why not? If he can make children and nonhumans into zombies by saying that the only beings who have consciousness are those who happen to have the capacity for complex language, and happened to acquired said language, and happened to have been trained to use said language in a way necessary to achieve introspection, then why can't we do the same with red tennis shoes?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I don't understand your point here? Can you rephrase? And don't use zombie, A non conscious person is not mindless, in the same way a dog is not. Please read my other message first.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, I was referring to the common and inevitable conclusion and confusion caused by redefining consciousness to mean basically the capacity for complex language, the acquirement of said language, and the discipline and training necessary to use said language in a ways to achieve introspection. The redefinition makes as much sense as making up consciousness to mean the wearing of red tennises. Imagine the ad campaign: You can become conscious with our new classic red Converse All Stars.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings How new is the definition? Julian Jaynes published his book over 20 years ago?
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, 20 years ago and the definition hasn't caught on yet?! Apparently I'm not the only one who feels Jaynes' definition is so far fetched from the original definition that it can only lead to miscommunication and confusion. I'll betcha the definition is real popular over at the Julian Jaynes Society. In fact, Jaynes' redefinition is reminiscence of religion. Is that what he was trying to do--invent a new religion? Yes, Glory! Verbally adept humans are the only conscious beings on Earth.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings No. Read his book before you jump to conclusions. Its his thesis, nothing more.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@unseenstrings Precisely! The mind that is exclusively human is what Julian Jayne discusses.
And in that case, consciousness is simply being aware and reactive right? So why not just say AWARE and do away with conscious?
He makes his point meaningful by saying consciousness is exclusively human, a step a head of awareness and reactivity.
roxasroks 1 year ago
@roxasroks, but Julian Jayne's redefinition can only lead to confusion in public discourse. To the average person (myself included) the word conscious means being aware of one's surroundings and later being able to recall that awareness. To use the WordWeb definition: Knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts. [which includes animals] Julian Jayne would have done better to have invented a new word for his new definition, as Richard Dawkins did with meme
unseenstrings 1 year ago
omigod! I hate you. I find Pinker's topic to be quite serious, but I keep laughing at your simplification of it. You should change the title to "Determinism for Rednecks"
Nades129 1 year ago
@Nades129, more people in this world love to hate than love to love. Such words as nigger, spic, chink, greaser or redneck are quickly spouted by the hatemongers. But hate usually comes from ignorance. Trying to teach people about psychological determinism is one way of combating the ignorance. But the Dogma of Free Will being preached from the pulpits & broadcast by the Major Media across the land are near impossible to counter by a few YouTube Videos. And ridicule only increases the ignorance.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
I've always felt that homosexuality could be determined by the nature around us. Perhaps some have the "proper" genes for being molded into becoming homosexual. I think though that the constant population of gays and the studies coming out that fetuses that are the third baby or higher from a given mother often leads towards being gay may show that the baby is conditioned before it leaves the womb. Or it could be genes. Or, in addition to all of those causes, some people may choose to be gay
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 1 year ago
Well being the third baby or higher also involves the possibility of the younger boy being exposed to the developing hormone driven sexual curiosities of the older boys. After all, once a coworker offered to give me a BJ. When I said no, he became afraid I would tell others and started acting apologetic. He claimed that as a child his older brothers threatened to beat him up if he didn't do "it." And he claimed that after awhile, he got to where he rather enjoyed the performance. You comprehend?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Besides, saying a person "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex adds nothing but obscurity to the issue. Every animal "chooses" according to the particular brain it has developed. No two animals of the same nor of different species think and thus "choose" to act precisely alike, because no two animals have developed precisely the same brain. And humans are animals too you know. Attraction isn't determined by what the organism "chooses." Instead "choice" is determined by "needs" perceived.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings I do understand what you're saying. What I was saying is that these experiments tested something to do with the mother's body treating each successive baby as a foreign invasion, it has to do with antibodies, etc. Somehow that effects the child's sexuality. It's far from determined though in the scientific community, I believe.
What I was saying regarding choice is that some may be sexually attracted to the opposite sex but may be open to experimentation. I would also say
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 1 year ago
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV, I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. And I suspect the ones open to experimentation are like Hindus who are open to try meat. In fact, I feel the sexual tastes one has acquired to be analogous to the taste one has acquired for food. (A vegetarian eating another man's "meat." LOL!) Both are the result of genetic-environment interaction. We may be born with a repulsion to the smell of blue-cheese, but under the right circumstances, we acquire a taste for such
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings (cont) I would also say that's a manifestation of the brain you developed.
SaturdaySoundOffsTV 1 year ago
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV said, "I would also say that's a manifestation of the brain you developed"
And I would agree wholeheartedly. Brain development always precedes "conscious" functionality.
