Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
-4/10 trollPeople just feel sorry for you.
Yes, and people look up to white supremacists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
1/10 troll didn't bait me nearly enough.This is the least funny troll I've seen you post, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You really need to stop with this victim-blaming line of argument because it's not convincing and it's super toxic.I am specifically addressing the hyper-repetitive spamming of the same highly provocative claims over and over and over and over and over again. SInce the topic is always the exact same, why not just add information to a single forum. Why the super needy, super provocative repition? It really drags down the tone of the whole website.Your compulsive repititon is the source of toxicity here. Please grow up and exhibit stronger self-control.
"You say the lie long enough, keep repeating it, repeating it, repeating it, it becomes common knowledge."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We get it: you hate black people.You really need to stop with this victim-blaming line of argument because it's not convincing and it's super toxic.
The one essential ingredient forfascism to prevail is victimhood, white supremacists are the victim of racismbecause that is what their fascist agenda calls for.
Scott Adams was saying all this after he saw the poll wherein almost half of Blacks polled weren't okay with people being White (and 1/4 of total polled were actively against people being White). That's a racially hateful, alarming statistic that was so shocking that even someone like Scott Adams, who was an advocator of Black people in the past, was turned off after reading it (I go into more detail here): Is it okay to be White? A lot of Black Americans don't think so (debateart.com)You need to deal with the racially hateful Black people first, rather than blaming White people for being upset about their skin color being not okay with a sizeable chunk of the Black US population.
Do you really have no other topics, interests, hobbies, information going on in your head? It seems you like you are suffering from some kind of racist OCD and irrationally hell bent on inflicting your nasty spam on the residents of this site. Race and racial differences are legitimate topics on this siteRace is the most important factor in politics. It's also tearing America apart and burning a lot of time and effort on false narratives.America's racial issues need to be fixed in a legitimate way, rather than calling White people racist over and over.
Some true statements can also be racist.There's nothing racially hateful about the truth. Your claim is sheer nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
What happens to consciousness when a person is unconscious?Why does something have to "happen to it” when a person is unconscious? What happens to anger when a person isn’t angry? What happens to the brain when a person is unconscious? I really don’t understand the point of the question.I'm not sure your comparison is apt. No one claims an independent ontological status for anger. Anger comes and goes according to levels of excitation and so forth in the body.
Fair enough, it was a bad analogy, but my point was that I don't undestand the question.
I asked the question because, if your idea of consciousness is correct, I would expect it to be persistent. If it's not, that would seem to indicate that it is still connected to the body in some way even when the subject is unconscious.
How is that different if consciousness is a product of the brain? Isn't consciousness 'persistent' under your scenario too, when an unconscious person wakes up they are still conscious.
With all due respect, you seem to be relying heavily on "gaps" fallacies to argue your position. Rather than justify your position you are asking questions that appear to be a disguised variation of the “God of the gaps” fallacy, which takes manydifferent forms, a few being “evolutionary advantage of the gaps”, “complexityof the gaps”, and “hidden variables of the gaps”; and I will contend that theyare all one and the same theory in principle. All of them are only differentforms of the argument from ignorance, illogical attempts to say that the lackof an adequate explanation supports my presumptions, and not yours, which is alogically invalid argument.
The fact is that the lack of an adequateexplanatory theory about a particular gap in our knowledge does not rationallyyield a conclusion that supports a faith based belief in materialisticdeterminism for the same reason that it does not support a faith based beliefin God. I don't see much difference between "emergence" as an explanation and "God did it" as an explanation, both seem to be invoking magic as an explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
SW #170I have trouble understanding Nagle's view about "what is it like". I will re-read it.
A lot has been written about the article, and there are a lot of summaries available, but if you want to read the entire article, here you go:
SW #144What we can observe is responsiveness to the environment, adaptation to circumstances, and other types of behavioral indicators from which we can impute consciousness.Couldn't this be unconscious stimulus/response?
