From RationalWiki

Welcome BoN

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.





People vs. NRA [ edit ]

https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1291397976200548353 l https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-files-lawsuit-dissolve-nra

Well, well. As of today (August 6th 2020) New York's Attorney General Letitia James just filed to dissolve the NRA, citing "18 causes of action that violated multiple laws including laws governing the NRA's charitable status, false reporting on annual filings on state and IRS levels, improper expense documentation, improper wage reporting, improper income tax withholding, failure to make excise tax reports and payments, payments in excess of reasonable compensation to disqualified persons" and more offenses... Bigwiggler (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Bigwiggler

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You didn't actually answer my questions, so I'll ask them again. If using the term "Blacks" somehow implies that a person "knows little about the struggle for Black Lives" what does it imply when someone refers to Black people as "black bodies" as you did recently here? To quote, "NCAA is a racket that profits on black bodies." In fact, the NCAA profits from various things related to the activities of student athletes. It doesn't run a morgue. And the second question: What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? Those tangents you went off on don't actually supply a definition of the word under contention. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok BoN, lets play then. Did I say "dead Black bodies'? No, I said Black bodies, meaning fairly clearly that the NCAA benefits directly from the labor of Black athletes. The NCAA almost exclusively makes it's revenue from two sports; College Football and College Basketball, sports with feature majority black athletes.[1] Combined these revenues exceed 90%, and they literally pay for every other collegiate sport across all three divisions. Because the CBB tourney was cancelled, it reduced the amount of money the NCAA distributed by 63%. Second, the NRA/GOP doesn't give a single shit about Black lives, because they allow guns in every part of society. Illinois actually has pretty strong gun laws, Indiana however does not, and most of the guns used in Chicago can be traced to straw purchases from Indiana. This allows the NRA/GOP to both 1. Blame Democratic Mayors/Governors for not controlling violence, even though they actively seek to undermine the actions that limit gun violence and 2. Continue to prop out the bullshit that Black on Black violence is worse then the systemic racism the NRA/GOP seek to protect. There is no one that cares about Black lives, Black empowerment, or Black success that refers to Black Americans as "Blacks". Take it from me, a Black person living in America.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) “Did I say "dead Black bodies'?” You said “black bodies” lowercase. “meaning fairly clearly that the NCAA benefits directly from the labor of Black athletes.” Incorrect. The NCAA gets its money indirectly from the activities of athletes. It gets money directly from things like ticket sales and television/marketing rights. But in any case, you chose to characterize the student athletes that draw the crowds as “bodies” rather than something like “people” or “students” that would imply agency on their part. And how is it pertinent that many of the students in the most profitable sports happen to be black?. “There is no one that cares about Black lives, Black empowerment, or Black success that refers to Black Americans as "Blacks".” The point of the above line of discussion was to prompt an acknowledgement that the thing that implies an understanding of something or its lack is not the specific words used in a discussion about something, but how those words are used. “Take it from me, a Black person living in America” You are not personally in charge of the English language. What do you think of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History’s use? “Second” And you still haven’t answered the second question despite more tangents. So I’ll repeat it again. What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? To make it clearer, I’m looking for a definition here. But here’s an interesting tangent: “Illinois actually has pretty strong gun laws, Indiana however does not” And Illinois has more violent crime, both gun and otherwise, than Indiana. As if violent crime correlates inversely with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in random encounters. Criminals are capable of performing cost-benefit analyses and altering their behavior in response to risks. Like my above comment about armed guards and police. Now, what were you saying about the NRA? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC) It seems like you are intentionally choosing not to understand so let me be very clear; The NCAA profits directly from Black athletes. Ticket sales and television rights are driven by the athletes. This is not a difficult concept, the athletes are Black, they are why people watch. Though we have created some illusion that the "student" part of "student-athlete" is the most important, the attempt to bring college sports back exposes this for the bullshit it is. I don't particularly give a fuck about your argument regarding proper description. Go to a group of Black people and refer to them as "the blacks", let me know how that works for you. You're continued failure to understand basic concepts regarding gun policy and race are also pathetic. The implication above, and implied by racists like Rob, is that Black people are inherently violent, and as such letting them kill each other with guns is OK. Additionally, the NRA frequently uses dog-whistles, bordering on fog-horns, to describe "urban violence", a handy trope to describe POC, and that guns are the only way to protect their "invasion". The standards for enforcing gun laws is also blatantly racist, the NRA bitches and moans about gun restrictions, but when lawful Black gun owners are murdered, crickets. Phillando Castillo was a legal gun owner, murdered by the police. Breona Taylor was murdered by police breaking into her home, and her boyfriend lawfully defended them. Bye every metric, the NRA is an organization that openly supports white nationalism at the cost of Black safety. Maybe poke around the site, and read some of the info regarding the NRA or Racialism.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC) “Go to a group of Black people and refer to them as "the blacks", let me know how that works for you.” I see you’re moving the goalposts there. Perhaps you found the usage by the ASALH too obviously inoffensive. But let’s move a bit further. I have a quote for you to consider. “Good education, housing and jobs are imperatives for the Negroes”. Do you think the person who said that knows little about “the struggle for Black Lives”? “the athletes are Black” Some are, while others are not. There are not racial criteria in selecting student athletes, and the NCAA profits from them regardless of their race. So why frame the issue specifically in terms of “black bodies”? “The NCAA profits directly from Black athletes” directly | diˈrektlē, dīˈrektlē | adverb 2 with nothing or no one in between Student athletes draw crowds and viewers. These crowds and viewers buy tickets and merchandise, and watch licensed programming. There is an intermediary layer of commercial organization between the activities of student athletes and the NCAA getting money. As such, the NCAA does not DIRECTLY profit from the activities of student athletes (of whatever race). In most paid employment situations, labor is not directly profitable to anyone but the laborer, as the employer usually makes profits from indirect actions like selling things to a third party. A contrast would be things like a street performer getting money directly from viewers. Definitions matter. Clarity of language enhances clarity of thought, and muddying definitions impairs both analysis and communication. So with that in mind, I’ll repeat the question yet again. What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? You’ve gone on a number of tangents expressing disapproval of the NRA et al, but “racism” is not just a generic catchall term to describe things you don’t like. What is the specific meaning you intended to convey by using that word above? I can quote what a dictionary has to say about it if you want another example of what I’m looking for. And I’ve been here since 2.1. I’ve poked around already. If you’re going to make an argument, you should be prepared to support it yourself. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC) You are just going to refuse to take any answer huh. Firstly, you seem to lack understanding of context. Your quote is from 1964. Negroes was the correct vernacular then, but I'm quite sure Malcolm X would be able to update the way he refers to Black people. The NCAA profits from two sports, Football and Men's Basketball. If you bothered to read the link I produced above, you would see that these sports are 80% Black. They are the reason fans buy tickets and merchandise. They are the reason why companies pay to sponsor games. They are the reason companies pay billions for rights to show the games. Your entire premise that because that not every single player isn't Black means the profit isn't derived from their labor, but the overwhelming majority is Black. At the next level it's even more extreme. So get your fucking Argumentum ad dictionarium out of here. Do you want examples of racism from the NRA? How about this? Or this? Maybe this? Not enough for you? What if you consider that when they talk about "violence in the inner city" it's a dog whistle? And that a great way to perpetuate this, is to challenge any and all form of gun regulations, to guarantee the profits of arms manufactures and still convince white people guns will protect them. In summation, fuck off.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) “Firstly, you seem to lack understanding of context.” Nice of you to concede the point that the implications of word use depend on how they’re used rather than the words themselves. If you have nothing to add to that, the first point should be resolved. “Your entire premise that because that not every single player isn't Black means the profit isn't derived from their labor” Not even close to what I’ve been saying. Maybe reread what I wrote if you want to follow that thread. “Do you want examples of racism from the NRA?” I want a definition, as I mentioned before. You seem rather interested in various tangents, but I really am looking for a definition. For the fifth time now: What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Can I ask, because I dunno what you're talking about, how you would define racism? I mean, in a city with disproportionate levels of security (i.e. housing, food, education), say, via capital, what... I guess separates or, worse, excuses your question from addressing reality? As it stands, I think you're asking for a non-sequitur response. Nobody can give that to you. That doesn't mean your premise is airtight. Like, let's take this question "What definition of racisms are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist?" Five times you've asked, are you gleaning a definition of racism or are you refusing any definition that isn't cut and dry? Does your definition have nuance? What are YOU fucking up, if you have to ask the same question five times? This is when you would offer your definition of racism, so that the conversation could be had. Ducking behind "you haven't explained racism to me" admits you aren't considering racism as a point, but not much else. Are you asking how an established power dynamic can be enforced or exacerbated by weapons? What are you actually asking? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC) “Can I ask … how you would define racism?” I’ll quote my dictionary for you: racism | ˈrāˌsizəm | noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: a program to combat racism. • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism. The gist is that racism involves using race as a categorical basis for action or judgement. Considering the negative connotation, I would also add that for common use it applies only to situations where race is NOT a legitimate basis for such things, though in a technical sense those would qualify. “What are you actually asking?” I mentioned above that clarity of language is important. The inability to talk precisely about things impairs discussion and finding solutions, which makes it more difficult to actually solve problems. “Racist” has in some circles today become something of a generic catchall term to describe things the speaker doesn’t like, and this seems to be how RipCityLiberal used it above. I therefore issued a challenge to produce the definition behind that use. Something like the dictionary definition I gave would show that it clearly doesn’t apply, and that the use was improper, while admitting it to be a mere expression of disapproval would remove the invocation of moral condemnation associated with the concept. Attempting to stretch the dictionary definition to fit would be obviously ad hoc. RipCityLiberal seems to be attempting to steer the conversation along various tangents to avoid having to confront this, which is a legitimate rhetorical technique, if one which is simple to counter. The point of all this is an attempt to improve norms regarding the quality of discourse by calling attention to where it's gone wrong. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Well, I guess that's fine, but then what do you want to call inbuilt and practiced structures of society that were originally predicated on race differentiation? Like, I'd call it an anachronism if it weren't for the fact it's still going on. If you aren't a racist, great. Nobody is asking you to be one. Do you think there are any causal relationships between your dictionary definition of racism and what people live with today? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC) If you’re talking about racism by institutions, that used to be called institutional racism. But not all things “originally predicated on race differentiation” are racist, institutional or otherwise, so be sure to say precisely what you want to discuss. As for causal relationships, do you mean something like “racism” being defined in a certain way, “racism” being considered wrong, therefore those certain things defined as “racism” being targeted by policies while ignoring other things that should also be targeted? Or is your question about the relevance of the definition I gave to what people experience today? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Well, the question was more along the lines of whether you personally wanted to separate the definitions of prejudicial racism and institutional racism. I don't really see how making the difference the point is functional except in defending institutions or political stances as less racist than they used to be. You can define the two ideas separately, but why would you actually have to? Like I said, nobody is asking anybody to be a racist. There are structures and systems that are inherently racist, and I suppose it's a good idea to remind people of what prejudicial racism is, exactly, but it's not a good idea to excuse taking part in those institutions without also critically thinking about how they are based in all of the definitions of racism. What is the functional benefit of stratifying racism as personal, political, institutional, or inevitable? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC) “separate the definitions” “two ideas separately” “stratifying racism” You’re misinterpreting the situation. They aren’t separate. Institutional racism is a subset of racism, which is a more general category that includes a lot of different things. Institutional racism still involves using race as a categorical basis for action or judgement, it’s just that institutional racism specifically involves legal/organizational/cultural actions or judgements rather than those by other entities. The term was coined because racism by institutions was perceived to be both important and useful to consider as a conceptual category. For example, Jim Crow laws are a rather different sort of racism than a restaurant owner refusing to hire Irish people, and opposing them takes different techniques. New terms in general come about when someone finds a situation where a distinction or description would be useful, but the existing lexicon is not up to the task. “There are structures and systems that are inherently racist” Like what? Please be specific. That “it's not a good idea to excuse taking part in those institutions without also critically thinking about how they are based in all of the definitions of racism” bit doesn’t mean much without specific details of what you’re talking about. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC) This is a special situation, because I don't think I disagree with you on amy of that. So, let's say under that point, we entertain the idea of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" Well, that rhetoric isn't up for debate, we know that originates from the NRA, so who dp they use as an example of a good guy (the suburban mom, the meek white grandpa, the perfectly law abiding policeman) if you aren't familiar with NRA magazines, unfortunately I am) and who is the bad guy (Obama, middle-eastern king gun-taker, but that's a little outdated, I've been taking shits in the same work bathroom since 2010). So, what do we have to do to call out racism, if it isn't EXACTLY defined? And who gets to call it out if they don't have your exact and specific definition? I mean, again, I agree, it's a bigger thing, and I'm not upset calling that bigger thing racism. I'm glad you're not stratifying as a necessity, but look at who is. They aren't exactly bastions of racial equality. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC) “so who dp they use as an example of a good guy (the suburban mom, the meek white grandpa, the perfectly law abiding policeman)” You mean people representative of typical NRA members? Marketing to one’s customer base is ubiquitous. “who is the bad guy” The saying is more about “bad guys” in general. Criminals mostly, but authoritarian politicians can qualify too. Criticism of Obama or his policies is not inherently racist, and if you want to make an argument that some criticism is racist, you’ll have to actually support it. Can you imagine any reasons why the NRA or its members might not like Obama other than his race? “So, what do we have to do to call out racism, if it isn't EXACTLY defined?” Not every problem in the world is racism, or due to racism. If it’s not a use of race as a categorical basis for action or judgement, it’s not racism, and calling it racism obfuscates the issue. This makes the problem less likely to be fixed, not more, despite the attempt to tie the moral criticism of racism to it. So restrict attempts to call out racism to things that actually involve racism. If there is a problem that doesn't involve racism, address what is actually wrong. “They aren't exactly bastions of racial equality.” Can you identify any policies, publications, or other works by the NRA that are actually racist? To my knowledge they accept everyone interested regardless of race. They don’t ask about or track their members’ races, and their political activities are not about racial issues. Do you think that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? If so, how did you reach that conclusion? What definition did you use to judge that it qualifies? “we entertain the idea of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"” As a practical matter, that’s certainly the most effective way to do it. Politicians, celebrities, rich people, and others who want protection from “bad guys” have armed guards. Banks, government headquarters, and secure corporate facilities have armed guards. Do you think that the politicians advocating for gun control want to give up their armed guards? Can you imagine why someone in Chicago might want to have one? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC) It looks like your issue isn't with "people in Chicago," but a very specific cadre of people who coincidentally advocate for gun reform. I think you've taken a specfic point from a cadre of people who are very interested in keeping people armed and have been dogwhistled to bark at anyone who disagrees. Everyone has reasons, but you've engaged "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" as a "practical" ....Not solution, but, what? I'ma try and get there, because I'm not for gun reform for funsies. I mean, "good guy shoots bad guy" doesn't have much empirical evidence, bad guys with guns kill people. More often, it's the person(singula) with a gun that kills people(plural). I would do everything I can to remove the killer weapon as a factor before I started spouting off about good guys and bad guys, but that's just me. If the argument is something stupid like any criminal is going to get a gun anyway if you criminalize it, then I have this question. 04:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Who do you think deserves to own a gun? And, of course you wouldn't know my history on it, I've said sportsmen and game hunters, sure, and I would still say a gun club membership would be a prerequisite for that ownership, and gun club storage would be the ONLY ubiquitous legal recording of guns. For brevity's sake, yes, this means police would not have guns. I think that's more "practical" than "If I have a gun I'll shoot the bad guy when I see him." But that doesn't even answer my own question. Who DESERVES to own a gun? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ “It looks like your issue isn't with "people in Chicago,"” I wasn’t mentioning Chicago or its people because I have an “issue”. It’s a callback to previous discussion about Chicago, particularly where the reality is opposed to RipCityLiberal’s initial statement. Ongoing discussion sometimes calls for specific examples, so I try to select ones that serve multiple purposes.