The taste one has acquired for food and one's sexual taste are not the result of consciously arranging the brain in such a way that you are attracted to a particular food or sexual orientation. The particular tastes one possesses and his (or her) sexual tastes are manifestations of the brain's development.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Ah, good to find another person who realises that free will is just an illusion. Yes, everything we do is caused and determined by physical laws. "Unseen Strings" is a good metaphor. I always like to say that humans are actually puppets - controlled in every way by puppet strings (which are the physical laws of the universe). Someone thinking they have free will is analagous to a puppet thinking it has free will, despite everything they do being completely outside their control. Nice video
johndoe43210 2 years ago
True! Human behavior is no more free from the laws of cause and effect than is the behavior of a puppet. However--and this point cannot be stressed enough--one must be careful not to use analogies that over-simplify the complexities involved, because the average individual may reject the facts as ridiculous. The Big Bang, causality, and any philosophical speculation that would be irrelevant when discussing ant brains and cognition are also irrelevant when discussing the human brain and cognition
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Yeah that's true. In order to explain this to the average person you need to explain a lot of things first, including neuroscience, biochemistry, physics, cause and effect, determinism, how biology is all due to chemistry, and how chemistry is all due physics. Also, it helps to talk about psychology, and things like operant conditioning. It is not until you have explained these things in a lot of depth that you can them say analogies like the one I did.
johndoe43210 2 years ago
as for time, physical observations of reletivity prove that it exists outside of being a merely perceptual phenomenon or cognitive function. however, it exists in the same way that a dimension exists, and the perception of it FLOWING from past to present is probably simply a function of entropy as it pertains to the human mind's predictive powers{or maybe that is oversimplifying the issue}. time is a neutral phenomenon, our PERCEPTION paints it with our beleif of WHAT IT IS. so its subjective
leonheartmm 2 years ago
oh btw, what you are referring to as the "unknowable" reality of things outside ourselves, i wud refer to not as REALITY, {because all that we know of and call reality is the EXPERIENCE that "WE" have of perceivING/existING} but rather as neutral entities, or objects without subjects{without putting too much metaphyisical emphasis on the word subject}. i refer to such neutral entities in the same way that bertrand russel and others refer to such objects in the "analysis of mind" etc.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
Every generation has illusions that later generations often can see beyond. The illusions of the time were thought to be reality and only later were discovered to be illusions. Omniscience would be required for knowing all there is to know about reality (Ultimate Reality). And since humans are not and never will be omniscient, they can never be fully aware of, and never fully understand reality as it truly is. However, we have only our intellect, our senses, and the scientific method as a guide.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
i think omniscience wud simply expand your interpretation of neutral entities to a titanic but finite extent{if u dont factor in time}. i think "reality" though is simply the sum total of the neutral entities YOU interpret, whether it be a pee or the entire realm of omniscient possibilities past present and future that ever cud or did or cudnt exist.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
I think the major difference in our opinion is one based more on definition. To me, the perception (of reality) I have developed as a consequence of genetic-environmental interactions is not the ultimate judge of reality in any sense except in giving me functionality. Oh, and by the way, does time actually exist or is it a name given to a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future? If time exists, what is it?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
i agree with the definition part. i dont call "the unseen world that exists outside a perceiving entity/human.animal" REAL. instead i call it NEUTRAL. i think our very core concept of REALITY is one based firmly in our OWN reality and the sense of our OWN existance. neutral things which r not perceived are not REAL to me in any way which human beings are familiar with the concept of "reality". they are merely neutral. maybe it wud be easier to seperate the definition of EXISTANCE from REALIITY.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
I have a relative notion but I'm not sure you will agree it is identical. You said "things which r not perceived are not REAL to me..." In a similar line of reasoning I said that reality is perceived by means of the senses and with sensory enhancement mechanism such as infrared detectors and microscopes. And things thought to exist but can't be detected with the senses nor with sensory enhancement mechanisms are unreal things. They actually don't exist except in the vivid imagination of humans.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
there are types of reality which are not perceived by the senses, namely, introspection/dreaming/higher cognitive functions etc, or rather, they are not perceived by the 5 outrospctive senses.
of neutral entities. i wud say they EXIST in that they and their effects are not illusions of our generation, but i wud say that WHAT we sense/feel them to be is merely how we feel/sense OURSELVES to be when we are physically effected by those things. which isnt indicative of what the THING itself is.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say, "things which r not perceived are not REAL to me..." Then basically you suggest that anything imaginable is real. You would fit quite nicely into the religious community.
Also, your supposed senses of "introspection/dreaming/higher cognitive functions etc" could not exist without your 5 so called "outrospctive" senses. Imagine a baby born blind, deaf, and without a sense of taste, touch, or smell. No practical brain functioning could exist.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
In fact, a baby born blind, deaf, and without a sense of taste, touch, or smell would be--in a sense--dead, and would surely die if not put on a life support system.
The brain requires input from the eyes in order to wire itself up for sight. The brain requires input from the ears in order to wire itself up for sound. The brain requires sensory input from the skin, the nose, and the taste buds in order to wire itself up to perceive reality in those ways and thus give the organism functionality.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
not true, at all, have u studied neurology, thats certainly not the case.
functionality is not the same thing as the ability to introspect. shown by the fact that people lacking one or more senses still dream and remember.
you shud read more works on the theory of mind and the theory of knowledge.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
Dreaming does not prove the ability for introspection. Animals dream.
And you cannot state logically that dreams definitely occur in organisms that have no sensory input to the brain from any of the 5 senses. Developing fetuses dream in the womb but developing fetuses are not disconnected from the 5 senses of the body.