Microorgabisms demonstrate complex behavioral responses that go wellbeyond the capabilities of complex “chemical factories” or the complex “thermostat” type explanations that mechanisticmaterialists rely on. It's hard to see how mere "stimulus response" can account for the way microorganisms are known to respond to a broad range of stimuli, demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”,and engage in purposeful activities. The creative range of bahavior responses imply intelligence and a "self" that is extraordinarily perceptive. Mere "stimulous-response" can't satisfactorily explain perception, learned behavior, and purposeful activities.
you need to define consciousness observationally as involving the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful movement or by a behavioral change.. . . there are plenty of studies of bacterial that allow us to extrapolate from behavior to a presumed internal cause of that behavior that have to be attributed to a rudimentary form of "mental activity".I'd like to read one of those studies if you could send me a link or title.
There are a lot of them, here are a few:
Bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli, demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities. . . .They clearly integrate these capabilities into a self-organized and sensate being that in at least an extremely attenuated way is perceiving, discriminating, remembering, and even “thinking”, on some level it is conscious.Do they know they are doing these things? If not, I think they are not conscious.
Sensate beings, percieving, remembering, and creatively responding to changing circumstances implies awareness. We presume other humans are aware by observing this type of behavior, I see no reason to presume no awareness of other beings exhibiting this type of behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
In an effort to argue my case, I'm reading your posts more closely than before.For starters, I want to argue against your idea that consciousness exists independently of a brain.
Good, because I want to argue against your idea that consciouness is dependent on a brain. I look foreward to an interesting discussion.
I need clarification with something you wrote in post #54 ,On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit. Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel entity. [my emphasis]Are you saying here that consciousness has a material aspect?
I’m saying that consciousness cannot be derived from the material world, that the four fundamental constituents of reality; time, space, matter, and energy are inadequate to describe the experience of reality without recognizing consciousness as an additional fundamental constituent of reality that cannot be derived from the other four. Does it have a material aspect, sure, consciousness is necessarily consciousness “of something”, but there is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described, and consciousness is an ontologically distinct constituent of reality. In order to make any explanatory progress of consciousness at all, we necessarily must release our thinking from the poverty of its Physicalism captivity.
In the end, it is a matter of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings. Our rich inner life, our capacity to understand, appreciate, and act creatively, to, to plan the future, to act with moral responsibility, are not logically reducible to the functional properties of physical processes. Consciousness must be described using nonphysical means to have any meaningful explanatory power at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I certainly addressed the fact that physicalism doesn't postulate any theory that answers these questions, how about you explain how physicalism answers these questions and I'll address that.It is unnecessary for "physicalism" to answer those questions. They arise only if you assert that consciousness exists without a brain.
That’s nonsense, but hey, I’ll playalong anyway, here are your questions:
Separating consciousness from a material brain leads tomany unanswerable questions, such as, Why are people even unconscious at allsometimes?
There are lots of reasons a person can be unconscious, amongothers, they can be sleeping, in a coma, passed out, punched out, drugged, ordead.
What happens to consciousness when a person isunconscious?
Why does something have to "happen to it” when a personis unconscious? What happens to angerwhen a person isn’t angry? What happensto the brain when a person is unconscious? I really don’t understand the point of the question.
What is it that connects and disconnects a body and itsconsciousness?
If consciousness is “an ontologically novel entity” howdo you describe it?
Is it really your contention that the question of how youdescribe consciousness only arises if you assert that it exists without abrain? Why exactly is it unnecessary todefine consciousness if it requires a brain to exist?
Despite that confusing assertion, I think I can ascribe tothe definition proposed in Thomas Nagle’s seminal article “What Is It Like toBe a Bat?” in which he contends that "an organism has conscious mentalstates if and only if there is something that it is like to be thatorganism—something it is like for the organism." With subjective experience, consciousness isthe subject that does the experiencing, if there is something it is like to bethat organism, then it is conscious.
How can you have knowledge of it?
