[quote↪Thanatos Sand You complained that the statement ' "Correspondence" is not the same as correspondence' makes no sense. I explained that it does makes sense, what sense it makes, and how. So that addresses the complaint.

It's a reasonable point that "correspondence" is not (necessarily) the same as correspondence. A *so-called* thing is not necessarily the thing itself. Dismissing that point may be the *end* of a debate. I pointed out that it is not much for a *beginning*. ][/quote]

You clearly weren't reading the discussion before you entered it with your irrelevant, erroneous point, and you clearly haven't been reading my posts well. So, I am done with our conversation. Continue your erroneous, irrelevant points if you will; I won't be reading your posts on this thread.

Except your problem, and its a racist one, is you see Whites fighting for equality and human rights for Blacks as "Black supremacists."
— Thanatos Sand

I didn't say that. I don't mean that either.

You absolutely did say that in your post below:

And I have no idea if there a Black White supremacist. Why do you ask
— Thanatos Sand

What kind of a worldview would such a person have? It would be self-contradictory at its foundation. Being Black and anti-Black at the same time.

The inquiry is legitmate because the opposite is true. We have white people who are anti-white by supporting racial equality.

If you didn't mean that, you need to define what you mean by "black man who's a white supremacist"

Nope, the use is the English language's. You've forgotten it has a say in this.:

"flawed
[flôd]
ADJECTIVE
blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way"

And now that you are actually claiming you are perfect, the sign of a disturbed person, I am truly out of here. Ciao.

That has nothing to do with, nor counters, anything I said, and I practice the arts. So, I'll leave you with your flawed definition of "flawed" and move on.

↪Thanatos Sand Wherever it is it is. It simply is.

Uh....huh. And many, if not most, things--including memory--are still flawed. But I forget you don't understand the word.

↪Thanatos Sand Flawed is your subjective evaluation. I see it as simply life experiencing life.

No, flawed is the correct use of the definition of the word and the correct description of human memory. Just ask someone who was convicted by flawed testimony based on flawed memory. Again, you need to look up that word.

↪Thanatos Sand It's not flawed. It is representative of the person as that person experiences and understands things subject to change.

And its still flawed because it misrepresents both internal and external experiences. And it is not representative of a persons experiences since a person forgets more than they remember. You really need to go look up the word "flawed." You don't really understand it.

I provided a link to some research. Among athletes and artists, this sense of body memory, is well understood and cultivated as it is in martial arts practice.

Sorry, none of this changes the fact that memory is flawed as I showed above.

This is why I suggest philosophers to stop reading books and spend their time experiencing life. Artists and musicians express philosophy with far greater depth than words because it is closer to the actually experience.

People can both read books and experience life. I'm sorry you never realized that. And your argument that artists and musicians express philosophy with greater depth is both unfounded and is itself philosophy. Ironic.

↪Thanatos Sand Memory is not flawed, it changes and is affected as is everything else. Wherever it may be it is where each if us is. And if course it/we will evolve.

Of course memory is flawed; that's why people misremember things as much, if not more, as they accurately remember them. That is flawed. And no, it is not where each of us is; its' where the person where the memory is. And the fact things evolve doesnt' take away from their being flawed; in fact, being flawed is usually a main reason for that evolution.

Also memory is flawed, barely representative of our life experience and barely representative of our unconscious thought.

Was that a reply to me? If so, it didn't address what I said.

@Thanatos Sand Skin colour doesn't have any direct impact on the ability to reproduce.

Not only is that irrelevant to my correct point that your homophobic "bug theory" unjustly and erroneously shows one side as less natural than the others, it shows you forget that humans born not wanting to reproduce, like straights who don't want to reproduce, don't have to come from a "bug" in the system. They can and do just come from the reproduction system naturally.

P.S. Nobody has ever found this "bug" you speak of, so the "science" behind your homophobia is non-existent.

Continuation of a species requires procreation, and homosexuality removes the desire to couple with the opposite sex. I suppose a 100% homosexual human population could make it work, because we're smart enough to know that we will cease to exist unless we find some way around our lack of sexual desire. However, it is hard to imagine a 100% homosexual dog population deciding to couple with the opposite sex, without the instinctive drive.

And now you show your homophobia again by presenting homosexuality as counter to the spreading of the species. The fact Gays and Straights who do not want kids or cant have kids have been with us forever proves they're part of the normal evolution of the species. The fact you can't see that these people, like Alan Turing, don't greatly contribute without procreating--and overpopulation shows its good not everyone is procreating--shows the deficiency of thinking and homophobic bias in the matter.

So, you should stop spouting your homophobia and stay out of evolutionary biology, you clearly are poorly educated, if at all, it it.

How is it not less natural in the context of evolution?

It's pretty sad you have to ask. Because you said it Gays an homosexuality was a product of a "bug" in the reproductive system, not the reproductive system acting normally, as opposed to Straights who are products of the reproductive system acting normally.

To show how vile your statement was, imagine saying Blacks are a product of a "bug" in the reproductive system while Whites are products of the system acting normally.

Sorry, I didn't expect my statement to be taken as homophobic. It is meant to be anything but; just a plausible alternative as to why homosexuality hasn't been naturally selected out of existence, despite having no direct benefit as far as reproduction is concerned.

It doesnt' matter if your statement wasn't meant to be taken as homophobic. It was homophobic as you presented Gays and homosexuality as a result of a "bug in the reproduction system," making it less natural than being born from the reproduction system functioning normally. As Rich pointed out, the Nazis used to make similar eugenic statements about Jews. We saw how that worked out.

So, stop making homophobic statements like that and you should be fine.

Look, one thing for sure is that gay-ness isn't hereditary.

That isn't rocket-science.

Look, you have no idea if it isn't hereditary or if Straightness isn't hereditary. And it's not rocket science; its Genetics, a science in which you are clearly uneducated.

If it were hereditary, then, with no one (or many times fewer) to inherit it, then it would soon disappear from the population.

So it isn't hereditary. What other alternatives are there. Well, environment is an obvious one (and not just the home in which one is reared).

This makes absolutely no sense since there have been a consistent amount of Gays who clearly could have, and probably did, inherit it. And you still failed to show what environment can override parental rearing. Thanks for supporting my point again.

CasKev's explanation avoids some of the problems of the environmental explanation.

As I well-showed, Caskev's explanation is unscientific, homophobic nonsense. The fact you buy into it doesn't speak well of you.

If you agree that gay-ness wouldn't be propagated and perpetuated by heredity, then you'd agree that another explanation is needed. Environment, &/or the genetic transcription-errors suggested by CasKev are alternative explanations.

I never agreed to this and you haven't shown that to be true. Heredity is still the best, most scientific explanation.

Don't make an issue about "natural". What's natural? Without the CT-hit, there'd probably be no humans.

I didnt' make an issue of "narural;" you and Caskev did with your homophobic "explanation" of homosexuality by presenting it as an unnatural "bug in the system."

Want "natural"? What could be more natural than Nothing? Nothing can be regarded as the natural state-of-affairs. ...and you'll eventually return to what could be called Nothing, at your end-of-lives. (or at the end of this life, if you assume that there's no reincarnation). And of course it will be Timeless, as opposed to our limited time in life (...limited if you believe either that there's no reincarnation, or those who say that there's inevitably an end to lives, when a person achieves what, in the East, they call "Liberation".)

Much of the variation that makes natural-selection possible is due to mutations. ...instances of cosmic-rays, or radiation from radioactive minerals, altering chromosomes. is it a disparaging value-judgement to suggest that some human attributes could have resulted from those accidental collisions?

This is incoherent, irrelevant nonsense that doesn't address anything I said.

Did you know that there's strongly-convincing evidence that we're all the descendants of a pig and a chimpanzee (or someone very similar to a chimpanzee) that had an affair, a relationship, or at least a tryst?

If so, the only reasons why there are humans is because of what happened between that pig and that chimpanzee.

Is that suggestion a disparaging value-judgment about humans?

And this is more irrelevant nonsense having nothing to do with our discussion. Try to stay on point.

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment. — Thanatos Sand
Not unless it's intended that way. — Michael Ossipoff

It doesn't matter how it's intended; a homophobic statement is still a homophobic statement. That's like saying a racist statement isn't racist if it isn't meant to be. Ridiculous.

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays greatly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight.
— Thanatos Sand

A person's environment is more than just the home in which they are reared.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, but it is their primary shaping environment showing even the shaping environment doesn't make people Gay or straight. Considering you havent shown any other environment that overrides those environments to make people Gay or Straight, my point stands as true.

And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

...none of which precludes environmental causes. But CasKev's explanation is more plausible.

Of course it precludes environmental causes since Gays mostly come out of Straight environments and mostly Straights come out of "Gay" environments. So, the environments clearly aren't making people Gay or Straight.

I hasten to add that no one is implying a value-judgement. Just a mechanism.

Michael Ossipoff

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment.

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. Homosexuality may just be a flaw in the system that occurs when a human is first forming, where a male brain gets paired with female sex organs, or vice versa. There is no hereditary component other than continuation of the chance of the flaw occurring, because there are no homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains.
— CasKev

Are people really spewing this anti-scientific, homophobic nonsense that homosexuality is "just a bug in the reproductive system," and that there are no "homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains?" That is so pathetic.

Gays and their sexual preferences bringing them together are not flaws and neither are their predilections. Gays and the homosexuality they practice have been here for millennia and many of them, like Alan Turing, clearly are not who they are because of "bugs in the reproductive system."

It's thinking like that from the quote above that led England to castrate the man who arguably won the Allies WWII and drive him to suicide. Unreal.

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. “—Michael Ossipoff

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight.
.
Of course. But there’s also a blatantly-obvious natural-selection influence too.

Then there has to be one for Gays, too, because they've been here forever and are still going strong..

, "but theres neither."
.
That’s your scientific pronouncement?I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness.

You did nothing of the kind; your reason was neither obvious nor correct. And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

Sustainability for one. Going for greater happiness is a lower priority than something that can last.
— noAxioms

Same question. How much sustainability is required to be considered a "practical utopia" and how do you measure it?

It's one of the two main problems with utopias: there is no way to even determine an abstract ideal. There is even less of a chance to determine ones that will successfully compel its denizens to all happily embrace them.

Thanatos Sand I see, now you are not only characterizing physicists but you are now extending yourself to characterizing who is educated and who isn't?

I see now you are just trolling, Rich, so I won't read or respond to any more of your posts on this thread.

Fine, you can do that as much as you like, just like people can ask what makes someone think God isn't in all of us. But those are both metaphysical notions with no foundation in the physical world. Thinking they do is a short-sighted notion.
— Thanatos Sand

Conscious is a metaphysical notion? That's just silly.

No, thinking it isn't a metaphysical notion is just silly.

[My post indicated no agreement. It just showed you had no place complaining about my using the phrase "our conscious."
— Thanatos Sand

I use the term 'our conscious' because my thesis is that conscious is unitary and shared. You claim to disagree, and therefore you should talk about your conscious or my conscious and not a shared conscious.

Wrong. I was addressing your concept, so I correctly used your term when addressing it.

Since you brought up quantum theory, my correct characterization of what is a serous physicist is completely germane to the discussion.
— Thanatos Sand

That you feel that you are in a such a position to make such characterizations speaks for itself.

No, that you feel I, or any other educated person, isn't in a position to say physicists seriously studying metaphysics aren't serious physicists speaks for itself...and it doesn't speak well for you.

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid.
— Thanatos Sand

The to are one and the same, and there is evidence that thinking goes on outside the brain.

The two are certainly not one and the same and you haven't shown they are in any way. And there is no evidence 'thinking" as we know it goes outside the brain, but feel free to share it if you believe you have some.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists.
— Thanatos Sand

Your characterization of who and what isn't a serious physicist is parenthetical to the discussion.

Since you brought up quantum theory, my correct characterization of what is a serous physicist is completely germane to the discussion.

What I am doing is turning the question around, and asking what makes someone think that they are not already incarnated in every living being, and suggesting that it is merely the limitation of the senses. Because I don't feel your joy and pain, I tend to think we are separate. It seems a short-sighted notion.

Fine, you can do that as much as you like, just like people can ask what makes someone think God isn't in all of us. But those are both metaphysical notions with no foundation in the physical world. Thinking they do is a short-sighted notion.

My post indicated no agreement. It just showed you had no place complaining about my using the phrase "our conscious" in my response to you.

If you want to disagree, don't talk about "our conscious". I'm not attributing any quality whatsoever to it beyond that it has contents which are generally called 'experience'.

I talked about "our conscious" because you said "our conscious."

↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain.
— Thanatos Sand

Consciousness does lurk in quantum theory interpretation. I am being more explicit, but this type of thinking it's precisely where philosophers should be. Creativity based upon observations is where philosophy should be and exploring.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists.

Consciousness, in this framework, would be one and the same as the physical body as is quanta. It extends though outside of the brain. Athletes and artists refer to this as body or muscle memory. Science is beginning to explore this idea:

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid.

↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain.

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind?
— Thanatos Sand

Consciousness would be quanta. One and the same. And it is spreading spreading into duration as memory waves.

The problem is everything could be quanta, and quanta doesn't inherently become memory waves. One would have to show how they do.

One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. In which case, one could presume that consciousness itself is, like water, everywhere the same, perhaps more or less here or there, but always self-identical, apart from its contents - what it is conscious of.

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind?

"Efram
I won't actively participate in this thread, but I wanted to throw this into the mix: There has been historic slavery of white people. For some reason this gets ignored in favour of a narrative where white people are always and only the oppressors. Anyway, it's something for you to Google."

Oh boy....the "whites were slaves, too" narrative so popular among White supremacists.

I never called you a White supremacist; so you need to improve your reading, too. It's clear the one who was wasting their time was me with you...:)

And the fact we're discussing the enslavement of millions of Blacks in America, and you bring up the comparatively miniscule amount of White slaves says a lot about your priorities

But let me ask you one thing: If white people aren't mostly attacking POC, does that mean that racism is non-existent among the vast majority of white people? Why not extend that logic to them by using attacks as the standard with which to judge racial attitudes? Contrary to your imagining that I'm a racist., I say that racism is still prevalent against non-whites, and this despite the fact that it doesn't typically express itself in overt violence.

I never said Whites were mostly racist, so your nauseating self-righteousness, and poor reading, shows again. So, I have no more time for your erroneous posts and your troubling views clearly simmering beneath. I will not read or respond to any more of your posts.

The only nauseating self-righteousness, and nauseating dishonesty, is yours, as you were clearly emphasizing "anti-White" rhetoric.

Also, I don't think harboring deep grudges against people of other races automatically leads to taking immediate, violent and retributory action against them. This just isn't a feasible course of action for an individual or a group to take, especially among those socially and politically marginalized, unless of course you're willing to die yourself or be sent to prison for a very long time. I would imagine, however, that the first step in the direction of violence is to demonize or dehumanize your perceived enemy. That much seems obvious, and some of the rhetoric I'm witnessing these days tends in that direction, even yours here which vilifies white people to a certain extent, and perhaps rightly so given our dark history.

McCain has been one of the worst warhawks in Congress the last 25 years, pushing hard for the Iraq War, pushing hard for the continuing bombing of Syria and destabilization of that country, and for almost all other military actions. I don't wish him ill, but he sure doesnt' have my sympathy.