Lacking one or two or three of the senses would not mean the brain is totally disconnected from reality. Sensory input would still be being received from the remaining senses.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
ofcourse it does. dreaming/remembering/corellating are all examples of MENTAL/cognitive processes that are fundamentally different from SENSING. the fact that they can use data collected and stored by the 5/6 senses is in NO way indicative of them being the SAME AS "sensing".
you seem to be unable to make this distinction. ur arguing like a classical hard line behaviourist.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
I reiterate: you do not know if a brain that has never received any input from the senses can dream and neither do I. We know it can't remember what it hasn't experienced. It can't correlate without something to correlate. It can't introspect without language. It can't acquire language without the senses. Also I remind you this is not a philosophy forum. We do not use the weird jargon and definitions of philosophers. We use the language of everyday people to avoid confusion. And we use the 3 C's
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Therefore, please try to make you comments Clear, Concise, & Cohesive in order to avoid confusing/miscommunicating (to) readers, one of which happens to be me.
Two different realities would not exists for two very different people. Instead, two different perceptions of reality would exist. Bookshelf 98 defines reality as "The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence." This is the common usage and the one I shall use for that reason.
Do you believe in a 6th sense?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
@unseenstrings Animals dream but unlike humans, their dreams manifest devoid of language. We form thoughts congruent with combinations and permutations of symbols used to illuminate on experience & events. For humans, dreaming can present as a form of introspection.
csh01150 2 years ago
The one problem with your hypothesis is that babies in the womb dream and they have never learned the language necessary for introspection. I've suspected and said myself before that dreams are the way the unconscious part of the brain communicates with the conscious part. But I was including non-humans too. Undoubtedly it is much more complicated than that. I don't believe anyone knows for sure. And the human animal is too embarrassed/ashamed to admit there is something he really doesn't know.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
no, u seemed to have missed the part where i made the distinction between "existance" and "reality". existance wud be a set of known and unknown elements extrapolated from its subset "reality". reality is what WE think exists, EXISTANCE is the combination of what we think is real as well as extrapolated neutral entities from our experience of reality which contain in their identity, unknown elements.
the fact that they are complemented by outrospective senses doesnt negate their seperation
leonheartmm 2 years ago
I'm sorry but your "neutral entities" bear too much resemblance to metaphysical entities, which are nonsensical to science. They are the concerns of myth, religion, philosophy, and in some cases, linguistics and anthropology.
Once language is acquired, words have an effect on mental processes. Otherwise, words are nonsensical to the individual. With words, Santa and Peter Pan can be made to seem real to a child. But the child would be suffering from an illusion created with words. Real unreal!
unseenstrings 2 years ago
completely untrue. you shud read russel/dewey/dennet/chomsky on neutral entities. they bear NO resemblence to metaphysical entities. they are infact part of the exiomic makeup of the universe.
and what does language have to do with neutral entities. the mental image of a santa can me tranmitted to a child without language using pictures.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
You seem incapable of fully grasping the significance of the different statements made during our conversation. And then you wildly assert something that contradicts your previous statements. For example, a child without language wouldn't be much different than a chimp. The capacity we've evolved for language, and the ability to use language is what makes us human. Showing a child a picture of Santa does not evoke introspection. Introspection is impossible without a language formable to the task
unseenstrings 2 years ago
A critical period of development exist for language acquisition. That is, should the child not be taught language during the first 10 or so years of life, the individual will not be able to learn and use it in any but a retarded capacity. Also language acquisition is dependent on the senses. Without the senses no language. No language, no introspection
Also this is not a philosophy forum. We do not use the weird jargon and definitions of philosophers: we use the everyday language of real people
unseenstrings 2 years ago
@unseenstrings Are you even familiar with concepts in the neurophysiology of language? Research Broca's area and Wernicke's area in the brain. I seems that your thinking is highly dichotomized when it comes to conceptualizing aspects of language. the neural circuitry of language is not centralized, since there are separate regions for language input, interpretation, and formulation of language.
csh01150 2 years ago
Thanks for the comment. Good stuff.
Yes, I realize the brain does not have a central control center. And I'm somewhat familiar with neurophysiology of language in the sense that I've picked up bits and pieces from different scientific literature. And I have Broca's Brain, by Sagan. And I'm somewhat familiar with both Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area. Moreover though, I realize no -ology could be an -ology without the methodological naturalism of the scientific method.
Ever read Oliver Sacks?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
heres a thought. the criteria for REAL is what the brain perceives to be real, including, itself, introspectively or outrospectively. so if conciousness{and such things as unity of the mind or a perception of qualia} is an illusion created BY the brain, for the brain and functioning through the brain. then doesnt that illusion have the same credit as REALITY? or rather, isnt the difference, between illusion and REALITY{talking in relation to the perceived/felt SOUL as people call it} linguistic?
leonheartmm 2 years ago
Very interesting. However, according to your definition, reality would be constantly changing, according to the perception developed by the individual and according to the awareness developed within the scientific community. The reality of our ancient ancestors would have been different than the reality of today. At that point, reality would become merely a linguistic or imaginary construct, which to a degree, it is. Ultimate reality is beyond our cognitive ability to perceive and decipher.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
entirely true. it wud be different for different people{or rather is CUD be, if quals are not generally universal physical components}, reality wud simply be sumthing that inconrporated content and context in itself, kind of a self definition or self evident entity{which wud include a self evident illusion}. what you are referring to wud be PHYSICAL reality which we can never really know, only INTERPRET with our perception and the experiences they cause in our sense of self{real or imaginary}.
leonheartmm 2 years ago
...Yes, but what is your POINT?
gregstaddon 2 years ago
Surely you can be a bit more clear and concise than acknowledging the point of the video and then asking the point of the video, as in, "Yes, but what is your POINT?" You see, the video presented a number of facts to the viewer. I would need to know which fact you are referring to in order to provide you with a summary (the point) of why that particular fact was presented.