We haveknowledge of it because it is the only thing we have direct and unmediatedknowledge of, consider Descartes’ foundation of modern philosophy in the phrase“I think therefore I am”. Knowledge of it is a brute fact because it is matterof the self-evident experiential reality of human existence. The undeniableargument for how we can have knowledge of it is the fact that we all observe itduring every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of ourexperiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.
The question becomes, how can you have knowledge of itif in your scheme, especially since it isn’t even defined in your system.
Why does it appear to be dependent on a brain?
I presume you are saying that it appears to you to bedependent on a brain to you, and you expect me to tell you why? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for you totell me why it appears that way to you?
I already told you why it doesn’t appear to be dependent on abrain to me. That’s what my entire post was about (remember that post, it was the onewith a lot of words), if you read it you will find that I made an argumentabout why it doesn’t appear to be dependent on a brain.
I also already told you that I think your physicalism isbased on “an unfounded and a priori belief that reality is exhaustivelyconstituted by physicality”. Do you really think yourargument is made if I can’t guess why you declare it? A declarative statementis not an argument, you need to either put forth an argument or concede that I am correct that your position is just an unwarranted and a prioribelief.
... it's unclear to me what the point of postulating an AI that "knows" and "desires", and claiming it is "experiencing", it seems to be imaginary and a non-sequitur. If you can explain how it is explanatory or relevent to the question of consciousness, I'll do my best to respond.The point is to show that the quality of experience is irrelevant to a definition of consciousness.
OK, but unfortunately it didn’t make me see that, perhaps youcan explain it in a more direct manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
You used a lot of words to not answer any of the questions that I posed.
I was explicitly addressing your top three statements:
I agree with the following.Consciousness is ‘what we value as “aware”.’ [Reece101 #1]‘consciousness depends . . . on how many aspects one is aware of and the extent of that awareness’ [Critical-Tim #136].I disagree with the following.‘Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain . . . so it is an ontologically novel entity. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts . . . It is not a “process,” nor is it a set of “functions.”, it is the conceptual space within which we find the objects of thought.’ [Sidewalker #54]Sidewalker (#129) also talks about “the hard problem” and “qualitative experiences” as determining consciousness. The following is why I think that awareness is the key to consciousness.
Regarding the rest, it's unclear to me what the point of postulating an AI that "knows" and "desires", and claiming it is "experiencing", it seems to be imaginary and a non-sequitur. If you can explain how it is explanatory or relevent to the question of consciousness, I'll do my best to respond.
Regarding these questions:
Separating consciousness from a material brain leads to many unanswerable questions, such as, Why are people even unconscious at all sometimes? What happens to consciousness when a person is unconscious? What is it that connects and disconnects a body and its consciousness? If consciousness is “an ontologically novel entity” how do you describe it? How can you have knowledge of it? Why does it appear to be dependent on a brain?
I certainly addressed the fact that physicalism doesn't postulate any theory that answers these questions, how about you explain how physicalism answers these questions and I'll address that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I agree with the following.Consciousness is ‘what we value as “aware”.’ [Reece101 #1]‘consciousness depends . . . on how many aspects one is aware of and the extent of that awareness’ [Critical-Tim #136].I disagree with the following.‘Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain . . . so it is an ontologically novel entity. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts . . . It is not a “process,” nor is it a set of “functions.”, it is the conceptual space within which we find the objects of thought.’ [Sidewalker #54]Sidewalker (#129) also talks about “the hard problem” and “qualitative experiences” as determining consciousness. The following is why I think that awareness is the key to consciousness.Let’s say that a certain AI is a combination of hardware and software. This AI would have feedback systems specific to its physical constitution such that it would “know” when it is retrieving from its storage (remembering), when it is computing (thinking), and when it is outputting to an interfacial device (communicating), and it would be able to distinguish between them. The feedback response would be appropriate to each type of occurrence, such that the AI would be aware of which type(s) was occurring at a particular moment (awareness).The AI would “know” that it is an entity separate from its environment, upon which it depends (self-awareness). It could compute and compare probabilities of potential actions to achieve desired results (imagination). It could be constructed with a built-in desire to stay “alive” (i.e. switched on and connected to a power source).It is obvious that the awareness of such an AI would be qualitatively different from that of a human, but the result would be the same. It could say, plausibly, “I experience myself retrieving (or computing, or outputting).” So, what if the AI’s experience is qualitatively different from that of a human? That difference is a only a result of the physical differences between their respective embodiments. Why make that difference the determinant of consciousness?If one experiences a computation within a biological brain, one is conscious. If one experiences a computation within an electronic brain, one is not conscious. Does that really make sense?Separating consciousness from a material brain leads to many unanswerable questions, such as, Why are people even unconscious at all sometimes? What happens to consciousness when a person is unconscious? What is it that connects and disconnects a body and its consciousness? If consciousness is “an ontologically novel entity” how do you describe it? How can you have knowledge of it? Why does it appear to be dependent on a brain?
