RE: Humans Are Not Smarter Than Other Forms Of Life, Just Different

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Humans Are Not Smarter Than Other Forms Of Life, Just Different

in philosophy •  7 years ago 

Love poems do not prove your assertion. Women were traded as property, had dowries, and few rights. They were mostly property well into the 1000s.

ofcourse they do. it shows that we didn't just fuck like cats. we made rituals like poems.

In the amazon women ruled and still had rituals. Many African and Australian tribes for over 40.000 years now do he same.

This does not prove what you claim. It only proves humans have a cognitive delay between conscious understanding of their desires, and subconscious snap decision making. This is consistent with fight-or-flight evolutionary thought. This is not adequate evidence for your claim.
Could you respond to your main source being an avowed Satanist?

I pay little attention to the religious affiliation of someone. I would be the same to me if he was christian. imaginary friends are all the same.

(don't change the subject). if your body decides beforehand to drink water or fuck based on the chemical alternations that happen inside of you then you have no free will. by definition.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

"if your body decides beforehand to drink water or fuck based on the chemical alternations that happen inside of you then you have no free will. by definition."

Except, you do, because you don't have to actually drink the water. For example, I don't do things all the time that I instinctively want to do. Pretty easy concept.

I will again ask for you to justify the use of your source, an avowed Satanist with no credentials. If you cannot concede Satanists (like Scientologists) are, on average, far wackier than other religions and therefore automatically questionable, you are being intellectually dishonest. Given neither his writing nor his credentials add anything to the discussion, this does require your attention. If you are going to appeal to authority like you did by linking, you must establish the value of your authority (before we even get to the content, which is also nonsense). You have not done that.

You are the one who slammed down the un-credentialed Satanist as your self-described trump card.

I'll concede that the love poem represents a ritual, but women were still divvied up by the alpha males, to the alpha-est male available. Pretty much exactly like the animal kingdom, with a thin veneer of civilization added to it. You are equivocating by implying these love poem rituals bore any serious significance on which women went to which men. If you intend to dispute this fact, why don't you tell me when the dowry ended?

Hint: It is only now starting to wind down, globally.

Except, you do, because you don't have to actually drink the water. For example, I don't do things all the time that I instinctively want to do. Pretty easy concept.

but you do, most of the time. and this is what counts.

I will again ask for you to justify the use of your source, an avowed Satanist with no credentials. If you cannot concede Satanists (like Scientologists) are, on average, far wackier than other religions and therefore automatically questionable, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Nah, all religions are the same to me. Your opinion that Satanists are worse are based on western fear due to the dominance of Christianity.

You are the one who slammed down the un-credentialed Satanist as your self-described trump card.

You seem to be obsessed with credentials. Why do you like or trust authority so much? religious much?

I'll concede that the love poem represents a ritual, but women were still divvied up by the alpha males, to the alpha-est male available.

no. ancient Egypt was far more egalitarian than our society today

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/

"most of the time."

So, only some of the time I have free will. Totally logically consistent, got it.

"Nah, all religions are the same to me. Your opinion that Satanists are worse are based on western fear due to the dominance of Christianity."

With all the problems in the world today, and far better options for philanthropy, only a group of morally bankrupt and unhinged people would make this a priority:

"The Satanic Temple has used symbols of Satan to draw attention to what it sees as the hypocrisy of Christian symbols on government property. For years, it petitioned to have a massive Baphomet statue -- a goat-headed symbol of Satan -- in the Oklahoma state Capitol, which was home to a Ten Commandments statue."

"You seem to be obsessed with credentials. Why do you like or trust authority so much? religious much?"

Clever attempt to sidestep. YOU appealed to authority with YOUR link. I challenged it. Then you claim it's me - nice strawman.

Would you care to address the fact that Einstein was religious? Oh, I thought not. He only appears in the citations of your Satanist's link, after all.