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 2 years ago
But a series of facts presented to no end is an exercise is fatuity and aimlessness. Why would anyone do that? There has to be some kind of argument, some kind of goal.
gregstaddon 2 years ago
Interesting that you are the first one who has admitted to failing to recognize the points of the video. Here are a few for you to see in simplified form:
1. The soul is an illusion.
2. Free will was thought to be a process of the soul, which would make it an illusion also.
3. The brain is purely physical and the mind is what the brain does.
4. Cognition grows in accordance to natural laws.
5. Regardless of whether homosexuality is hardwired or softwired, it is not freely chosen.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Sir, the only thing I "fail to recognize (sic)" is the point of posting or even making the video. It's nice to hear these interesting snippets from experts in the their field, but your conclusion of "homosexuality ... is not freely chosen" is rather a paltry one. It is obvious. Ask any thinking gay person and they would have told you that.
You strike me as rather a show-off.
gregstaddon 2 years ago
I felt you were being a bit snotty when you rhetorically asked, "Yes, but what is your POINT?," especially considering the EMPHASIS. So I responded accordingly. And if I mistook your intent, for that I apologize. Other commenters had argued some of the points of the video with me, but you pretended my creation had no point, which is the best way to insult an artist. I should have merely said that all art has a point. You may not understand it, but it does. But I don't think you wanted to know.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Oh, and just because you are homosexual doesn't mean your opinions align perfectly with those of all "thinking gay" people. Logically speaking your assertion also means that any gay who disagreed with you was an "unthinking" person. Rather than accuse me of being "rather a show-off," take a look in a mirror
And I reiterate, sexual desires felt towards members of one's own sex are not freely chosen, but merely experienced. Homosexuality is either hardwired or softwired into the brain, not chosen
unseenstrings 2 years ago
But then, so is heterosexuality, and bestiality, and paedophilia, and ALL sexual desires. You are offering nothing more than a tautology! That's what I want you to clarify. Why single out homosexuality? Why not choose another sexual orientation, or indeed something different, such as a penchant for ice cream?
And come on - "artist"? Please. Talk about pretension.
gregstaddon 2 years ago
The tautology exists only in your mind. And of course all sexual desires are the result of psychological causality. Where else could they come from? "Demon spirits"? "Cupid"? The magic of "free will"? Kinsey discovered long ago that bestiality was prevalent in settings where males had direct access to animals but didn't have direct access to females. And homosexuality was most prevalent in settings where males had direct access to each other, but didn't have direct access to females nor animals.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Sexual orientation is the result of psycho-sexual development. And it doesn't matter whether the brain was hardwired by genes or softwired by experiences during dendrite development, the end result is the same: The brain is wired up for a particular sexual orientation that is extremely hard to change. However, all animals will adapt do differing and sometimes unusual circumstances. Some heterosexuals have have been known to adopt homosexual behavior as a result of certain circumstances.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
And oh yeah, I would appreciate it if you quit acting like a pretentious jerky-boy by pretending you know all there is to know about art, and pretending you are the ultimate judge of what is art and what isn't.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
There is no ultimate judge of art - the pretension comes when you unselfconsciously describe your own rather slapdash efforts as "art", without throwing the question open to the floor.
I'm still waiting for your point - you simply reiterate the same basic statements over and over, which I understand perfectly, but fail to see the reason for your broadcasting of them. What are you trying to achieve?
I agree with you in every regard - your knee-jerk defensiveness does not help the discussion.
gregstaddon 2 years ago
Again you are pretentiously judging my work. In 1989 Andres Serrano received a $15,000 winner's prize for a picture he took and titled, Piss Christ. His art was claimed by many to be a slapdash effort at art, instead of "genuine" art (whatever in hell that is). But still the picture was an image he was inspired to take and display. And his work has affected many on both a conscious and unconscious level. Regardless of what you personally think of my art, it is my artistic expressions nonetheless
unseenstrings 2 years ago
According to your profile you live in the United Kingdom. You need to realize that the perception of the average individual in this country isn't like the perception of the average Brit. My videos may be old news to you, but they are an attempt to educate my fellow citizens to facts that they are generally wholly ignorant of. I think the majority of the world feel Americans are ignorant assholes for good reason. I try to dispel some of the ignorance for the sake of those who remain once I'm gone
unseenstrings 2 years ago
My reiterations and redundancy isn't broadcast near as wide and far of those of the Major Media of this country. George Carlin tried to educate his follow citizens as he started getting older. I probably feel the same internal stimulation to educate my fellow citizens as Carlin felt. And why was that? Well, it probably has to do with a trait we inherit called altruism. I selfishly seek the good feeling I get by helping others while thinking I am doing so unselfishly. LOL!