If you want to argue that the existence of consciousness is derivable from physical laws, then there needs be some kind of an explanatory physical theory that relates a causal sequence that takes us from physical processes to consciousness. The problem with physicalism isn’t that it presents a flawed physical theory of consciousness; it is that it provides no theory of consciousness to work with at all. Physicalism’s adherents attempt to fill the explanatory gap with different variations of the word “emergence”, but the word “emergent” is descriptive rather than an explanatory, at best it merely disguises the fact that correlation is not causation.
.
The problem with physicalism isn’t that it presents a flawed physical theory of consciousness; it is that it provides no theory of consciousness to work with at all. Physicalism is an unwarranted ontological commitment which buys us nothing in the way of insight or explanation regarding consciousness.
The self-evident experiential reality of consciousness is undeniable, physicalism is based on denial of that direct and immediate experiential evidence based on an unfounded, and a priori belief that reality is exhaustively constituted by physicality. From the complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and the absence of even a speculative explanatory theory, it logically follows that consciousness transcends the boundaries of a purely physical system, and consequently, constitutes an ontologically distinct entity.
In the end, the only consciousness we can have direct knowledge of is our own, at best we must presume the existence of consciousness in others, if “awareness” in others cannot be observed and is only presumed, then it is at best “philosophically theoretical”, but scientifically speaking, it is an inadequate measure of consciousness. What we can observe is responsiveness to the environment, adaptation to circumstances, and other types of behavioral indicators from which we can impute consciousness.
If you remove philosophical and metaphysical considerations and the preconceived notion that a brain is required for consciousness, which is to say approach the subject strictly scientifically, you need to define consciousness observationally as involving the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful movement or by a behavioral change. Once this is done, a wide range of creatures without brains demonstrate rudimentary forms of consciousness and examining those capabilities in an evolutionary context makes it very hard to draw arbitrary lines, especially at “brain”.
With a more realistic yardstick which lends itself to observational evidence, we can look with an open mind at the whole of life as it appears to us today, including the evidence contained in the evolutionary path taken by life to arrive here today. Seen in its entirety, seen the way evolution demands that we see it; there is a direction to life, a temporal progression towards greater complexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, to thought, to self-reflective consciousness.
Single celled organisms with nothing even resembling a rudimentary brain or nervous system show themselves to be sensate beings with complex behavior. I think we can agree that bacteria are prokaryotes without brain or nervous system, and there are plenty of studies of bacterial that allow us to extrapolate from behavior to a presumed internal cause of that behavior that have to be attributed to a rudimentary form of "mental activity".
Bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli, demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities. They have shown themselves to be extraordinarily perceptive, demonstrating elaborate behavioral responses and adaptations to a wide range of attractants and repellants and other environmental stimuli such as light. They have complex signaling capabilities, show the ability to communicate, and change their behavior based on population size, which implies some kind of quorum sensing ability and clearly demonstrates social behavior on at least a rudimentary level. They have been proven to have some form of memory and a rudimentary ability to learn, and the discriminatory ability to “choose” among alternatives, regarding among other things, gene expression. They clearly integrate these capabilities into a self-organized and sensate being that in at least an extremely attenuated way is perceiving, discriminating, remembering, and even “thinking”, on some level it is conscious.