“a very specific cadre of people who coincidentally advocate for gun reform” Meaning who, SPECIFICALLY, and what do they advocate for? If you’re going to invoke dogwhistles of “specific” points, you should be specific. Being vague may be useful in political slogans, but it’s not good for analysis. The difference is important.

“Not solution, but, what?” An empirical fact. If a “bad guy with a gun” is stopped, it is almost always from the intervention of a “good guy with a gun”. If no such good guy intervenes, the bad guy is unlikely to be stopped. Which is why people and places that are intended to be secure employ armed guards, as I mentioned above, and why police and other agents that oppose violent criminals are armed. Defending yourself with a gun in a mugging or other criminal encounter is the option least likely to result in harm to you (even compared with trying to escape or with peaceful compliance) and most likely to prevent a robber from getting away with your stuff (thereby making a living through crime). Look up any report of criminal activity involving guns, and consider how the situation was resolved. Note whether someone with a gun opposed the criminal. The NRA likes that saying because it’s a truism, and disliking the NRA doesn’t make a truism false.

“More often, it's the person(singula) with a gun that kills people(plural).” Let’s consider the US, where there are statistics. About two thirds of gun fatalities are suicides (of which about half are with guns). Of homicides (of which about three quarters are with guns), nearly all involve a single victim. There are about 14,000 homicides involving guns in the US per year, compared with something on the order of a million defensive uses of a gun. Guns are not the only tool available for committing violence (knives are rather more popular among criminals, and have been since laws were invented), but they are by far the most effective tool for defending against criminals. You might read this for related information.

“something stupid like any criminal is going to get a gun anyway if you criminalize it” As I mentioned below, guns are a medieval technology. They can be built in a cave with a box of scraps. Pandora’s Box was opened nearly a millennium ago, and wishful thinking won’t get rid of the knowledge of making guns or the demand for them. Broadly banning guns merely gives a near-monopoly on modern guns to governments and organized crime (as in Mexico), since they can run mass production facilities and large scale logistics. But pretty much anyone can make a zipgun or shotgun from readily available parts. And many do in places where modern guns are banned.

“Who DESERVES to own a gun?” You’re framing this in a curious way. A person DESERVES something as a reward or punishment for specific actions. Something deserved is not a right, and the default case is that a random person is undeserving of the thing in question. Someone wanting the thing in question must make a case they they deserve it. This is in contrast to rights, where the default is that a random person has some sort of freedom or entitlement to the thing in question. Restrictions on rights must generally make the case that a particular person is specifically unworthy of them. The former has led to the gun situation in Mexico today, while the latter led to the gun situation in the US until 1934. US citizens used to be able to own and operate warships with naval artillery and order machine guns (actual machine guns, not “assault weapons”) through the mail, all with no government tracking or regulation. But to your question. I think that self defense is a right, and has the corollary of the right to own personal weapons generally. I also think that citizens have a duty to check government overreach by maintaining arms and means sufficient to prevent the operation of a tyrannical state, which has the corollary of the right to own military weapons generally. One consequence of an approximation of this sentiment is that the civilian population of the US outguns every military that has ever existed, combined, which (among other reasons) renders the US immune to military conquest. This is a rather important thing. Of course, it requires a high degree of social capital to work, but I prefer that mode of operation to the lords-and-serfs model. So if you insist on a direct answer to your question as worded, I would answer “citizens”.

“I think that's more "practical" than "If I have a gun I'll shoot the bad guy when I see him."” In the US, police fatally shoot about a thousand people per year, compared with about ten million arrests. In particular, this compares with about four hundred thousand arrests for aggravated assault, which is where police (or most anyone) is justified in using immediate deadly force. With about eight hundred thousand officers in the US, the majority will never shoot someone over their entire careers. Also for consideration, about 160 officers are killed on the job per year. With the vast majority of people shot by police being armed themselves, how do you think those encounters would play out if the police were not armed? It would be nice if there weren’t violent criminals, but that’s not the world we live in. Practicalities involve dealing with problems, not imagining what things would be like if they didn’t exist. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy seems useless to me [ edit ]

https://markmanson.net/why-we-all-need-philosophy?utm_content=bufferb27cd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook-posts&fbclid=IwAR0ScH7fAXxVsKwhUBuLwjRANlrRos-o4LnV3YVV0k4GSpypJLug5_FwPEU

It sort of popped into my head as I was reading this and wondering if we were talking about the same Philosophy (practice). As far as I know the same debates in philosophy have been raging for thousands of years and no one has gotten an answer. It seems to me like philosophy is less about truth and more about validating what you already believe in. It doesn't give or help with meaning, in fact it does the opposite. Even in terms of morality no one can agree on what is the right thing to do or how one should live. Honestly the whole article reads like someone utterly ignorant of what philosophy eventually leads to, which to me looks like nihilism.Machina (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to write out a whole spiel about this for the 10th time. Parts of philosophy (just like parts of historical research, political science, psychology and even physics) is garbage, especially the post-modern kind. A lot of it is extremely useful. I will simply list extremely useful philosophy that affects your every day life. I am sick to fucking death of people slightly versed in philosophy and ignorant of most of it dismissing it.

Critical thinking and fallacies (note that a large portion of this website is dedicated to this extremely useful field of philosophy)

Formal logic

Theory of artificial intelligence

Bio-ethics

Legal ethics

Philosophy of emotional experience of art

Philosophy of non-belief

Theories of consciousness

That is just a highlights of the list. Knowing the historical development of western-thought is also extremely invaluable even if much of it is now obsolete, just as knowing the historical development of any field is useful though I'd say in philosophy it is even more so. After all, the philosophical systems of Plato, Decartes and Kant profoundly affect the development of the culture you live in and your world view. ShabiDOO 00:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As much as I love to burst bubbles everything you listed is irrelevant to my daily life, except legal ethics.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Perhaps not directly, but they will all have indirect effects - and some of those will be very important. The medicines you or your kin use, the adds yo'all get on social media, the smart phones and computers you use, the arguments/discussions you have with believers/non-believers, the ethics of corporations, governments and individuals you deal with - all these are affected or derived by/from various aspects of philosophy. Just that most of those effects are removed from your conscious knowledge. Aloysius the Gaul 03:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC) It doesn't affect the medicines I use, or the ads I get, or the smart phone or computer I use, or my arguments with believers/non (because I just don't, the existence of lack of God doesn't affect my life), same with everything else. Ethics is founded on our biological drives after all because at the base level no one can say anything is good or bad, hence it doesn't affect me. Stop trying to convince philosophy majors they didn't waster their money and time.Machina (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Also no one agreeing on anything is exactly why we need philosophy. It helps you frame ideas, interpret knowledge, discern sound and unsound reasoning, and come to meaningful conclusions about what their differences actually entail. Without philosophy, you'd still have some people arguing that morality about rules while others argue it's about results, but you'd have no idea how they came to those conclusions, or even that that is their fundamental disagreement. You want answers, you should want questions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC) No to all of that. If there is one thing I learned from studying philosophy is that two people can end up talking their mouths off and end up saying nothing at all. It doesn't lead to meaningful conclusions, they can't even agree on definitions. I mean any philosophy has to start with axioms they can't prove. In fact I would argue that philosophy is the reason why no one can agree on anything because it dilutes clear and decisive points into abstract and vague nonsense to the point that no one ends up anywhere. In all my years things only got muddier when I studied philosophy. If I never touched it I would have been spared a lot of headaches like nihilism, solipsism and a bunch of other stuff.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Yes people CAN end up talking nonsense - but it is a mistake to conclude from that that all people talk nonsense and therefore nothing useful is ever gained from all these things. A basic logical error that you might have avoided with a little more thought ....tee hee hee...Aloysius the Gaul 03:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) When you speak to enough philosophy majors you'll see it's not really a mistake or logical error. Also why would I want questions? Questions are useless to my daily operation. Most animals don't need them and do just fine so what should I want them? Especially when they do more harm than good.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo That's a weird fucking list if you're trying to sell it in terms of utility to the general reader. The world would be a considerably less troubled and stupid place if most people could just combine simple applied ethics with some basic grasp of epistemology. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that the people here reading on this salon are dullard general readers who cannot figure out the importance of philosophical work on artificial intelligence theory, consciousness or formal logic? Shabi DOO 02:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Shabidoo