Peace bro
unseenstrings 2 years ago
How annoying that I've been arguing with you - all because you took offence to my sweeping dismissal of your work, that you describe as art.
I say it again - I've agreed with everything you have said so far (apart from the "not praising homosexuality", which is my defensive reflex) and, you may not have noticed, also an artist of sorts.
I would voice a note of caution, however, that everything in the video is relatively new science and therefore still in contention in some fields.
gregstaddon 2 years ago
Yes, I used the line, "...not praising homosexuality." But neither was I condemning it. In fact, I look upon my heterosexual orientation as being as restrictive as your homosexual orientation. I feel bisexuals have more avenues of opportunity and thus more freedom. Or maybe, omnisexuals. I'm not prejudiced towards the female who can satisfy herself with a dog when she has no other option. Nor do I look down my nose at the male who can satisfy himself with a nice warm melon when necessary.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
What did homosexuality have to do with that video?
"Left Field" indeed.
GHBTHCLSD 2 years ago
My reference to Left field is a sporting one, not a political one. It means that the issue was introduced unexpectedly and seemingly without connecting to the topic at hand. However I now see that there is a connection. As for not grasping the concepts, I had no difficulty in doing that. It was your commentary and subsequent comments that confuse me. One of the great things about Pinker and Dawkins is their ability to communicate complicated concepts in an easily understandable way....
markthnark 2 years ago
Far from clarifying the issue, this video serves to complicate it. In addition there is sequence at the end which introduces the issue of homosexuality, from a place commonly known as "left field".....
markthnark 2 years ago
Well you certainly didn't say anything clear and concise that I can reply to. Who precisely is it that you accuse of using the term "left field?" Liberals are commonly called "left-wingers." But most liberals believe homosexuality is a "freely chosen" lifestyle. Many "right-wingers" on the other hand believe homosexuality is genetically determined. My video presents the prevalent scientific perspective. I'm sorry if you couldn't grasp the concepts presented therein.
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 2 years ago
really i could swear its the right wing that believe homosexuality is a choice and its liberals who believe its genetic.
malibulanlan 2 years ago
I suspect the belief is like a pendulum swinging to and fro, according to whatever idea is being promoted by the Major Media at the time. (Fox News for the "conservative" stance, and a few news magazines and newspapers--such as the Boston Globe--for the "liberal" stance.) Bear in mind that even though both genetic determinism and "free choice" are opposing ideas, both notions are supportive of the Status Quo. Both notions detract from the environmental circumstances that could have contributed.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
The main purpose of the Major Media is to make money. And if they can sway a few minds to be supportive of their agenda in the process, then why would they not? Surely they wouldn't want you wise to the ploys and stratagems by which you are manipulated. Why would the Major Media disclose to you that proven techniques of persuasion and manipulation are used scientifically to sell you products and services? Wouldn't the Major Media tend to deny human behavior can be anything but free or genetic?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Whose fault is it that US has the most obese population in world? Well, according to the Major Media, people are genetically prone to be fat or they are "free" to be fat. Supposedly, the imagery, the programs, and the advertisements the individual is bombarded with daily in this country don't have anything to do with the individual's obesity. Why are we such good consumers? Why do we want to shop till we drop? Why do we want to purchase gym memberships and exert more energy than we do at work?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
<3 last pic
Unknnnnn 2 years ago
Thanks for making this video for us dummies hahaha! It did help me understand it better.
jakethegent 2 years ago
Actually Jake, I probably wouldn't have used the term "for dummies" if it wasn't for the popular series of books in print that deal with subjects on a basic level. Calling a person a dummy is derogatory as far as I'm concerned. We are all ignorant at least to a certain degree; we don't know all there is to know. And anyone who is capable of reading this comment, or who is capable of entertaining the fact that free will is an illusion, is no dummy.for sure. Would "Free Will 101" have been better?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
christians are hypocritical. They are using illogical emotion to explain the bible.
A scientist is just reacting to his crappy car for not working. It is inconsistent in logical procedure of dealing with questions....why doesn't my car start...you better start you no good car..which he is responding out of frustration for not knowing why it's not working, or that it is'nt working.
a christian works backwards.."knowing" god did it cause he "feels" it's true.making a leap of faith to knowing it.
Ron7421 2 years ago
Language is basically the association of imagery and emotion to vocalizations and symbols in the mind of the person learning the language. If a teacher tried to teach a student language by wearing a mask so the facial gestures couldn't be seen, and speaking through a voice synthesizer so that emotional variances would be removed, and the teacher was prevented from showing the student any image, so that the association of the symbol and/or the sound to the image couldn't be made, then the (GoTo2)
unseenstrings 2 years ago
(2) student wouldn't be able to learn language as we know and use it. No human can use language without being effected by the emotional content and imagery at least to some degree. The emotion and imagery in your head isn't the same as the emotion and imagery in my head. And you will find it more or less impossible to convey precisely the imagery and emotions in your head to mine. The Christian & the scientist are exactly alike in this regard. The Christian is only emotional because the (GoTo3)
unseenstrings 2 years ago
(3) info he (or she) was taught has a strong emotional foundation. If the teacher was to beat on the podium and express lots of emotion while teaching science as the preacher beats on the pulpit and expresses emotion while teaching religion, then scientific beliefs would have more or less the same emotional foundation that religious beliefs have. The difference between the Christian and the atheist is the difference in the environmental circumstances to which they've been exposed as individuals.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Your videos are very thought-provoking!
bdk1234567 2 years ago
Very educational. The illution of free will is very interesting, a subject I only recently have considered.