Primitive invertebrates like the annelid worm are observed to show maze learning, classical conditioning, and habituation. A wide range of creatures without brains show purposeful behavior indicating that they are sensate beings that not only “feel” things in their environment, but also “intelligently” respond to sensory inputs. This progression goes on and on, progressing by degrees, culminating in man.
There is ab abundance of empirical evidence from which to conclude that life has always been “self-transcending”, constantly coming together and then aggregating into higher forms of self-organizing wholes which become individual "selves", always with constantly increasing degrees of sentience, awareness, and consciousness.
In an evolutionary context, over time prokaryotes developed into eukaryotes through symbiotic assimilation to become independent “selves” with an extremely attenuated form of sentience, and then colonies of eukaryotes developed into metazoans through symbiotic assimilation to become independent sentient “selves”, we observe this tendency at work in social insects building hives and mounds and we see it in human beings building societies and civilizations.
Over the large-scale dimensions that are required by the study of evolution we can unmistakably apprehend a tendency for life to assemble into self-organizing wholes that exhibit the coherent behavior and underlying principles of consciousness that in the earliest stages of the development of life are not associated with possession of a brain. The evolutionary record demonstrates a continual rise in degrees of sentience that culminated in brains and conscious human beings, but temporally speaking, the evidence does not support the presumption of a cause and effect between brain and consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
They want a war, we'll give them a fucking war,War? xD What are you going to do? Write mean words again? You're completely harmless! I can say whatever I want to you and you won't do anything more than call me a name or two.
LOL, it's amazing just how stupid you lowlifes are, I'm not talking about your inane blathering on line, I'm talking about the real world where you occupy the lowest rung of the societal ladder, out there where you guys want a culture war that like with everything else, you will be losers.
You're not a real man at all.
Maybe I'm not as manly as you, but then again, who is?
You're a commonplace internet troll who is good for a laugh and nothing more.
You're a commonplace white supremacist, desperate to be taken seriously outside the trailer park, and that's pathetic, even for a loser white supremacist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The key idea I am trying to explain to you is that you are attributing malicious intent rather than simply misunderstanding.
There is no misunderstanding white supremacists, their intent is malicious.
Societies that adopt such an intolerant approach are not sustainable and cannot keep up with societies that truly embrace tolerance.
So we should tolerate intolerance?
They want a war, we'll give them a fucking war, and just like with every other aspect of thier lives, they will be the losers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, "clowns" doesn't seem like a very tolerant word.You are just proving her point.
It's lot better than dumbass white trash racist.
White supremacists think it's trolling when we interupt thier bigoted characterizing of minorities to characterize them, but the fact is, they are the true minority, the actual dregs of society. They are outcasts who try to make others the outcasts, the true underbelly of society in all ways, inferior economically, ethically, and intellectually, the only thing they do better than minorities is hate.
All they have to declare themselves superior is the color of thier skin, but even among whites, they are the minority the rest of us look down on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
These people are more violent, hateful and intolerant than even Muslims
LOL, white supremacists say everyone else is "violent, hateful and intolerant", you clowns are hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The people don't scare me.The delusion they buy into so easily scares me.Could lead us into a 1984 type of situation.
You are just tilting at windmills kiddie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So let me get this straight.
There is nothing “straight” about yourtwisted logic.
The LGBTQ+ community refers to people who are strait, as cisgender. This is a brand-new term, not entirely agreed upon by all people.
Nope, that isn’t what cisgender means, and it isn’thow the word is used.
My question is why. Why does the LGBTQ+ community expect us to give in to all of their labels, definitions, and perceptions of reality, while they go out, and disrespect women, and people who don't want to be called cisgender.
You draw this conclusion from the factthat you don’t know what the word cisgender means? You have internet access, you have Google, look it up kid, it really isn't that hard to be informed anymore, you are embarrassing yourself.