"no. ancient Egypt was far more egalitarian than our society today"

How about ancient China? Persia? India? Europe? Africa? The Americas? The fact that you have to cherry-pick the one civilization in the whole of history that might corroborate your narrative, with the most well-known female leader (Cleopatra, who really just sat under Rome's thumb,) in fact proves exactly my point.

PS - I am not religious, just a rational and (as much as I can be) objective skeptic. Prove me wrong. I'll change my opinion if presented with facts.

So, only some of the time I have free will. Totally logically consistent, got it.

if you have to force yourself, you already lost the game. The more you get thirsty, the more your free will goes out the window.

Clever attempt to sidestep.

you made the entire discussion about the term "Satanist" and you dare to call me that i "sidestep"? You are being a massive hypocrite

How about ancient China? Persia? India? Europe? Africa? The Americas?

different cultures. it varied. which is exactly my point. You claimed that "all women..." . simply false.

I did present you with facts. I would also label that buy nutty for his Satanic belief but nonetheless I would have to be objective and accept some of his premises. I would do the same if he was christian, buddhist or anything else .

"you made the entire discussion about the term "Satanist" and you dare to call me that i "sidestep"? You are being a massive hypocrite"

No, I made the conversation partially about you justifying your source, which you claimed I should have "good luck go(ing) against this". Again, I ask that you either give a reason why your source is worthwhile, or retract it.

Or you could continue speculating about whether I'm religious, making you the true hypocrite, as you just claimed that the source's religion should have nothing to do with the discussion.

So, which is it?

My source hd a philosophical argument in regards to free will. You failed to even make a point against his free will arguments and you instead tackled religion.

this is how one fails in debate. picking up the "Weak" spot.

You did not establish your source as credible. Your appeal to authority, and citation, thus failed.

Philosophy is not a provable argument. It provides no evidence. It is opinion. It does not establish your wild premise of not having free-will, which is demonstrably provable. I can turn left or right right now. Your whole argument boils down to claiming I don't have a choice after the fact, claiming that whatever I picked, either I didn't pick it or I picked both. It's nonsense. Your entire premise is begging the question.

You're the one attempting to overturn established, real-world facts like free-will. You are the one presenting a new view in an article. You are the one that needs to provide the evidence, not me. You failed to do that.

I read the article open to being convinced, you failed to establish your premise, I pointed this out, then you appealed to the authority of a Satanist as your trump card. Had you said "Well, this Satanist has a ph.d in theoretical physics," then I would probably have considered that satisfactory to my objection. You refused to do that, instead accusing me of being religious, rendering your accusation of me being religion-obsessed hypocritical.

I never cared that he was religious, just that he was an outsider with a voluntarily-selected ideology that is widely perceived as anti-social. This makes him statistically far, far more likely to have a variety of disorders such as anti-social personality disorder. This is statistical fact.

Want to keep fighting facts? Start here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11040620

"Adolescents previously involved in Satanism present behavioral problems like aggressive outbursts, depression, "psychosis" or suicide attempts, that could lead to suicide."

You can find lots more.

It was not an attack of his character or religion, by me, to suggest sketicism given his leanings until you could establish some credentials. You neglected to do this. I attempted to locate his credentials myself, and was met with the rambling writings of a cult leader.

It's a lot easier to poke holes in an argument than create one. You created the argument, I poked the holes. It's your article, not mine. It's not my duty to cover the whole topic. I only need cover enough to show clear fallacies in your logic, which you have refused to address.

You did not establish your source as credible. Your appeal to authority, and citation, thus failed.

How do you define a source credible? Because some people said so? Since when truth is democracy?

Philosophy is not a provable argument. It provides no evidence. It is opinion.

i know. i said that.

It does not establish your wild premise of not having free-will, which is demonstrably provable. I can turn left or right right now.

the other two links that you are comfortably ignoring render free-will useless. and they are scientific.

You're the one attempting to overturn established, real-world facts like free-will.

free-will is a concept of religion, definitely not from the realm of "facts". Oh dear...lol

You are the one that needs to provide the evidence, not me.

You are making the claim that it exists a-priori. The burden of proof is on you.

It's a lot easier to poke holes in an argument than create one. You created the argument, I poked the holes. It's your article, not mine. It's not my duty to cover the whole topic. I only need cover enough to show clear fallacies in your logic, which you have refused to address.

You clearly not done so. We were talking about intelligence and you drove the topic away to whether a source is credible about free will.

You clearly failed in every possible level on this debate. You are just trying to find corners to shine.

Seriously, look at this guy's writing on his site. He sounds like a lunatic cult member:

"So... Satan is what I love in life... "

"Lord and Master. Someone to follow. Life is very much easier when you are doing what you are told. It's easier to follow than to lead. When you do what you are told, you feel less susceptible to blame, you don't have to think, you can go on automatic, your actions are analysed and you are given clear feedback so that you know if you are doing good or not."

"Satan is not interested in people who can't get things done, unhealthy parasites or failures. Satan makes me want to make myself strong because Satan represents strength and fulfilment, success and attainment, and also represents my own primary muse and Patron Saint."

Don't drink any kool-aid at this guy's house, you'll never wake up.

When you start judging others by their beliefs instead of their points, you lose the whole point in a discussion.

it is an ad hominem. I pointed the article out so you could see the specific argument not to evaluate his naive ideas about religion. One person can have good ideas about something and bad ideas about something else.

if you only accept people based on absolute 100% reputability then you are the one getting the kool-aid of the "infallible" politicians, pop-science stars, academics and so on and so forth.

Incorrect. You have straw-man'ed me again. I am asking you to justify your argument from authority. You cited the authority. You have not retracted the citation. You literally said "good luck going against this." I took you up on your offer.

I asked you to justify it, and presented evidence suggesting he is not credible. You failed to justify your appeal to authority, then claimed I used ad hominem.

Justify your appeal to authority, stop claiming it is my ad hominem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

"if you only accept people based on absolute 100% reputability then you are the one getting the kool-aid of the "infallible" politicians, pop-science stars, academics and so on and so forth."

Another straw-man argument. A dictionary example. I never claimed anything remotely close to this. I asked you to justify your argument from authority. You didn't even try, or give one shread of evidence or reason why anyone should listen to your citation, or why it was as strong as you implied. Now you create a new argument I never made, and destroy it.

Textbook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Incorrect. You have straw-man'ed me again. I am asking you to justify your argument from authority. You cited the authority. You have not retracted the citation. You literally said "good luck going against this." I took you up on your offer.

I meant the arguments. not the person. geesh.

Another straw-man argument. A dictionary example. I never claimed anything remotely close to this. I asked you to justify your argument from authority.

I didn't make one. I simply demonstrated that he makes good philosophical arguments. Also. I used two more links based on scientific evidence which you seem to ditch quite comfortably. the "satanist" thing works for you :)

I addressed one of your two links. I did not want to gloss over reading the second, so I did not comment on my glance at it. The first link you provided is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Remember, I pointed out it's like the fight or flight response? It's decision making that is borne from an immediate need, and can therefore happen reflexively. That doesn't make it pre-destined, because you still have the opportunity to override the fight or flight type response.

This happens a lot with people freezing in an emergency, instead of either fighting or flighting. They are actually in a state of decision paralysis, ie, determining their "Free will"

I think the second article, and the idea that bacteria could think for you, is basically silly. It's not consistent with brain science, which is what my education is in. As I said, I didn't read it all.

I'm disappointed to see you seem set in your opinions. I don't believe you are discussing this with an open mind. If our positions were reversed, I would already be changing my mind, because your arguments are not logically consistent with themselves and established fact. This is feels over reals stuff. I am actively trying to find something to hold onto to get on board with your position, and cannot. We demonstrably have free-will. This is like self-help, hippie book stuff.

Take a look around the crypto world. What is more popular here, math, or opinions?