The video spoon fed the basic workings to me very nicely. Thanks.
mortenlu 2 years ago
I have a question Unseen. "The brain becomes wired or remains wired untill dementia or some environmental factors... etc"
So are you literally saying that one can be homosexual untill such an event occours and then not be that way ever again?
exDeathex 2 years ago
Don't compare the wiring of the brain with the wiring of the house. The brain is biological. Biological systems are dynamic, unlike houses. Not only are biological systems capable of change, but they are incapable of not changing. Still, this doesn't answer your question.
Three terms (maybe more) are used in association with someone undergoing a shift in perspective. Religious conversion, psychological therapy, and brainwashing. In her book MM, Denise Winn says the processes are very similar.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
The psychological phenomena of homosexuality is comparable to alcoholism. You can shame the drinker into not drinking, but that doesn't make the craving go away. AA is big business because of the difficulty in changing the way a person's brain is wired. Homosexual support groups fashioned on the model of anti-drinking support groups possibly could "help" individuals avoid homosexual encounters. And they may even curb homosexual desires to a degree. But convert homosexuals to heterosexuality?
unseenstrings 2 years ago
I doubt it. However, some drinkers have an accumulation of experiences that result in their mind changing as if in a snap; and they loose all desire for alcoholic beverages. I'm sure the same has happen at one time or another in regard to homosexuality. However, in an age where overpopulation could become more and more problematic, I see not reason to discourage homosexuality or "treat" it as if it were a disease. So there, I doubt any homosexual can instantly be deconverted/brainwashed/"healed"
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Thankyou :) I understand better. Yeah I also have no problem with the increasing trends in homosexuality in todays world
exDeathex 2 years ago
Anthropologist Nigel Davies discusses different attitudes around the world and how those attitudes have changed over time in his out of print book titled, The Rampant God: Eros throughout the world. Some sociological theories hold that in order to control the masses their sexuality must be suppressed. In other words, the dominate apes are less concerned about a person's sexual orientation than they are about suppressing sexuality. Also, Google "encouraged homosexuality" and check out the results
unseenstrings 2 years ago
A reasonably interesting and more or less informative video... But I fail to see the relevance of calling Dawkin's comments hypocritical and how it in any way relates to religious hypocrisies.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong. I rather admire and respect Richard. And I realize he is in somewhat of a spot. His priority is to put religion in its place, which religion's place certainly isn't having the final say in non-religious affairs, which has been happening here in the US. And he has to avoid the free will issue whenever possible, because it (debates concerning free will) tends to side tract the issue of The God Delusion. Free will is important to me. I guess I was venting frustration on Richard.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"he has to avoid the free will issue..."
I didn't get the feeling that he was dodging it in this case. Admitting that taking an objective stance on mental activity, and yet still being subject to its foibles doesn't strike me as any kind of contradiction.
As for free will, and its importance to you, me, or society, I think we run into a situation where we have a phrase that can have different degrees of meaningfulness at different levels of complexity. And so context becomes key.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Richard has tried to avoid the free will issue on other occasions. And if you had gotten to see the whole video that this short clip was taken from, you'd realize he stumble and stammered over the issue, indicating he does have problems discussing the free will illusion publicly.
I once got into a serious argument with my daughter-in-law over the free will issue and her tendency to blame her children for things not their fault. I followed up with "Dear Robin: An Open Letter"
Naturalism Org
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins summed up the most recent findings of science when he stated the fact that the individual's behavior is determined by the neuroanatomy and biophysiological chemistry of his (or her) brain. B.F. Skinner said essentially the same thing when he stated "...a person's behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed." In brief, free will is an illusion
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"Richard Dawkins summed up the most recent findings..."
There is a rather wide gap between saying that our neuroanatomy can account for all of our behavior, and reverting to the crass oversimplifications of Skinner.
There is a reasonable middle ground between the epiphenomenalists and the crypto-dualists. Chaos theory showed the dramatic results of the butterfly effect in simple deterministic systems... how much more wild such an effect must have on the emergent behavior of a complex system.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"epiphenomenalists" - Wow! that is a rarely used term that has made its appearance twice by "different" people commenting within 24 hours of "each other" here on my channel. Using the same jargon could mean the two of you belong to the same sect, or you are the same person.
Supposedly there are about four pounds of organisms within the human body. One YouTuber commented that some parasites can cause you to crave certain foods. Gee, think about the Butterfly Effect all those organism have on us.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
""epiphenomenalists" - Wow! that is a rarely used term..."
It isn't such a rare term in philosophy of mind and neuroscience. I don't know about the other fellow commenting in your channel, but it is the philosophical standpoint of several of the researchers in my prospective field. Whether I agree with it or not, I have little choice but to be familiar.