Their logic is, if a transgender woman, doesn't want to be called a man, we should respect that, but if a strait person doesn't want to be called cisgender, then that is a form of homophobia, or transphobia.
You don’t know what the word means,but you are offended by the fact that the word exists? That has nothing to do with homophobia, or transphobia, it is just a form of stupidity.
This is where I have come to realize that the LGBTQ+ community not only has stopped promoting equality for all, but have started promoting in the changing of definitions, labels, and perceptions of reality. They claim, "our definitions are right and anyone who says otherwise are the crazy ones, because they are the ones who are not accepting reality for what it really is."
Nobody is saying that horseshit youmade up here, in fact, nobody really cares if some dumbass bigot doesn’t knowwhat the word cisgender means.
Whether you like it or not, reality is not based upon how people feel. It is how people are. Reality is the key word here. Facts do not care about your feelings.
You don’t know what the word “reality”means either?
I am not a spokesperson for anything, any group, or anyone. I am just a 16-year-old kid trying to understand, debate and argue against the logic of these people, with no influence but my own.
You can certainly say that again, especiallysince your made-up bullshit is nothing but a figment of your bigoted imagination.
But this is why I believe that every person, whether that be Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians, need to fight against this logic, and not let it pass our wall of reality and take over. This is no longer a debate of ideology's and who is the better person.
I’m sure within your delusional mind,this bunch of words has some kind of meaning, but the wall between yourdelusional fantasies and reality is impenetrable, perhaps a psychologist couldtry to help you work through it.
This is a culture war.
Nope, it’s your own internal war, it onlytakes place inside your head, and it has nothing to do with any person, whetherthey be Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians.
The two sides? Reality, and Delusion.
Yep, there are two sides here, insideand outside, the “delusion” inside your head, and the “reality” outside yourhead, and yes, there is clearly a wall between the two.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It looks a bit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4FluN2Wsk
I don't know what it is, but I found a video of a riot, that should count, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Egads, I forgot all about this thread, there's a lot of reading to do, I'm gonna start with this one.
In the human brain, 100 billion neurons simultaneously fire and transmit signals to thousands of destinations.In the frontal cortex — the part of the brain housing abilities such as language that distinguish us from other animals — the neurons look beautiful, like trees. They can have 10,000 or more synapses on their branching dendrites, each of which may receive information from a different cell.The activity at those thousands of inputs gets added up to cause the neuron to fire — or not — and that’s how information is transferred in the brain. This kind of information transfer, across complicated networks made by the 120 billion neurons in the human brain, allows for complex thoughts.Axons and dendrites can move around, especially when the brain is young. The way in which they connect individual neurons creates the network pathways. During development, the 100 trillion synapses in the human cortex form at a rate of an estimated 10,000 every 15 minutes! Together, all these synapses create a giant network. And that gives us consciousness.
Correlation is not causation.
You don’t just get to reference complexity and viola, consciousness “emerges” as if by magic. Scientifically speaking, there needs to be an effective causal sequence if you are going to call something explanatory, and we both know “magic” doesn’t cut it. The “hard problem of consciousness” will never reduce down to a mechanistic explanation, the mere association of corresponding physical changes does not constitute an explanatory mechanism.
The hard problem of consciousness simply cannot be reduced to physical and chemical processes in the brain, especially when single celled creatures with no brain or nervous system are demonstrating an attenuated form of consciousness (I'll presume you all will want to see that argument, will do when I get the chance). The observed data just doesn’t fit the mechanistic conceptual scheme of your argument.
The very process by which science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your argument.
Created:
You guys talk about the left wing extremism a lot, but nobody actually knows what it is.
Is that your idea of "artificial intelligence"?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't know what left wing extremism looks likeIf all you watch is MSNBC, you won't see it. Those stories are buried and censored because everyone that works at MSNBC worked at some point in a Democrat administration.
So you are saying you don't know what it is either?