I think the second article, and the idea that bacteria could think for you, is basically silly. It's not consistent with brain science, which is what my education is in.

You need to catch up on reading then

https://www.livescience.com/49373-google-hangout-on-brain-and-microbiome.html

If our positions were reversed, I would already be changing my mind, because your arguments are not logically consistent with themselves and established fact.

i actually brought you two scientific articles which you can link to research and you comfortably dismissed. if your neurotransmitters and gut bacteria can control your decisions before you make them then you are fucked. The fact that you sometimes consciously refuse to do so doesn't cut it. It is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the times your gut bacteria changes your for months, even years and you just happen to fall within a specific spectrum of behavior.

We demonstrably have free-will. This is like self-help, hippie book stuff.

Take a look around the crypto world. What is more popular here, math, or opinions?

We don't but you seem to be in denial for some reason

I think this post is a bit confused as well @kyriacos "Ever noticed how most humans cannot survive outside of what we call "civilization"? A rat, a cat or a bird in or outside our cities will learn to adopt in a gist." Im pretty sure humans can adapt to most situations, just look at wartorn nations where people were living comfortably before... cough Iraq

That's still a human environment. Try the jungle with other animals. Or a desert. Anything really without running water and food from stores. Animals can pretty much eat and drink anything. Humans cannot

Dude, I like your posts, especially your painting, but this one was a bad misstep. Mainly for the reasons lexiconical was pointing out.

That's just my opinion though, like most of this post was your opinion. From the word go, it sounded very self-help/hippy-free-love-ish. Which is fine, but I got the impression you wanted it to sound factual.

To compound matters, lexiconical owned you hard. Trust me, the referee stopped the fight ages ago coz you could no longer defend yourself.

Also "When you start judging other by their beliefs instead of their points, you lose the whole point in a discussion" - I see what you're saying here, and yes, anyone could come up with a brilliant idea, but you have to acknowledge that the willingness of others to ingest those ideas will depend on other factors concerning how they live and other things they've said. If someone tells you they believe the sky is red and then offers you stock tips, how likely are you to act, with your own money, on what they've said? I wager only if they're being driven around in a limousine and have a proven record of financial excellence. Otherwise, people are unlikely to take what they say seriously, and if they weren't crazy, they'd see that too. Your satanist source doesn't appear to have the same body of evidence/proven record of scholarship behind him.

Just my two cents.

Your two cents didn't provide any evidence. You can circle-jerk with lexiconical all you want but I can't see any argument from you or him? You guys are just being emotional forming ad-hominems.

If someone tells you they believe the sky is red and then offers you stock tips, how likely are you to act, with your own money, on what they've said?

Nikola Tesla was a hypochondriac with silly beliefs but expert in his field. Newton was religious and have very weird and crazy habits. Both offered solutions that brought humanity to a new era. In fact bring me any innovator and we will find something odd about them.

You need to try harder mate. If you judge people in life like you do in this debate..you are fucked royally

I wasn't intending to offer evidence. I believe I said I was offering my opinion. Which, I also believe, is simply what you were doing with your post.

Are you judging me by my beliefs now?

Tesla and Newton had the proven track records behind them that I described. In the example I used, the red-sky believer would be very rich and have a successful stock portfolio managed over many years; one can take financial advice from him. Your satanist does not appear to have that.

I would add that you seem quite emotional in your response...but I wouldn't want to upset you. ;-D

Tesla and Newton had the proven track records behind them that I described.

No they didn't. the track record came AFTER they made discoveries..hence why Telsa was often in thrown in the shadows..even until recently.

In the example I used, the red-sky believer would be very rich and have a successful stock portfolio managed over many years; one can take financial advice from him. Your satanist does not appear to have that.

what appears and what is, are two different things. He makes good philosophical arguments that none of you bothered to answer. you just attack his religious beliefs.

I am not emotional at all. You guys seem to be though since you offer no rational arguments against that guy other than ad hominems. ;-)