A butterfly effect in our symbiots is still going to be much less significant than in neural tissue.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
The other fellow was English speaking but not as a primary language, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, he got pissed because I asked him to define the Psyche, since that was the object of his discussion, and tell me how we could determine whether it exists or not. There are more than one definition of psyche, and I'm not sure what he meant. I'm and old retired construction worker, and as such, I'm probably a bit more blunt and abrasive than I should be, I'm unsure. But he slammed the door and left.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"There are more than one definition of psyche, and I'm not sure what he meant."
Yeah. Most modern philosophers of mind would consider it an archaic term, and not much use outside of material written for the laity.
I have certainly had more than one person give up and run away when they couldn't provide a concise description of what they are on about. There are times when I can't martial my definitions quickly... but I can usually state them in a concise way eventually.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"There are times when I can't martial my definitions..."
That is the reason I'd rather leave comments or converse via email than use a chat box or otherwise talk directly. Some of my conversations with my 31 year old son using a chat box are a bit embarrassing upon careful reconsideration. I tend to worry more about not keeping the other party waiting for a response than I do giving a deeply thought out response. Comments (and other forms of writing) are different unless emotion gets involved.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Weirdly enough, I used to be exactly like this as well, but as of late that has changed, I am 20 years old. I can't figure out why or how that would be though. Maybe it's because i've become more negetive. Which I can say I have. This stage of my life etc. So yeah, it's an unkown at the moment.
exDeathex 2 years ago
"And if you had gotten to see the whole video that this short clip was taken from, you'd realize he stumble and stammered over the issue"
I have seen it... and I still am not seeing what you are seeing. There are clear signs that it is a complex problem, still lingering in the murky realm of philosophy at least as much as it is coming under the light of scientific inquiry...
As for my own stance on free will, at any levels that it can be talked about meaningfully, my opinion is in flux.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind.... We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different. But we scientist are inconsistent... In short when we are thinking like academics, we regard people as elaborate and complicated machines... But when we revert to being human, we behave more like Basil Fawlty, who we remember thrashed his car to teach it a lesson when it wouldn't start on gourmet night." Dawkins
unseenstrings 2 years ago
Descartes Error was major. Too bad some people still read his works without realizing his mistakes. And those people are more likely to be persuaded by his eloquent rhetoric than by the logic of his discourse.
Free will is religious dogma. It is preached from every pulpit in the land. The Major Media preach The Dogma in order to preserve the status Quo. The average individual cannot escape the effect of such a bombardment and succumb accordingly. Parents who succumb pass the notion on to kids.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"Free will is religious dogma."
That's just the literalist, metaphysical meaning. Free will can also be used to describe the effect of mental processes that are currently too complex and dynamic to be reliably described (much less predicted) in a meaningful way. So to an extent I lied... I am in no way ambivalent in my rejection of dualistic free will.
But there are other ways of talking about it which may still be useful.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
The only problem with using the term free will in a new non-metaphysical way is that the use keeps the old metaphysical illusion alive and healthy in the average person's mind. But of course, the word is too fixed in language to eliminate. Besides, preachers will still fill their sermons with illusions promoting free will. And the Major Media will still promote the notion in order to preserve the Status Quo. Newspaper Headlines: The Roman Empire Fell Because People Freely Choose To Be Bad. LOL!
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"But of course, the word is too fixed in language..."
The crux of the matter is the legal use. How the law defines a person, a crime, consent, testimony and a slew of other key concepts may be on the cusp of major overhaul... we are going to have to find a definition of free will that takes what we know into account, or the whole system may very well collapse.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
Facts4u com/free/ has a 2004 article title "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything," which deals with that issue. Want to add anything? I could see that understanding crime as a consequence of a particular mindset-one-has-developed (instead of freely chosen) could result in a different approach than is currently applied. Besides, prison often causes a maladapted mindset (AKA, the individual) to acquire even more antisocial attitudes and opinions, and thus behavioral tendencies.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"...night." Dawkins "
I did say I've seen it. I know its contents... What I am saying is that you are finding an interpretation in those words that I do not share. If you want to try and explain in different words fine... but parroting it is no more going to convey your point than shouting at someone from China will make them suddenly understand English.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"parroting"?? Say, have you been a construction worker before? LOL! I quoted Dawkins because I was hoping you'd note that he provided a scientific position concerning behavior (including thought behavior) but then turned around and said, "But we scientists are inconsistent..." At that point I said something like, "No Richard! If you call Christians hypocrites for their inconsistencies then scientists are hypocrites too." And as stated, I was being inconsistent because like Richard, I'm human too
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"But we scientists are inconsistent..."
What I took away from that part of his lecture was that knowing about the quirks of the brain does not make you immune to them.
An acoustical physicist may have intimate knowledge of how sounds are actually made, and shaped, but chances are he isn't calculating sine waves or harmonic differentials when he enjoys his favorite music.
And yes, I was an apprentice carpenter when I was 17... though I don't recall the term "parroting" being part of that.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"...knowing about the quirks of the brain does not make you immune to them."
No doubt! As you know, emotion overrules logical thought processes. I'd like to add that the herd instinct (peer-pressure, conformity, status strivings) also overrule logical thought. I'm sure more than one German often had second thoughts about the "Truths" of the Nazi Party. But emotion and the herd instinct repressed those thoughts and feelings.