Created:
Extemists see the world through thier extreme goggles, but can any of you right wingers give an example of left wing extremism? Is it just a matter of right wing extremist imagnation, or is there something real you can point at>
I really don't know what left wing extremism looks like, please give an example of it that is outside of your head, something that exists in reality, something that can be observed by normal people.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder if Fanchick is going to help torch his own city when Trump wins re election.
Moot point of course, there aren't enough whack jobs to make Trump win an election, the Democrats could nominate an orangutang and Trump would still lose.
Putin can't win another US election, his boy Trump is nothing but an historical embarrassment now.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
- 80% of Hispanics in the US are white
Right. So, 80% of Hispanics in the US are the wrong racial group (i.e. they're actually White).Got it.
Oh great, the White Supremacists have poluted the Aryan race, it's going to be hard to know who to hate now.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Euthanasia is for pussies, I'm advocating genocide.Against who. I don't want to sign up until I HAVE MORE information
We can worry about that later, right now we need to adress the technical issues.
I think we need to abolish the electric chair, and replace it with electric bleachers..
Created:
I support retroactive abortions for a lot of the people on this site.Not that uncommon of an opinion. I have seen a lot of people argue for post birth abortions. I think the word for it is euthanasia.
Euthanasia is for pussies, I'm advocating genocide.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I support retroactive abortions for a lot of the people on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
KaitlynShe’s a self declared white supremacist. So I don’t have to be polite to her.Incorrect.I am a self-declared White nationalist.I've told you this several times already, so at this stage I know you're lying. I think that's block worthy.
She has suffered with racist dysphoria long enough, ideologically she's a White Suprmasict, but she has never been comfortable with the societal designation of White Supremacist, she has lived with the pain of being a White Nationlist trapped in a White Supremacist ideology long enough, she has thrown off societies shackles, and now , with great pride, she self-identifies as a White Nationalist.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I never read it, my impression was that it was comparing IQs not education.
That's correct, TWS such at reading comprehension.
Created:
I own it, and the book of collected essays in its aftermath.
Of course he owns it, it's on his bookshelf right next to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Turner Diaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
KaitlynShe’s a self declared white supremacist. So I don’t have to be polite to her.Incorrect.I am a self-declared White nationalist.I've told you this several times already, so at this stage I know you're lying. I think that's block worthy.
Hey, what about me, I called you trailer park white trash, isn't that block worthy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That's it, just an instagram post, you've got to be kidding me.This is really or politics now.
Tragic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
-->@<<<Sidewalker>>>Do you like Bud Light?
Don't drink, but back when I did, no, Coors Light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
"The controversy started with a single commemorative can of beer, one which wasn't even for sale. The can wasn't featured in a 30-second Super Bowl commercial, a billboard on the highway, or a glossy magazine spread, but in an Instagram post.
The post is a video from Mulvaney, a performer and influencer who had posted about Bud Light previously as a brand partner. This specific post, however, showcased a customized Bud Light can the brand sent her as a gift to mark a milestone in her transition. The video went viral, with some supporting Mulvaney and the company, and others responding with anti-trans reactions and calls for a Bud Light boycott."Imagine being so bigoted that a simple recognition of a trans influencer on a social media post would drive you to boycott a brand and bask in glory over the fact that it's sales are seeing a significant drop as a result.
That's it, just an instagram post, you've got to be kidding me.
The right is frothing at the mouth over an instagram post, traumatized because there was a trans person in the post, do these snowflakes have some delicate feelings or what?
Created:
Posted in:
Amazing, the only five people on the planet that don't think Russia did it themselves, all in one place, what are the chances?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
the government should control contentNonconsensual pornographic videos of human trafficking victims are not protected by the first amendment. Neither is any kind of obscenity, actually, but I'm willing to set that point aside in favor of a moral argument. My policy allows any consensual video to be filmed but ensures the content is not illicit. Similar to laws regarding child porn. It's like gay pride parades—they're protected by the first amendment, but you have to go through the proper channels to organize them. Also comparable to gun permits.
