you lie, you get called out. MO it seems. If you hadn’t lied, you’d have nothing to say.

Hi 180,

Am very over pretending you deserve politeness.

Either you cannot read, or you're the most obtuse, dishonest person on this forum. Pretending to quote me in such a patently dishonest way is, apparently not beneath you, and absolutely fits with your character.

If, on the other hand, you want to narrow it to dominance hierarchies and their explanation — AmadeusD

However, I did not claim that. I merely rejected your abjectly stupid claim that biological determinism is somehow worthy of derision as a concept in humans. Risible. — AmadeusD

So, again.. risible. Going to be really hard to take someone who chooses to either not read, or lie about another's posts very seriously. Particularly one who is afraid of biology. Have fun out there pretending.

Populations either grow or fall — Lionino

I think the problem is one illustrated, interestingly, by another two threads here currently (50 year old man...(Lounge) and Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History (main page)).

Yes, populations grow or fall. But if we, humans, are having a net-negative(mathematically speaking) effect, this is automatically seen as a negative valence too. I also cannot see how, but the point is that if humans are causing the collapse of human populations, we should probably check that to avoid a collapse upending society entirely.

There is no such thing as 'all things being equal' here, but if we can tell the specific reason a certain trend is happening (in the related threads: lying in academic, and males in female sport) then its worth at the very least assessing, if not addressing.

Do you mean their real-world persona?

If so, feel free to make a comment. I assume there isn't much daylight between them here, versus Twitter or FB.

Biology trivially determines behavior in the way that physics does. — Apustimelogist

Trivially? I can't get on that train, unfortunately.

Yes, but what does it mean in the context of a political or social topic like under this thread? — Apustimelogist

Well, its the fundamental question we need to asnwer before building policy, so its actually extremely important here. Particularly as people do suffer from policies that are ill-fitting for their reality (assuming a higher importance of bio determinism than being painted here).

With uses of words like 'meant' or 'necessity' in these quotes, I don't see them as justifiable. — Apustimelogist

I agree, as it's a choice (noted by unenlightened above). But that says nothing about hte biological basis for the impulse which the choice has to be made around. People group in very predictable ways cross-culturally.

They assume or presume these things function in some preferrable way or even perfect way in the first place and could not be done in any other way. — Apustimelogist

Yes, and that is silly, I agree.

Arguing the benefits of social norms or hierarchies should have nothing to do with biology — Apustimelogist

I think this is highly misguided and is a symptom of exactly why politics is such an absolute shit show. No one wants to accept reality and work from there. Its all about ideals.

humans can and do make conscious choices and arrive at wildly diverging arrangements of their societies — unenlightened

I disagree, and it seems pretty clear that almost every society shares some similar characteristics - even if you're going to take it by stages. Nomadism -> Tribal living-->larger societies->networks. We move in that direction until forced off the path. The conscious choices being subsequent to self-awareness isn't going to defeat a biological basis for whatever impulse is being over-ridden. I'm also not claiming these are the better attributes, but the biologically determined ones.

but it is not universal, and therefore not biologically determined. — unenlightened

Rejecting this as the C does not follow P for any reason. Social hierarchies dominated by males are universal unless that conscious choice has been made. This is the reason we can infer that its biologically determined. It takes self-awareness to notice it and overcome it. We can also do that with eating, so the logic doesn't hold.

I don't appreciate people who either don't get jokes, or reject their previous statements. So, meh.

What? A "reputable scientific source"? Are you aware of biology?

Look at your body's functions, 180. Look at them. It requires nothing more than this simple act of non-rejection of one's reality to determine that biology is determining of many, many facets of your life and inescapably so. Wanting a study for that is ridiculous and beneath you.

If, on the other hand, you want to narrow it to dominance hierarchies and their explanation, it's in it's infancy and so that wouldn't be available at this time, though it seems clear to researchers that a genetic component to dominance hierarchies in humans is worth pursing - Largely because of the total silliness of pretending humans are somehow not going to be highly influenced by the 98% of DNA we inherit from species with inarguably biologically determined dominance hierarchies (higher primates). However, I did not claim that. I merely rejected your abjectly stupid claim that biological determinism is somehow worthy of derision as a concept in humans. Risible.

Fair enough - I guess i was Socratizing an enquiry as to why it appears a large number of posters here take HUmans to be somehow out of evolutionary matrix and just off on their own making up their impulses and desires as they go to service greed and bigotry.

I assumed no one would own that, despite it being easily read into the posts around the topic. I agree with you, though. Social animals, such as primates, live in male-dominated hierarchies ;)

they don't believe everything that you want them to believe — Agree-to-Disagree

Gonna be hard to get past this, with ideology. Having never once denied any piece of data put forward by Chris or Mikie, the response was to paint me as a moral monster because I didn't conclude we should upend civilisation. Its an odd position, as baker also knows.

I used to take this attitude with psychedelics and what I thought was required to save the world from "bad attitudes" hahaha

What if it just a pinch of that odd little plant from outer space helps you not so much
escape reality, as accept reality? — 0 thru 9

I believe this answers (inter alia..):

how would cannabis be any better or different than those things mentioned above? — 0 thru 9

The other, more important, is that it is integrative. Generally, other vices can't readily be incorporated into a productive and working lifestyle (i speak from rather embarrassingly intense experience across multi-drug additions). Cannabis can provide the opposite effect for some, a non-effect (in this sense) for others, and for a small group, can cause the same issues that are standard with other substances and habits. I think for a huge number of people Cannabis does little more than shut up the inner critic for a bit. Gives some room to work on things without hte fight/flight response.

It follows that anything given to the mind, meaning anything exchanging domain from the external as one energy form, to the internal in a very different energy form, something will be lost in the transition. — Mww

I think its more than is being allowed, on some of the conceptions in this thread, though. Reading a passage from North-Whitehead this morning struck me as highly relevant:

"The ultimate momentary 'ego' has as its datum the 'eye as experiencing such-and-such sights'. In the second quotation*, that reference to the number of physical points is a reference to the excited area on the retina. Thus the 'eye as experiencing such-and-such sights' is passed on as a datum from the cells of the retina through the train of actual entities forming the relevant nerves, up to the brain. Any direct relation of eye to the brain is entirely overshadowed by this intensity of indirect transmission"

*from Hume's Treatise, wanting to know how the eye is sensible of anything by coloured points (in space, assumably).

On this type of thinking (which is my intuitive mode, and has remained so even having sorted out many other problems in my thinking) gives me a distinct feeling that

the mind creates or generates or composes of its own accord all the data with which it is concerned — Mww

is true, and that arguments around "direct perception" don't even get off the ground, when it comes 'the external world'. I am loathe to present anything it seems your view is, but it appear you must conclude this from the bits and pieces you have proffered. I just cannot understand how Jamal inter alia, is able to talk about that "direct perception" with a straight face, anymore.

Might just be a matter of time spent on study. — Mww

This, and my dumb, uninformed, choice to get a second-tier translation of the A version.

Biological determinism? — 180 Proof

Is a fact of life. Its a shame that there are entire political discourses that think biology is not a determining factor in almost all behaviour, or that mentioning it is somehow counter-justice. The wiley attempt to dismiss biology as a technique for dismissing views is utterly absurd. Very hard to take seriously people who think that social hierarchies are "forceful" in nature.

That didn't do anything for my question, unfortunately. Just illustrated that excess is in fact, excess. I wanted to know if the general thought here was that hierarchy is artificially instantiated.

It’s been quite common in interpretations of Kant to identify the thing in itself or the noumenon with the reality that lies behind appearances, that which is hidden from us by the veil of perception, and the ultimate but unattainable goal of scientific investigation. — Jamal

This isn't addressed by the quote that comes after. The quote seems to merely reduce hte benchmark of "empirical investigation" to that of phenomena, which is in some sense, correct and obviously what "scientific investigation" boils down to.

But Kant maintains the world as it is in itself cannot be investigated. Unsure this is being dealt with through this particular distinction.

Cognition is what is done with sensory information. — Mww

I think its likely we are speaking the same metaphysical language here, but i can see i'm working from imprecise uses of those two words as i can find conflicted definitions/uses around the net.

On this usage though, I'm with you.

we have the capacities and abilities by which things are given access to us — Mww

I really, really like this formulation and it answers much of where my issues have been by removing the entire issue of "see/to see" linguistic indeterminacy. I guess this makes sense as you helped me through many passages that got me where I see myself now, in regard to this question of access.

do you see how the thread title is backwards? — Mww

I do, now. It didn't occur to me that that also solves my mental conflict around the different perspectives in the last couple of pages. Much appreciated :)

dehumanises the victims and is actively hostile to their human dignity — Punshhh

Hasn't this been the MO of colonialism, historically? It sort of gives hte space to behave in colonial ways. But, you're right that its at least a somewhat shallow call to make.

This is clearly ethnic cleansing and is open to the charge of genocide. — Punshhh

In my, pale, but above-popular legal opinion, it would very, very, VERY hard to collate enough anecdote and journalism to confirm details that would rise to a Genocide charge at hte current moment. But, as i noted, I'm not across all the data and whatnot it just seems obviously wrong for a judicial body to take what seems to constitute evidence among the masses as evidence for a case.

LMAO, yeah, and I'll take it.

But I did not come here to have my appearance assessed by anyone.

I had actually very, very much hoped Athena would engage some of the specifics i've highlighted in regard to ignoring the evidence from her own links. Seems clear enough to stimulate something. But there we go :)

I’m not going to pretend I have a clue - but at face value, colonialism.

We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X. — Hanover

100%. I spent a couple of pages badly trying to get that across a while ago. Cest la vie

:ok:

nah, the T was a mistake.

I mean to say that you’re trying to talk about other peoples humour…

I thinn your response is parochial in some sense.
Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t

I think I just need to leave you in your box.

and that’s a very, very good reason to reject that position.

Absolutely fantastic post; and I thank you immensely for hte tone and nature of it.

(Sigh) — Mww

To this point, I'm with you. I am about 99.5% sure that actual objects are presented, in some way, to our actual sense organs. I would need to ask though, is that enough for you to say we 'see' those objects? If so, alrighty. It doesn't do that for me.

Perception does not occur in the mind; it occurs in the senses. — Mww

I can't make sense of this. Where are 'the senses'? Are they in the sense organs? Or in the mind? I can't see that could be anywhere else. Additionally, perception seems to be defined in various ways. Most seem to begin post-sense - meaning, perception is what is done with the sensory information to create the experience it either constitutes, or initiates. Can you let me know where you see that as incorrect?

What is done with what the senses inform you of, is in the mind. — Mww

See above. This appears to be what perception is, on most accounts. But, aside from that, I suppose I do not see the mechanics the same as you do. I also then bring in to the discussion, the problem of inaccurate sensory perception. Meaning, there's weak reason to think that what you're "informed of" is necessarily information about any actual objects, as it were. It could be informing you that your eyes are fucked

Kinda silly to trip over the dog, but only credit the dog’s existence to the inference there was something there to trip over. — Mww

I really don't see a problem with doing so. I mean, adding that correlation with vision helps doesn't alter my argument, but would help on your end :) My problem with that restriction is that we don't have any other experience of the dog. Inference is the only available avenue to infer (in the "posit" sense) that it is an external, real, mind-independent object: That we have an experience of it.

If you tripped over the dog it means you didn’t know it was there — Mww

Not so. I could have run too fast, I could have slipped on something, I could have forgotten in preconsciousness, I could have been mistaken about where I was stepping or where the dog was etc... But more importantly, I find you to be describing experiences. Experiences occur in the mind.

Where is the mechanism by which we 'directly' access these objects? You nearly touched on it with the basketball quip - but, in actuality, it would need to impress on the visual experience itself, for the claim to hold. And that seems plainly impossible, as it's not physical.

inference is a logical maneuver, and there is no logic whatsoever in perception. — Mww

I do not think I agree here. I think, ala Kant, this is how we perceive. Using a priori concepts, logically consistent as to allow for possible experience, to organise sensory information into an experience.

wasn’t it more fun to read that what’s passed as philosophical discourse here recently? — Mww

105.33%

I think they are required skills to enjoy life, and "take it as it comes". Though, recognizing them can be difficult.

Oh for sure. 7/10 posters I think are normal people. The other 3 (on avg) are the same 3 I would pick out of a house party as the obnoxious ones. The intimation was simply that "philosophical poison" seems well-contained within the forum, and hasn't come to me from without.

One thing I do note though, is that people here, versus any real-life philosophical context, seem very quick to anger, dismiss and generally be dicks if they're either not getting something, or someone else is doing something they don't like. More than likely, me included. And that counts against it.

Systematic investigation of non-empirical matters. Kind of a joke, huh? LOL

using this forum for longer than me — Beverley

Heh - I am barely a fledgling - I just post a lot because I am able to, and am currently studying so it's useful. Plenty of regular users have been here going on a decade (and from a previous iteration!). I'm still in the 'driveby' window, by my lights haha... and, related, I was intimating the 'poison' was confined to the forum. But it was entirely jest - I don't know why people get so serious here.

Ah. Well. There's me not knowing about that. LOL

[

I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself. — baker

I've met plenty. On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.
That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.

It was a joke. Sorry lol, wasn't very good. Thought an entirely uninterested and never-related left-fielder would get a chuckle.

Yes, I updated this with the recent statement from Bibi about 'total victory'.

I've now seen a few I take to be ridiculous. Thank you.

*shrug* If that's what you 'see', fair enough :)

My experience off this forum has me tending toward thinking the poison is quite well contained here :)

but who? — neomac

Luxemburg.

Hey mate, It seems we are closer to each other's position that most others in this thread. I want to avoid getting into some kind of pissing match because we disagree on some detail. It is not, to me, a genocide, any further than 'arguably'. You feel differently. Fine. Lets deal with the actual things we're saying...

As I see it, what you did was describe other things, and then ascribe to them the character of genocide. while also mentioning irrelevant aspects of unconnected events in time. See:

There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. — Benkei

To my mind, that's not an example indicating genocide. These things do not count toward the status of genocide. Communities are evicted, and populations move. Though, i concede that if all you're using here is the definition regarding moving a population, then sure, you're right. But essentially no one is using that.
If that isn't the case, and you think the above indicates a genocide proper (i.e attempted destruction of a people or culture) then i would say you, as do the other side, take your emotional reaction to be an accurate assessment of it. Of course, I may be suffering the same illusion - but I have no hard line on either side's status as 'right' or 'wrong', so only these kinds of details interest me. Its hard to see where bias is getting in there, but please do point it out instead of just claiming some other mode of analysis on my part. Would prefer to be aware. And, fwiw, my emotional reaction to the activities of Israel in attempting to move/oust the Palestinian population (at least on the lets say anti-Likud side of things) makes me very, very uncomfortable. My emotional reaction to it, and Palestinian plight in general is indignation.

When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. — Benkei

That's true, but they called it religious ideology run amok, which it seemed to be by all accounts. No one seriously claimed it was an attempted genocide, because it wasn't. I should say though, it's not clear you were intimating this. Just my comment - might just serve as something to glom on to in clarifying your position.

Lets discuss, instead of pissing on each other :) Or, if you don't want to, that's fine too. Just, avoid pissing heh

LOL. Cheers for the content of the comment about yours response to me

if you read that as “blaming you” for anything but your own mistakes then, again, mate, far be it from me.
But it certainly helps to contextualise you.

What's going on with this? literally no idea of hte context and no impetus to trawl sources.

He will happily talk about not seeing objects, but seeing light — Banno

Or, as is in fact the case, I've been very careless with my words and you have no interest whatsoever in anything but destructive commentary. Far be it from me, mate. You're allowed.

That thread is actually what made me realise interacting with you was pointless.

I did. Your response was just an emotional reaction to either incorrect interpretations or outright nonsense, such as:

Except the culture had not retained its status. — Benkei

I'm glad you don't care what I think. That's healthy.