In my "Dear Robin" video I also stated "scientists are hypocrites too"
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"...emotion overrules logical thought processes."
True. Though, one who knows what is going on usually has to be taken by surprise. Experiments with magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobe show that people who are unaware of that area's connection with religious feelings will experience deep religious emotions far more frequently than subjects who are aware of the possibility.
I would only say that scientists CAN be hypocrites too...
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"I would only say that scientists CAN be hypocrites too..."
Hmmmm. Well, maybe we'd both be better to say all humans are capable of being hypocrites. And scientists are human. But once a human becomes hypocritical, he (or she) is no longer being scientific; therefore, he (or she) at that point in time is not a scientist but a pseudoscientist/quack.
That is a fact but do you think it may be a bit too abrasive for the average person to accept?
Naturalism Org
LapWarmer Com
Unseenstrings Com
unseenstrings 2 years ago
"That is a fact but do you think it may be a bit too abrasive for the average person to accept?"
In response, I would like to quote Dawkins, quoting the editor of New Science... "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off"...
The reality of what an honest scientist should and shouldn't be expected to live up to is so important, that I honestly can't take seriously the opinion of anyone who can't get this right.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off"...
Good point. I've seen a video of Richard making the statement. And it is pretty accurate in this case too. We could say the scientists who contradict scientific findings with their attitudes and behavior are not only being pseudoscientific/quacks, but they are being fuck-offs. LOL Yeah!
Language is fun isn't it? I'll bet Richard has a sense of humor and would get a chuckle out of me poking fun at "inconsistent" scientists.
unseenstrings 2 years ago
the fucking text is annoying
kittygirl792 3 years ago
The text was put there for the hearing impaired. I felt it was a small sacrifice for people with good hearing to "endure." And it was bit more work for me, but what the hell, you know, life is not a bed of roses without thorns.
Naturalism Org
Unseenstrings Com
FamilyLoveZone Com
LapWarmer Com
unseenstrings 3 years ago
Funny joke at 5'10"
becinc 3 years ago
Cool
w33ab007aku 3 years ago
Sexuality is established very early during embryological development and is the result of a combination of several physiological and hormonal factors. Nothing which happens in embryological development is either simple or without risk of developmental error. Homosexuality can be considered a developmental insult (which means an error occured) but it is determined in the womb. If you really want to see what happens when development goes badly for a guy, check out the condition AIS.
PsychProfessor 3 years ago
The riddle of gene-environment interaction still has not been solved to the satisfaction of all scientists. Only after indisputable proof is offered will we start to see harmony in discourse. And until that time we will continue to see agnosticism, atheism, and blind belief in regard to what factors do and do not determine the individual's sexual mindset. I know of no finding that firmly establish that homosexuality, pedophilia or any other sexual orientation is wired into the brain before birth
unseenstrings 3 years ago
this is correct as far i as my experiences. this knowledge is how i learned to truly forgive my stepfather, a repeat pedophile. I understand the bombardment of subliminal suggestion within the structure. not really his fault. just a product of the environment....yep.
Harov2 3 years ago
I don't know what your definition of subliminal suggestion is. But to me it is the conscious effort made to effect an individual's intuition (on an unconscious level). And I don't think your stepfather acquired his deviant sexual tastes in such a manner. I suspect the behavior may have been acquired as a result of childhood experiences. Then undergoing stress that resulted in him reverting to more satisfying childhood mannerism. But his brain could have had a malfunctioning/damaged limbic system
unseenstrings 3 years ago
how bout both?
Harov2 3 years ago
Contrary to the implications of the video you advised, pedophilia isn't being subliminally suggested in Disney Movies. The first example seemed to me to be building a negative character that the audience would love to despise. In the second example the man looked at the other man's arm and asked "How's the arm?" Evidently the man was in a pitcher who was soaking his pitching arm in the whirlpool hot tub. The person making the video seemed to have the paranoia common in this age--pedophillaphobia
unseenstrings 3 years ago
its a five part series. you may have attention deficit disorder. maybe its because this doesn't come from a "book" Therefor it lacks any credibility.
Harov2 3 years ago
ADD? That was a hateful insinuation? Besides, I would suggest you watch the following three videos from my "Learning, Behaviorism, & Psychology" Playlist and tell me whether ADD truly exists before you pretend you are qualified to make a diagnoses without ever having met the "patient": watch?v=Qj7GmeSAxXo watch?v=j-wMP2Q0Ifs watch?v=_sYhTdeLRM8 Also, being from a "credible" source or being written in a popular book wouldn't have made me blindly accept LenonHonorFilms' opinions. Too illogical!4me
unseenstrings 3 years ago
Unseenstrings, thanks very much for posting!
sarith21 3 years ago
English speakers around the world speak slightly different variations of the same language. For example, YouTube User, RentTheSpokeMan made a video titled, People are cunts, which probably makes sense to a person from his area. But the meaning is unclear to me. Also, above, YouTube User, Iambecome made the comment that my video was interesting but had a slightly odd tone. Which means what? Oh, and I always reply to comments, unless I get a comment that uses straw man &/or ad hominem fallacies.
unseenstrings 3 years ago
Slightly odd tone to the video, but interesting.
Iambecome 3