Forgive me for asking, but you get strangely grandiose and say some odd fucking things when the subject comes up. I suppose what I'm really trying to find out is whether you're just a bit bonkers, or overcompensating for some reason. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a Bachelor and Masters in Philosophy from Leuven University (one of the world's most prestigious philosophy institutes). What about you? Tell me what's so grandious and I'll back up what I say. My aesthetics prof is a consultant for a French movie studio, Waltzers just war theory is used as a template for the war policy of countries including Belgium. There's nothing grandious about that. Also saying that somethings a weird fucking list isn't mild criticism. Talk about being bonkers HBC. Take a lookin the mirror. ShabiDOO 04:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bit bonkers it is, then. Bonus bonkers points for "Grandiose? Moi?!" right after "one of the world's most prestigious..." You'd struggle to get that one past a script editor. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry would you like me to hold that mirror up to your face for you? I mean considering the only philosophical text I've seen you quote was terribly written hackwork I can only imagine you're an armchair enthusiast hiding behind a wall of disparaging snark and smug bad-ridicule. But that's always been your modus operandi on the wiki...to accuse others of the very thing you are an expert at. Shabi DOO 02 24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ah, yes... the "hackwork" that you immediately identified as the work of an "undergraduate", when it was clearly the work of a philosophy of maths subject specialist. And which, for additional comic effect, you proceeded (and apparently wish to continue) to disparage, rather than simply owning the fact you said a Dumb Thing In Haste. You really should consider the logical possibility that I'm mocking you because you totally deserve to be mocked in this instance. Learn & grow, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That was a garbage article written in the quality of an undergraduate, I don't give a shot if the writer is faculty and you should be embarrassed to have ever have linked it. The only thing that Machina was right about was that there is had philosophy out there and that was a prime example. I can only conclude you yourself are an undergraduate trying to maintain the air of knowledgehood by shitting on others and making no arguments to defend in the process. Take a look in the mirror and learn to grow up first before lecturing others to do so. You HBC are the ultimate pet-asshole here only you're no ones pet. Just a snarky substanceless asshole. Shabi DOO 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Go home, Shabi. You're drunk. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Helena Bonham Carter, when will you realise that both of us are just putting up a front to hide our burning raging desire for one another? It's just a matter of time until we get into a raging physical fight breaking all the furniture until it evolves into a passionate weekend long love fest. Stop resisting. The sooner we give in, the more we can enjoy our ignited romance. Shabi DOO 01:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Did we just go from "You are condescending Shabi!" to "Me? I am Educated, you peasant!" followed by "Go fuck yourself." and finally "Helena I hate your fucking guts, please have passionate sex with me"? Mkay then... (still a better script then that shitty movie Helena was in. Fight Club, or whatever it's called.) - Rairyu75 ( Talk ) 01:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Yes that is an absolutely completely 100% accurate description of everything that was said and a proper reflection of undeniable truth. I'm sure that Kant, Kierkegaard and Flippen-floppen-gugen-witz would all completely agree Shabi DOO 02:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Yikes. Drink plenty of water before you go to bed, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) That's such a pity. We really could have had something there HBC, just think about when Brad Pit and Angelina Joelie completely destroyed their house in Mr. and Mrs. Smith in a rompous shoot out turned mad make-up scene. Another time Lyrithya. Shabi DOO 03:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In truth, I regret googling Lyrithya and finding your Uncyclopedia contributions. Given your sloppy opsec on the Shabidoo handle, the worst of your "bad taste" shite should be considered an ongoing professional liability. I'd attempt as deep a burn as MediaWiki will allow. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm really flattered you'd make such an effort to chase me around the internet. You know a couple days ago I would have been interested in your acidic rage which is really flirting but after turning me down the first time I'm just not interested anymore HBC. But thanks. Maybe some time in the future. Hugs. Shabi DOO 06:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) OK, Hemingway. It's your hostage to fortune, and you're welcome to it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of consciousneses amounts to garbage to me, same with artificial intelligence (we aren't going to get to the point where it becomes a problem). Neither of the two are relevant. I don't need to look at what consciousness is or how it got there or why.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you don't need to learn or understand anything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC) You're a fool if you think that those topics don't affect your daily life. You don't have to actually know the bloody theory for it to reach deep into your life, zheesh. Every single one of the topics I listed are relevantwhen you browse the web or watch a film on your computer. Deep learning is already present in your daily life (a component of artificial intelligence research) and it's ridiculous to think that the study of artificial intelligence (and the theory it is based on) isn't one of the most critical studies happening right now that will shape the future. I'm sorry you took a shitty philosophy class or two or don't have a "nonsense filter" to drown out the bad stuff. I'm sorry you cannot study a philosophical concept without becoming obsessed with it and allowing it to instill irrational existential fear in you. No one is obliging you to study it. Can't handle it? Don't like it? Don't read it. But don't pretend it's all a pile of junk when you are clearly so immensely ignorant of it you don't even realize to what extent it shapes your life. LMAO Shabi DOO 03:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC) The problem is that there is no "bad philosophy" since anything in it can be made to sound legitimate and there are no hard and fast rules (because even the rules can be questioned). Also shapes my life? It's had very little impact in the way I live and see the world. Philosophy of AI is quite useless as the more pressing concern is surviving our environmental disaster, we aren't close to the point where AI will be a problem. It's not critical. It sounds more like trying to rationalize that the time spent reading it was not an utter waste. As was mentioned the same debates have been going on for over 2500 years. At least science moved in that point. ikanreed said it very well, you don't HAVE to understand anything. It's a tough concept because philosophy isn't taught very well, basically you won't see it in western schooling unless you specialize in a subject or look for it yourself. The idea that "so what, you can't see this anyway" is kinda glossed over, and I think it's a really important question. I don't think your questions or comments are worthless, and I don't think the answer is something you could just pull out of a book. The idea that any possible solution to a question is found from a list that can be recalled and recited, well, that's basic AI. So, where would you differentiate basic AI from human intelligence? We already have AI that calculates algorithms of patterns and weighs those solutions on algorithms of probability of successful outcomes. It's not like it's slowing down. The idea that it "will never be a problem" relies on some ideas about consciousness that other people might not share. If an AI were to have a better explanation of why it. itself, had more agency than you because it could pull all the information ever recorded and act on any single instance due to that ability, would you be necessarily compliant with any decision it arrived at? Even if it didn't have information that you had, but had never recorded? Me, I don't know, but that's why we talk about it. And sure, maybe my ideas aren't going to stop some Skynet or whatever, but it's not worthless to weigh the ideas and the potentials. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC) If you think that philosophy is useless to you then it probably is. But that just tells me something about you. Philosophy is actually very useful in many endeavors which have been mentioned.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh, the problems in those many endeavors are due to philosophy, same with ethics. Also AI is not an issue at the moment, still just another bid by philosophy majors to attempt to validate their years of study.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Gol I studied philosophy at three different universities in Spain, Belgium and Canada and for the most part it was taught exceptionally well (minus the two postmodernist professors I had had). Probably the most important subject one will study is the "intro to critical thinking" and I agree that it is truly best that you have a very good professor for this one. I think it will make or break your academic career and interest in the field. The seminars were also truly excellent (if you have good classmates the discussions are great), they were usually in super specific topics like "emotion and art" (think the science behind how movie studios manipulate audiences through psychology and an understanding of western narratives), "just war theory" (Waltzer's extremely influential work on rules of engagement for modern warfare) and Poppers Open Society (Popper's extremely insightful argument that the most fundamental strength of democracy is not so much to represent the will of the people but the possibility to remove bad, menacing or dangerous governments). I had a great time studying it and my non-philosophy studying friends who came to sit in on some lectures thoroughly enjoyed them. Shabi DOO 15:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) That's awesome, that's great. I'm more speaking to your point that "critical thinking" is very important. I agree with that 100%. I'm all public schools in the American midwest. I'll admit I dropped out college because I couldn't afford it anymore and I was stuck in a well of prerequisite rehashing of high school level rehashing of middle school level information into the second semester my sophomore year. I think it's cool that you got to go to multiple colleges in multiple places and pursue philosophy specifically. I'm glad you did it. It's unusual. I was lucky that I grew up in a home that engaged in critical thinking. My mom is a third generation public school teacher and I benefitted from that. I had lots of teachers that let my bad habits like never having my homework on me slide because I actually engaged in class. I got a full ride to a small private Christian college that promised ties into journalism. I had a Machina moment, in an early college class "Ethics in Film" where I posited that personal accountability can't exist, because the future is based upon the present and the present is based upon the past. The teacher didn't just brush me off, she looked at me like I was a monster. I thought it was because I had an airtight argument. I took another class with her, and I started to fail because she required everyone to take notes. I dropped it before the cutoff, and she kept me after class. She asked if it was because I was required to take notes. I said "well, kind of..." and she cried. I had really miscalculated that a Christian college might slant their education. I transferred, had to pay for my sophomore year myself, got all of my credits wiped as electives, and had to start my college career over as a sophomore with 36 credit hours of electives. I wouldn't say I've self-educated as rigorously as I could have got a formal education, and I really try not to pretend I have. But at no point have I struggled to label every part of a cell or write a history paper, reciting information is very easy for me. I've struggled to pay my rent and pay for school. I've gone past credit lines. I've taken my savings account down to 16 cents to get bread and salami to last me for days. I got back up, I'm well fed now, and rationalwiki has really helped with self-education, over the course of almost a decade since I found it. I've, as your non-philosophy friends may have, really enjoyed discussion. I appreciate your insights, regardless of our different backgrounds. Thanks for sharing, I do believe you've had a great education in philosophy and I'm really glad you're sharing it here. I'll take anything I can get, you know? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

But that somewhat proves my point about philosophy, all those topics are useless. The debate over what can be considered art and why, just war (there is no such thing and rules of war don't really apply at all), and you pretty much listed one of the major flaws in democracy.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Machina, you are an intelligent person I don't know how you can be so ignorant of how essential these topics are to your every day life and how flippantly dismissive you are about shit you know little of. If you've ever watched a Marvel super hero film then you should know the amount of work that goes into manipulating the audiences emotions (it comes down to an actual science) and the work that goes into western narratives. Of course it's bloody relevant because the film industry relies on this research. Go watch a Marvel Film, what do you think the writers just pull this shit out of their asses when making a 200 million dollar (or much higher) budget film? Just war theory has been incorporated into several Nato countries military engagement policy. I don't see how these theories are irrelevant if those policies are actually used by countries in practice. What more do you bloody want from an academic discipline? There are rules to war and when countries break those rules there can be geo-political consequences. You're ignorant if you think otherwise. If you think that the ability to kick out a bad government is a weakness of democracy then you know next to nothing about the history of democracies in the last 150 years. You talk dismissively about philosophy and philosophers trying to justify their garbage academics but all I see is a person drowning in metaphysical concepts that he cannot psychologically handle and just dismissing an entire field as an intellectual self-defense mechanism. That is obvious to everyone considering your obsession with solipsism and inability to listen to anybody and their highly rational responses to your issues with the topic. I'd say the same about your approach to many other topics. You complain about philosophers babbling with on another and not listening, but when I think of philosophical conversations here on this wiki I've seen many insightful comments and you pretty much never listening to anything anyone has to say. Perhaps when you are describing your criticism of philosophy you are just describing yourself. You can keep saying "ugh this stuff is just all irrelevant" all you want, it still seriously affects your life. If you want to cover your ears and eyes and go "lalalala this is all irrelevant" and wade in intellectual ignorance...so be it. ShabiDOO 17:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you are woefully misled. The Marvel movie plots do seem like they just pull it out of their asses. As I said there is no such thing as a just war, that just proves my point about philosophy being used to rationalize what you want to be true or already believe. You are ignorant if you don't think countries break rules in war, they just avoid getting caught. It's like saying the parties in the US don't spy on each other, they obviously do they just don't get caught. How ignorant can you be? And "bad government" is a matter of opinion, which anyone can spin to make it appear as such (no thanks to philosophy). You'd need only look at America present to see how far democracy got us, a popularity contest where emotions rule (in fact that is why they said democracy was terrible). Also no one posted a rational response to solipsism, mostly because they haven't experienced what it's like to get caught in it. They were useless, all that it amounted to in the end was "you just have to not believe it" which doesn't mean a lot. The solipsism thread was of less use than nothing at all. It's not a defense mechanism, I've felt like this about philosophy before. All it has is questions and no answers, which again is....nothing. All the big questions and it's still got nothing. So then one must ask...why bother? Seems better to just say "F it" and go about your day. Philosophy kind of reminds me of a treadmill, I'd let that sink in. Everyone else can waste their times hitting the dead ends that philosophy is full of. I still think philosophy tries to justify it's existence with these big questions that don't ultimately matter, but they pretend it does (I mean someone has to). It can't answer solipsism, nihilism, ethics, AI, any of that. It truly is good for nothing. Better yet read this, it summarizes my feelings: http://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Paper%20Assignments/Articles/Philosophy%20is%20a%20waste%20of%20time.htmMachina (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Yeah Machina and the sky is blue and the world is flat. You're just an extreme intellectual nihilist who thinks everything is stupid, false, impossible and pointless. I can't discuss anything with someone who just denies everything. That's what's so ironic here because you pretty much parody the pessimism and "fuck you" of Nietzsche. In any case, Good luck with that. Shabi DOO 04:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Hmm, I like philosophy. I'll add three reasons why it's critical that I didn't see in the above argument. There is irony in using philosophical argumentation to argue against philosophy. Without a philosophical base, one cannot judge the utility of any situation. Philosophy gave us math and science. It is a nursery of sorts for new ways of understanding the world. Logic and observation, a.k.a. math and natural science, are the absolute best tools we have for sorting between what is true and what is not. I suppose you could in theory go through life without this ability. And political philosophy. I do not think it is possible to successfully navigate politics without engaging with political philosophy. It is indeed true that the animals do just fine without philosophy. Humans who want to live as animals call themselves primitivists. Tulpa001 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC) You just added three reasons why it's not critical. Even with a philosophical base you can't judge the utility of any situation. I also wouldn't give it math and science because those actually work unlike philosophy. It's also not a nursery of sorts but rather a smoke bomb and that intentionally confounds any simple concept or understanding and questions everything to the point of oblivion. Political philosophy is also not the relevant in the modern world.Machina (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Intentionally confounds"? Again you are describing yourself. Shabi DOO 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina, I want you to explain your experience with Buddhism. You can edit my userpage, or you can put it on my talkpage, that's more normal. I would really like to get some points, and you don't have to do it here. But it sounds like you have some shit to say, and I don't think I get it, but I also want to know about that Buddhism you left behind. I'm off for the night, but seriously , if Machina edits any of my shit, leave it. Permission granted. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No I'm describing philosophy. I'm not the only one whose life was worse off after taking it, and there are others who can see how it just muddies things up with tons of questions with no answers. Ethics becomes more about making you feel bad rather than what is right or wrong, so it just boils down to emotional appeals (which is why it's been stuck for thousands of years). It's true what people say, philosophy is more like glorified opinions. It doesn't teach you how to think but what to think, but then again it hasn't settled any of it's debates since it started. As for my experience with Buddhism well lets just say it was bad.Machina (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)





I get that, you don't have to tell me about it. I just want for you to have a space to wreck up like you deserve to. I know it doesn't work if I invite you to do it. But I also read the things you write, like I actually read them. I did a thing, at that Christian college I wasted a year at, when I got so fed up with bullshit. I had gone home for Christmas break, came back and my was told everyone in my building was getting an $80 charge because somebody who stayed over the break had sprayed the fire extinguishers all over the halls. Everybody knew who did it, but nobody was going to tell on them, so the whole building got a charge I literally couldn't pay except for my Christmas money. So, with my Christmas money gone, I literally Solid Snaked my way into the boiler room, I dunno what else to call it, the locked room with all the water heaters and some janitorial shit, the door had a vent, I unscrewed the outside vent and kicked in the inside vent, then just climbed through it like a dog door. I closed the direct lines, the cold water. I left the lines that went through the water heaters open. I screwed the vents back in place and went back to my room. Y'all can have water, but it's gonna be hot. There must have been 6 water heaters down there. There was not a shortage of water, just imagine if every time you wanted water you could only turn on the hot. It took 4 days to solve, it was me, MUAHAHAHAHA, that school fucking sucked, and that dorm fucking sucked. My roommate wanted to watch old VHS tapes of his high school football games. Little bit of irony there, me complaining about that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC) It took four days before they solved the problem. Four days of scalding showers and brushing your teeth with steaming hot water. All I did was shut of a couple valves, should have been easy. At least people here are responding to YOUR misanthropy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) That's a bummer you had a shitty dorm. It's such a lottery who you end up living with and how well you get on with them. What I don't understand is why you didn't actually sabotage the dorm room of the guy who sprayed fire exinguisher everywhere. I mean you could have just prayed shaving cream foam all over his mattress, books, carpet, clothes and window! 05:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC) I don't get it either, except I felt like I was the only one who was angry. There was something so funny to me that I had to brush my teeth with the hot water too, like, I didn't get along with a single person there, I didn't have anyone in that dorm that I cared about. I went into that room a few times, since I figured out how I could. But I never reconfigured the water lines, I was really happy with how it turned out. Freshman class had maybe 500 people in it. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find a friend at a Chrstian college of under 1200. And I gues a point missing is I didn't tell anybody, I didn't do it for clout, I just did it because I was pissed off at them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Lemme be fair to the experience, ther was another dorm building, and I made friends well there, but I was in the athletics dorm. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents [ edit ]

Seems like the complaint here is that "bioethics doesn't influence my life directly therefore it's useless garbage", correct me if I am wrong. Well, I disagree. Bioethics does influence your life in significant ways if we add all the small parts to it. Bioethics deals with how the food that comes to you everyday might not be contaminated with rare metals or how the meat that one consumes (assuming they're not vegetarian) didn't come from am infested slaughterhouse that denigrates animals, their welfare and our public health. Or how bioethics deals with designing ethical experiments so that we can test medications on animals and, if it succeeds on other trials, on humans. I also don't think you need to live in an isolated cabin in the woods of Siberia to be isolated from the topic of bioethics; after all, environmental concerns dealing with the populations of elk or rodents would also fit in that (and they would be adjacent to your life in the Siberian cabin).

Eh, rant over. But I like philosophy and I think, as Shabidoo said, postmodernism and the other stupid far-left stuff is pretty useless and taints a lot of humanities. I do really appreciate ancient Greek philosophy though, everybody should at least know a tiny bit about Parmenides, Heraclitus or Epicurus. I at least enjoy it. — Godless Raven talk stalk walk balk 🌹 04:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the biggest recruiting drive for philosophers at the moment are government health departments and hostpials directly hiring consultants to help develop a countries or hospitals medical policies on, for example surgeries and dealing with questions like parents denying their children treatment, the use of medicines, operating with limited consent, euthanasia, how clinical trials are run, patient privacy and confidentiality etc. I wish I actually had specialized in bio-ethics. Nice salary and a big demand for them now, not to mention it is an extreeeemely interesting topic. Shabi DOO 04:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) As a biologist, bioethics was mandatory discipline to cover in our curriculum (required for laboratory work), and I really enjoyed it. One of the most fascinating lectures was called "What is a disease?", where we discussed how that label is very "common sense" based rather than scientifically. And it is really hard to pin it down if you think about it. — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹

You sort of prove my point how philosophy purposely muddies things for no good reason. I also think you're wrong on the hiring for philosophers in those areas because I have plenty of family members in those fields and they say that isn't true at all. And again you show how bioethics doesn't impact my life at all. I wouldn't consider meat not being contaminated bioethics, sounds more like just business. Same with the conditions of the animals, I mean if people get sick and die from your food they can't exactly buy more of it. As for animal conditions, who really cares? I could go on but you aren't exactly proving your point here. Also I had to laugh at that Philosophy of the Emotional Experience of Art.Machina (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina nobody can take you seriously here. Almost your entire contribution to the wiki has been posting and asking for commentary (and ignoring that commentary) on nothing but philosophical questions you are really concerned about the answer to. And now suddenly you think those questions are useless? I guess that means you'll no longer post articles or questions on "can we know things for certain"? (Posted only last week) a dozen on solipsism and countless others on clearly philosophical questions. I guess that's sort of a good thing considering you never listen to what others say in response. Shabi DOO 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It only serves to underscore my point on how useless philosophy is and how it does more harm than good. My brush with solipsism along with a few others I have talked to. Even discussions like this:https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9340&start=30 They all leave me convinced that philosophy only serves to either rip joy from you by questioning what makes you happy or to muddle things to the point of stagnation. I mean they can't even define good and bad let alone agree on what is or is not either option.Machina (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest then Machina, that you get over it, never pick up a philosophy book again, never attend a philosophy lecture, not watch philosophical videos and perhaps GO DO SOMETHING ELSE!? Best of luck in whatever non-philosophical intellectual endeavor you engage in. Shabi DOO 02:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC) As someone who attended one semester of philosophy (bachelor) at the University of Brasília, I can attest that some philosophy courses are shit. The professors are passionate, but the funding is very low and the place is decaying. Which is not the case at all with STEM fields. I really enjoyed my lectures in ancient Greek philosophy, but I decided to go for biology rather than philosophy. Maybe y'all have different experiences, but the financial environment for philosophy seems quite underwhelming. But the subject is vast and I have no doubts some people really enjoy it. — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹 (I am not trying to confirm Machina's point, I enjoy philosophy, at least as a "hobby"). — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹 I only have one fellow graduate I know of who didn't end up in a nice job after graduating. Many of my friends went to work in civil service jobs (some fantastically paid EU work, political lobbying and several corporate jobs). One friend works in jurisprudence, another in AI (he had a join degree). A few friends went into theology (gross). Several are also in communications (a philosophy degree is a very good start for comms). A couple went into NGO management. One is a human rights specialist (she did her thesis on the philosophy of human rights). One friend works for a major production company. A few do advocacy work. Several are now teachers or professors themselves. One went into human cognitive development. A couple acquaintances are well published journalists. One friend is a junior diplomat in the Spanish foreign service now. It is, a raving myth that the job prospects are low in Philosophy. Though it is very true that for the first few years after graduation things go slow. For some rather slow. Appart from my buddy who is now in construction work, I don't know a single person who is complaining or regrets what they studied. Shabi DOO 05:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Don't take it personally. It honestly really really is a total lottery who you end up with. I had awesome dorm mates in the two residences I lived in in Leuven and my erasmus year in Spain. Endless parties, awesome fun friendly people. Got along with just about everyone. Like funnest happiest years of your lives. And then I spent a year in New Brunswick Canada and, while I made friends easily on campus through class, my dorm mates were in general boring whinny dicks. Not a single fun party. Miserable unfriendly people. I honestly don't think many people liked many other people. There was just a cloudy atmosphere in the house. It's a bummer you didn't have a blast. I think everyone should have their party days in their 20s! Shabi DOO 07:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a raving myth that the job prospects are low for philosophy, many people I knew had to get another degree because they couldn't land a job with their philosophy majors. Civil service sounds awful from what I heard. Even if you knew a couple people that went on to better things I'm willing to bet that much of their current jobs have nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, much of the jobs you listed don't have much to do with philosophy at all and you can land them with just about any degree. So in other words the skills you get from them don't make you much better than someone who studied a more "useful degree". At let medical school teaches you something useful, same with an engineering program, or even just a degree in business. They might not tell you personally they regret it, likely to convince themselves as well, but they are just as replaceable. Hence philosophy is still a useless degree, it's even an in-joke at my university and to several recruiters I've spoken to. So once again you end up with a degree whose skills aren't relevant to daily operation.Machina (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a prime example of you not paying attention to shit people write. I just told you every single fellow graduate but one has a very nice job. And you reduced it to "a couple people". You don't listen machina, you skim and then repackage what people say and dismiss stuff you don't like. You also just dismiss and disparage shit you don't know anything about. "Civil service sounds awful". But of course those are the jobs of millions of people doing literally thousands of different things. And it all just sounds "awful" to you? Your ability to sweep away an enormous category of things you know little about is legendary by this point. And its based on what? Your career as a civil servant? Working for a ministry? In the foreign service? As a policy researcher? Of a small evironmental agency? Of a small group that helps people? The reason some of those people were recruited for their various jobs was because them studying philosophy gave them rigorous critical thinking and analytical skills which can be applied to a huge variety of jobs and yes those skills are highly valued. It's something you've likely completely missed or looked over because you're so busy obsessing over the most abstract metaphysical questions you've missed the bread and butter of the subject. But you're so adept at dismissing shit I literally think there is nothing I can say that you won't find a way to disparage so, lets say, this is my last post on a subject you "dislike so much" but cannot stop talking about or obsessing over. Good luck Machina. I hope you find something else to do. Shabi DOO 07:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC) i rather like a civil service job, even though thatcherite fucknuts have made them less attractive and far from secure these days. i liked the ones i had within that whole sector. i liked earning my crust where my focus was essentially being useful to people and world at large rather than breaking my back making some other cunt rich. happier days AMassiveGay (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Yeah. In fact, I don't know about the UK, but in Spain and Belgium, a civil service job is the dream for a lot of people and an EU job is the ultimate victory. Guaranteed life work, inflated salary, serious labour regulations, long lunches and, of course depending on the ministry and job, interesting work (though if you don't like work...lots of easy uninteresting work if you prefer which some obviously do). My friends in Madrid get jealous anytime someone snatches up a life-long civil service job. Shabi DOO 08:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC) In fact I made it to the second interview of an EU job in Brussels, 58,000€ (virtually tax free) in a beautiful office building with nice people. Lost out to it to another guy. Biggest career tragedy of my life. After the second interview the guy sponsoring my application took me to the employee restaurant for lunch. I wish he hadn't. Somehow the ministry snagged a french chef. Three course lunches and wine for 5€ for employees. The lunch alone made it a devastating traumatic loss. Shabi DOO 08:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC) (ec) once upon a time it was so in the uk. now its all contracts, and business needs and efficiencies after efficiencies, while elements in press vilify civil servants (a hugely broad term - driving instructors are civil servants for example. are nhs staff civil servants? its not all walking corridors of whitehall is what i mean) as lazy and wasteful and begrudge you getting paid a fair wage. used to be the lower pay than the private sector was balanced with job security now just the lower pay, and services get more and more stripped back and understaffed, suddenly those people complaining about paying your wages find the services provided are broken and thus justify their antipathy. ive only ever been in positions of drudgery, mind. still preferable to drudgery in private sector. its nice to feel useful and not just out for yourself, or whoever it is reaping the rewards of your toil. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Look...once upon a time I thought I loved philosophy when I took it in high school. But then more I got into it the less I could make out what people were saying. The language or terms people use just confused me and the parts I could make out shocked me. It was nothing like I thought it was in high school.Machina (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cartesian epistemology is fucking useless to me. Pragmatism is the only needed philosophical view. Pretty much everything was called philosophy before it became useful. Metazero 14:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Alright, now you're getting it. Consider this. You can blame philosophy for for injury, but did you learn how to use it? If your injury stems from philosophy, I'm really sorry but nobody certified you to use it. You might know some inner workings and problems with it, that's the self-reflective human experience, but that doesn't mean it's a useless tool. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What's a good Batman comic to read? [ edit ]

I've read TDKR, Year One, The Long Halloween, and several others. Do y'all know of any? — Oxyaena Harass 20:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A banned Styx fan asks: Should Rationalwiki have an official Youtube channel? [ edit ]



I think so because then you'd actually have to respond to criticism leveled your way.50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC) This is a common question. And the problem is "who owns the channel and does all the work making videos"? We have multiple users with youtube channels here, though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Fuck no, you don't want to be looking at our mugs as we respond to the nonsense already clogging that bleedin site Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Personally, Youtube is responsible for an awful lot of nonsense doing the rounds these days, more so than facebook and 8chan. THis https://www.nytimes.com/column/rabbit-hole is a fantastic series on just how poisonous certain ideologies have become in recent years, thanks to unforeseen consequences of the "keep watching" algorithm. Cardinal Chang (talk) According to Sartre, one does not have to do anything, as there is always a choice. Now, as to whether RationalWiki should create a YouTube channel so morons like Styx can drum up content via reply videos and feuds (don't lie, I can read your IP's edit history) the answer is a resounding no. ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Hi TDM2, bye TDM2. Oxyaena Harass I never realized clarity and transparency is such a sin in rational discourse. Besides even without a youtube channel you still receive valid criticism from youtubers that you ignore.2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:1C74:429:2E26:D9B5 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC) If such criticism was valid, you wouldn't skirt it, you'd press it in specifics and present evidence, even going beyond sources you agree with to prove you case. You're full of shit, are not engaging in good faith, and are actively dishonest. Goodbye ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A quote from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis [ edit ]

— Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Capitalism and democracy are inherently opposed. Oxyaena Harass Because Communist countries have such a great track record of democracy? Capitalism is orthogonal to democracy. You can have capitalism with a strong democracy, such as in the EU, you can have capitalism with virtually no democracy, such as China. CoryUsar (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) EU is more social democracy, than unfettered capitalism. The thing is, pure capitalism is anti-democratic.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Going to need a citation for capitalism being inherently anti democracy, given that numerous countries across the democratic spectrum are capitalist. As for "social democracy", bear in mind that John Maynard Keynes, the ultimate Social Democrat, was staunchly capitalist. CoryUsar (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/12/how-capitalism-is-killing-democracy/ -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) There is no scientific law that says liberal democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Occasionally, a liberal democracy like Venezuela can vote in anti-capitalist populists who wreck the economy. Conversely, unfree societies like Singapore, Thailand, or China can gradually liberalize markets but maintain single party rule. Arguably the most democratic countries in the world are the Nordic nations and Latin America's "Southern cone", all of them do very well on different economic freedom indices. The real way to solve this is not to go out and cherry pick democracies that junked capitalism or politically tyrannical regimes that allow capitalism. Rather, you take the broadest sample of all nations possible and on one axis of a graph rank them in terms of economic freedom. On another axis, rank them by the quality of their democracy. Both international[1] and regional studies[2] on this show that democracy and economic freedom go hand in hand. The real question is in what direction does causality run, or is there some kind of feedback loop in which both play off each other. Neo Stalinist (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Handling challenging behaviors in mentally challenged people without being abusive [ edit ]

youtube.com/watch?v=q81sQBGtu9A (an excellent video about working with developmentally disabled people with challenging behaviors)

In people with developmental disabilities, there is often challenging behaviors in these type of people. Because of challenging behaviors, care takers think that it is an excuse to be abusive. Just because someone with a developmental disability might throw things, scream, kick, hit or bite that does not mean that you should be abusive. For those people who have challenging behaviors, that is part of their disability. Care takers should develop techniques to work around behavioral issues.

Yes I am passionate when it comes to social justice issues like these. I am also sure that there are people equally passionate about other social justice issues. Not saying that I am ignoring other issues in society, disability rights seems to be the main social justice issue that I am passionate about. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed a challenge, and at least at my agency we get a lot of training on it. Most of it is focused on deescalation if at all possible, though of course we'll restrain someone who 's punching himself in the head. One of the keys is to know when you're getting to the end of your tether, and to let another staff take over if you're feeling stressed. I will say, though, that some who aren't familiar with our population can misunderstand things; we've had the police called on us because staff had to restrain someone in a public place, and I remember an intern who freaked out because we told a client he wasn't going to be able to eat lunch if he didn't behave (in addition to having a medical issue that meant he had to be in a calm state, he was laying on the floor naked because he was mad and ripped his clothes off over... something, he never did explain what it was or how that was supposed to help). And while it is part of some people's disabilities, there are those who act out knowing they can play the disability card to avoid consequences and have family members feed into it; the trick is to find something that incentivizes actually behaving yourself, which varies from person to person. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Be passionate about disability rights. Tulpa001 (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Too many times I have seen disabled people treated as second class (Hell even third class) citizens. Abuse by care givers is rampant and government agencies largely ignore it. Worse yet, trigger happy cops who see a developmentally challenged person acting out will happily shoot them. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC) dunno how things go in the us, but in the uk care assistants are the folk looking after the day to day needs of the disabled enough to require day to day care of some kind, be it a mental or physical disability, and man care homes. these people are not trained professionals. they are not nurses. but they a demanding job, very stressful, with long hours, at minimum wage with little over two hours training. you hear horror stories about about abusive carers. you get what you pay for and we pay fuck all to people we entrust the care of the most vulnerable. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) AMassiveGay severe learning disabilities. You could probably figure out the results from that. From my own personal experience as a kid with Autism- on the special needs school bus I sung a song making fun of the bus driver. The bus driver instead of being civil choose to get in my face and scream at me. I was horrified. So yes the treatment of the handicapped is subpar. I have watched YouTube videos from British and Australian disability groups such as Mencap who provide excellent services for the disabled. Wish the US had their level of competence. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC) It's a complicated problem, to be sure, and having worked as one of the low level grunts in the field I can confirm we're badly overstretched. We end up doing a lot of the things nurses do, such as using and cleaning feeding tubes, positioning people, Hoyer lifting them around, restraining them for sometimes several hours at a time, changing diapers and colostomy bags, and giving suppositories (thankfully I've never had to do that last one, but all the others I have many times), but we get paid nothing like that. The only time I got anything close to a fair wage was when I volunteered to work 58 hour weeks with COVID-positive clients for a month, and even then I was on my own; if something went wrong absolutely no one could help me. That of course doesn't excuse abuse or neglect (although neglect can be for surprisingly trivial things, like leaving someone in a car for 30 seconds so you can fill up a company car with gas), but it's very hit or miss with the types of people you get. I'm normally a job coach, which tends to attract more educated types and higher functioning people, but the group homes are very hit-or-miss; there are some great ones (like the one I helped out at when COVID ran through the house) and some that are horrifying (I'm not too far from the Southbury Training School, which is a thoroughly unnerving place to go even today). Unfortunately, I doubt there's any really great solution, but I do think we're at least trying a lot harder and doing better than we once did; to the extent I can make their lives better I sure try. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) I personally know a 35 year old developmentally disabled woman from birth who was coereced into a hysterectomy by social workers, nurses, and doctors "for her own good". (Were they motivated by science?) This is real Nazi-stuff in modern America. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Grayzone [ edit ]

I'm currently working on Draft:The Grayzone and I'm unsure when it will become a mainspace page. How can the page be improved? --Noobmaster420 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's probably OK for mainspace. Other than content, areas in need of improvement are formatting, and references. As far as references, it's inadvisable to cite Twitter directly in my view because of its ephemeral nature. Always make sure that Twitter links and links to crap website like Zerohedge or Grayzone have archive copies (archive.org and/or archive.is). It's better to cite the Twitter archived copy because people delete their accounts and/or tweets all the time. Bongolian (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC) References definitely need work. Even with more reputable/wealthy sites like the Daily Beast, it's good to provide headline, date, and possibly author, so if it moves or is deleted there's a chance of finding another copy. A bare link to archive.is isn't very helpful: it's good practice to say what's at the end, to save people having to click on the link and just in case archive.is is down (if referencing tweets, a full reference could be URL, writer, date, text of tweet, and link to archive). --Annanoon (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC) I'm new to the site so I think I need help with citations. --Noobmaster420 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC) This is racism. You're just going after The Greyzone cause he's Black. Black people are not allowed to have independent dissenting opinions from leftwing orthodoxy. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC) What the fuck are you rambling on about now Rob? ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 02:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Never mind. I got The Grayzone mixed up with The Blackzone. Sorry, My heartfelt apologies to anyone who was offended, except the part about being racist,. All leftwingers are racist scum. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Lawyer sues restaurant on behalf of goats [ edit ]

Lawyer sues restaurant with goats eating grass on roof for trademark "goats on roof eating grass" which allegedly the goats own. (and loses). Tulpa001 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit, somebody finally mentioned my family's vacation spot here! Rockford the Roe (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I watched Tucker Carlson Tonight the other day, and now I regret it [ edit ]

One of the guests claimed that COVID-19 was created in a lab, and this got a "Pants on Fire" rating on Politifact. I gonna watch FOX, but not Fox News ever again.— Jeh2ow Damn son! 16:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Tucker has the worst show on Fox News. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation 17:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC) "White Power Hour" - Drink every time Tucker says something racist, sexist or transphobic! (Drinks until completely blacked out)-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a distortion of facts. The guest was a Chineese virologist who was part of a team which published a report "on ChinaXiv.org, an open repository and distribution website used by scientific researchers – suggested the market was likely not ground zero for the virus," according to Politico. [7] South China Morning Post also reported on the study. [8] So did the official CCP organ Global Times, [9] although the CCP took down the study from ChinaXiv. Politico says "The study was by a team of scientists from several institutions: Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden of Chinese Academy of Sciences; South China Agricultural University; and the Chinese Institute for Brain Research." The virologist fled China and has been granted refugee status in the United States.

This is a lame-ass, ill-informed attack on Tucker Carlson with no regarrd for the facts, typical of such mindless leftwing twits. nobsBlack Guns Matter 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

On the quantum stuff...again [ edit ]

So I know I posted a few things on quantum physics in the past and got some answers about how it doesn't really tell us what reality actually is and that the interpretations can be spun so many ways.

The guy I linked to before sent me some journal articles that seemed plausible: https://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/public/journals/1/PREPRINTS/DiBiaseII-1.pdf

That is until I got to the end and saw this:

This quantum-holographic informational, self-organizing view of consciousness show us directions toward a holoinformational theory of consciousness. In this model information is understood as an irreducible principle of the universe with a status more fundamental than energy, matter, space and time. It is the unifying principle, capable of connecting consciousness to the whole universe and to the totality of space and time. It also allows a better understanding of phenomena and theories related to transpersonal consciousness which up to now we could not explain or understand adequately, such as synchronicities, archetypes, the collective unconscious (Jung), near-death experiences (Moody Jr.), premonitory dreams, psychokinesis and telepathy (Rhine), morphogenetic fields and morphic resonance (Sheldrake), extracerebral memory (Stevenson), memories of past lives (Weiss) and holotropic mind (Grof) among others. Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Prize winner in physics, believes that Bohm’s theory of the implicate order can even lead someday to the inclusion of God in the scientific framework (personal communication during the debate after my presentation at the international conference CASYS- Computed Anticipatory Systems, in Liège, Belgium in 2007) . This holoinformational view of consciousness which has in Bohm’s quantum theory one of its very foundations, implies the inclusion of a Cosmic Consciousness - a Universal Intelligence that originates, permeates, maintains and transforms the universe, life and mind, through the holoinformational process. Finally, we would like to state that in the Cartesian-Newtonian reductionist paradigm, the question about the nature of consciousness is unanswerable. It can be useful to unfold new knowledge and generate new questions and answers. However, the inherent fragmentation of this perspective increasingly obscures our understanding of what reality and consciousness are.

Which doesn't sound like science and more like woo trying to use science to seem plausible. Most of it is from Jung, who from what I can tell is mostly garbage with a few good ideas. Near death experiences have been shown to be hallucinations (and again not actually being dead). In fact none of the stuff they say it verifies has been shown to exist or work. So then it makes me wonder whether this journal is actually science or just dressed like it.Machina (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"It allows for better understaninding of [list of phenomena]. No I will not elaborate on how." I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone tells you there's a "Quantum physics" explanation for a phenomenon, and don't give you a fucking equation, or at least tell you what kinds of particles are interacting with each other, they're bullshitting you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC) I believe in transpersonal aspects of reality, as Machina knows, although quantum physics woo certainly isn't evidence for that. I see the connection though. Quantum physics is spooky, and consciousness is spooky, therefore they may be related. Although, I've never seen an actual adequate model for this. Penrose's idea of quantum consciousness is the most convincing, although it's not proof of anything. Deepak Chopra's use of "quantum healing" is laughably absurd and quite humorous indeed. HairlessCat (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Consciousness isn't the slightest bit spooky. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Then quantum physics wouldn't be either. HairlessCat (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Except inasmuch as spooky action at a distance is a real measurable phenomenon, I suppose. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) So we do no really understand consciousness. We can sort of describe it, but we do not know exactly how it is produced by the brain for example. We do not understand quantum physics. That is to say we can describe it, but we do not really know why it does the things it does. This turns out to be yet another example of describing some thing we do not understand by appealing to another thing we do not understand. Like strange things in the sky explained by aliens or the origin of the universe explained by some Mighty Being. There is a difference of course that we know that both consciousness and quantum physics exist - while aliens and Mighty Beings are somewhat speculative.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC) What exactly are you alleging we don't understand about consciousness? We know a lot of very important things about it, like which regions of the brain are associated with the phenomenological feeling of being conscious, how different sensations are triggered and how they tie into neurological function, we can chemically activate and deactivate consciousness for medical purposes, and we know a great deal about how humans reason. I don't particularly care for statements like "we don't understand X" just because there's some open questions about X. It's like saying "We don't understand Jupiter" because no one has sampled the atmosphere. Humanity doesn't understand everything about everything, but writing off entire fields of study that have decades of serious research as if they're complete unknowns is, frankly, contrary to everything this wiki stands for ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) What we do not know about consciousness,as I understand it, is how the brain produces is. I am not arguing that this is not knowable and am not arguing for any position of dualism which it is not the consequence of biological process. But as far as I understand it, we have no way of starting with a neuron and layering our understanding up through the brain until we end up with thought and consciousness. Not yet. Compare this with physics. We can start at the atomic level, build up to chemistry, classical physics and end up talking about suns and galaxies. If we are able to do something similar with the human brain and consciousness then clearly my understanding is lacking.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC) When it comes down to it, those that say don't know, and those that know don't say. HairlessCat (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Actually, those that know publish in Neuroscience and Biobehaviorial Reviews. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Oh wait, except for the fact they don't. I am not a materialist, but when I was, even i would acknowledge we have no idea what consciousness is and any other claim would seem absurd. Then I'd say, We know consciousness is an emergent property of physical complexity in the brain and certain regions of the brain are responsible for the generation of certain functions of consciousness. This, and other patterns, is what neuroscientists map out. Yet, they have literally no fucking idea by what process subjectivity becomes a thing. The simplest materialist solution is that it's just a property in the same vein as gravity or any other arbitrary law of the universe, that things have consciousness, and that's perfectly reasonable. It also happens to be wrong. HairlessCat (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) "As the simplest possible explanation was wrong, I decided there could be no explanation" is what I'm getting from that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Oh no, there's a simpler explanation. Just not a rational logical positivist one. It's very esoteric. HairlessCat (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC) I feel like I'm being a bit rude and blunt, but that's a very sorry excuse for being intellectually lazy.

ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no objectivity. HairlessCat (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Postmodernism is a great treatment for some serious philosophical diseases in science, to blindly accept things as truly objective just because they deal with numbers and measurements is all too easy, and a fatal road to follow. However... to make this kind of generalization as a way of avoiding even casually examining information that has survived much scientific rigor and instead adhere to your own preconceived notions is frankly a noxious behavior of a person who wants to consider themselves a rational skeptic. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to read through the paper but such density leaves me wondering what was said. I barely understand QM now and then at the end they suggest it proves all this stuff? I don't know.Machina (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant that quite literally. HairlessCat (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Daniel Dennet (one of the four horsemen who has written on New Atheism) has written several books on theories of consciousness and free will (some of the best I've ever read) and he very clearly spent most of the time in his books on the limits of our current understanding and the most promising theories based on what is understood. You better not read it Machina cause he is a philosopher and so it's all a total waste of time. For anybody else, I highly recommend reading any work by him or work by Raymond Tallis on the topic (a neurosurgeon and philosopher) who has also written on both topics and have clearly defined the limits of what we know and has mapped out the future for the search for a proper explanation of how consciousness is as an emergent property of the brain. He basically claims, as do others, that in the field of consciousness we need a cracking good breakthrough, something along the lines what Newton, Darwin or Einstein did for their own field(s). But the idea that it cannot be understood is nonsense. That quantumhood has anything to do with it, has been soundly rejected by just about every neuro-scientist and notably philosopher of consciousness. Shabi DOO 16:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy is useless when discovering answers that matter, as I mentioned before. When it comes to consciousness neuroscience seems to be in a better spot for figuring something out. So far it has shown that it doesn't exist outside the body, that the brain causes it but we don't know how (yet). What we don't need are spiritual teachers or gurus who think quantum physics says that there is consciousness outside us (it doesn't) and who only have personal experience to guide them (which means nothing):https://myconsciouslifejournal.com/articles/interview-jac-okeeffe/ In all honestly though I think people saying we don't know the "how" is like the last thread they have to cling to to make any sort of spiritual belief still valid, and as I have seen people will try to fill that "you don't know how" with their pet theory. According to the non materialist neuroscience it seems like dualism is dead. There doesn't seem to be any such thing as a mind, or self, etc. Seems like people are scared by the prospect that we are just machines.Machina (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina I see words words words but all I read is blah blah blah.Your intellectual nihilism is tiring bullshit. Shabi DOO 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nihilism is about the only truth philosophy discovered and has been trying to patch over it with meaningless nonsense. IT has yet to fully reckon with what it has uncovered. Stop trying to think it gives answers, all roads in philosophy lead to nihilism.Machina (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahem 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC) That's cute Machina, but you've gone a step beyond plain old Nihilism to pure intellectual nihilism. Which is cute. I went through that phase too while studying. We almost all do at some point. Have fun working out your daemons. LMAO Shabi DOO "...all roads in philosophy lead to nihilism." No, they don't. Nihilism is realizing the first basic fact about existence and obsessing over it for eternity. As such, it is giving up traveling the road of philosophy after the first step. Speaking as a cynic, I find Machina's conclusion to be absurd, and without merit. ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 16:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That's because you're wrong. You like every other philosopher is scared of taking it to the logical conclusion, the same end point that all philosophy ultimately goes to: https://newhumanist.org.uk/1643 See it's not simply a "phase", that's what most would call it because thinking about it too hard tends to invoke despair, and eventually they see that it's the endpoint of every philosophy. When the curtail falls and our little land of pretend ceases to be, that's where the actual work begins. Reckoning with the truth of nihilism, whi