Again, duh.
Sure, there is content that is illegal, it's very upsetting, but that is not a reason to eliminate the first amendment and put government in control of content.
Created:
Posted in:
Is Racism Just a Form of Stupidity?
Researchers establish link between racism andstupidity
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked toPrejudice
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
to controll free speachI want them to prevent human trafficking, which is not protected by the first amendment.
That's not what you said, you said the government should control content, here's the statement I was responding to:
"In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office."
Human trafficking isn't protected by first amendment is a non-sequitur, and duh. Eliminating free speechwon't prevent human trafficking, try something else..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In order to upload content you'd need a government approved license and photo ID based on signing something in person at a government office. That's one way
You want the government to controll free speach, maybe nationalize social media?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Spot on. It's so fucking daft to have these clowns crying intolerance at you for impeding their intolerance.Imagine agreeing with a troll lolol.FYI you still didn't tell us how you'd deal with Muslims not integrating into your country. Kicking a ball around with Brazilians or calling someone a rAcIsT doesn't deal with that problem: Ireland is an international disgrace (debateart.com)
Society's outcasts are worried about other groups not "integrating" into society LOL, these evolutionary throwbcks just crack me up.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We don't have a huge Muslim presence in Ireland - there's your start.That's true but why do you need any in the first place? What good does it bring your country?
Why do we need any white supremacists in the first place? What good does white trash racism bring a country.
They're not going to assimilate (Muslims drinking? hello?). They're not going to care about Irish history. They're going to balkanize and form enclaves like they did in England. They're going to bring Sharia to their parts of your country.
White Supremacists aren't going to assimilate, they're not going to care about history. They are going to isolate and form trailer parks like they do everywhere. They are going to bring racism and intolerance to thier parts of the country.
What good is it doing your country by letting them in?
What good is it doing a country by letting hatemongering occur?
White Supremacists are the true underbelly of society, inferior to every cultural group and projecting thier inferiority onto other groups out of resentment and jealousy. Especially the most dumbass ones who think calling it a different word makes them special, what possible good is it doing the country to have the bottom rung of the social ladder whining and crying about their inferiority, and blaming other groups for thier social, intellectual, and economic failure?
Created:
Posted in:
That shall be my last response to a dick like you and IWRA. TrollS. Loser.
Ad hominem, Dunning Kruger, and dumbshit redneck fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Dickhead
Another ad hominem, with a hasty generalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Jesse Waters breaks it down to the proverbial TNo genetic fallacies allowed. Period. If you do, you prove yourself an ignorant libtard troll.
Ad hominem fallacy
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I bet he;s refuse to rape children too.
Created:
-->
@93ham
they chose to shout down any opposition and call them names like racist of misogynistic or white privileged
Yeah, and the right chooses to shoot down any opposition.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Then why is it in the citys with the least amount of guns in the U.S. there is some of the most gun violence, and violent crime?
YES, the solution to gun violence is more guns.
More guns, more guns, more guns!
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
History would suggest that the party that holds the government hostage and tries to trigger a crisis, is the one that is punished for it.
This happens a lot of course, and ff you think back to the last time the Democrats used the debt cieling to blackmail a Republican President you will find....that has never happened, this tactic of holding the country's economy hostage to pressure a President is strictly a Republican manuever.
The republicans want to try to stay relevant so every time a democrat is in power they pull this bullshit. But they will have to fold at some point, tanking the economy is not in their (or their rich donor's) best interest.
It amounts to economic terrorism, the Republicans are threatening to destroy our economy, wreck our international credibility, default on our debt and wreck our credit rating, withhold salary from Government Employees (including the Military), withhold social security payments to the aged and disabled, and discontinue critical government services, as a negotiation tactic.
What's next, launching a murderous insurrection and calling it "legitamate political discourse"....oh wait, they already did that too.
And they have the gall to tell us the half percent of the population that wants us to use a different pronoun when we address them is the biggest threat to our country.
Created: