Sorry, I'm finding it hard to follow what you mean on either of these but nevermind. — Apustimelogist

Its crucial, so I'm not going to nevermind it.

If you do not understand what im saying, you wont udnerstand anything im saying. if the aim of the behaviour is the same in both cases, its determining factor hasn't changed (that being, on whatever account, Biology of some kind). Can you outline why this isn't hitting? I'll try to respond to all else, but if this hasn't become clear, I think the rest may be redundant (as you seem to note hehe).

There's absolutely no reason to bring biology into it. — Apustimelogist

I don't think you're really engaging with the account, which presupposes (and then argues for) biology actually being the reason. If they are causally related then bringing Biology in is the only way to explain it. This seems like a bit of hand waving, to my mind.

Honestly, do we really care about the biological facts beyond them being a possible means to an end which is ultimately in people's wants and desires? — Apustimelogist

Preface: I do understand the point. My account doesn't entail it, so it's left off. Those facts are directly causative of those wants and desires in effect, and so as above, saying this isn't determining of behaviour, and important to note just seems bizarre to me.

it has no political implication. — Apustimelogist

Particularly this type of claim. I fail to see how the basis for human decision making toward determined goals (if they be all biologically determined, in an extreme example) isn't politically relevant. Could you explain?

On the contrary, there's absolutely no reason for me to care about biology if it isn't in line with what I or other people want. — Apustimelogist

Again, you're not actually engaging my account here (whether it holds water or not)... On my account, the bolded is a direct result of the underlined. Call it wrong, sure, if that's your position, but if taken seriously you cannot engage with it while claiming a different set of circumstances applies other than the one the account requires. However, in this way, its entirely possible you're actually talking about biologically determined desires without noting that that's the case because you're trying to remove your conscious intent from determined aims. I'm unsure that can be done, particularly if you reject libertarian free will.

I am not sure I would say it exists in the same way that genes and environmental influences are inextricably entwined. — Apustimelogist

I'm not sure either, but it seems entirely plausible to me. Maybe not highly.

tools are not biological — Apustimelogist

No, but their use may be biologically required to fulfil the organism's aim. But at this point, I would agree, my account gets very weak at any rate at all.

I disagree.... There are no pre-determined goals that biological orgamisms are evolving towards. — Apustimelogist

to survive passes on its genes regardless of how or why it survived — Apustimelogist

Ok. But the 'how or why' is actually what we're discussing, surely. The fact that that is what happens seems inarguable, but how that happens seems determined by hte biology of the organism. I can't really understand how this isn't the case - plenty of behaviours just aren't open to humans, or dogs, or horses respectively, if they are to survive and propagate.

the fact I may want to keep clothes on me and stay warm has everything to do with my desires and nothing about biology — Apustimelogist

This is seems very much unserious to me, and akin to saying "I don't drink water because of biology, i drink water because I want to stay alive". I just can't really take that claim seriously.

The desires of people are the immediate concern. — Apustimelogist

Those desires are biologically informed on this account, and so the behaviours toward them are the same. Again, not sure you're necessarily getting that this is a stark difference, and not a difference in detail between your notion and mine.

I just don't see why you need the distinction — Apustimelogist

Because it is there - something not required to maintain life, or to propagate(again, accepting that those axioms hold) versus something which is. But, i do concede entirely that this maay not actually be relevant to what we're discussing and was more illustrative poetically than anything else, in hindsight.

Another arbitrary distinction. All human technology is "natural" in a similar way. — Apustimelogist

Fire exists without humans. Human technology does not, by definition. There is a patent and inarguable distinction here. Whether you see it as relevant, or whether i could defend as relevant is separate imo.

Just means the difference I was talking about is also spatial as well as temporal. — Apustimelogist

It is empirically a different situation to the one you implied, though? We, in fact, do still have those institutions you relied on no longer being around.

Well it's about where you choose to ignore the differences isn't it. — Apustimelogist

Not to my mind. I think its more important where you arbitrarily assert there are any meaningful ones. If its only a difference of detail, and not of kind, I think this becomes your

something so general as that then it has no political implication — Apustimelogist

Hmm, almost all very reasonable and difficult points.

If you don't want to call is causal it still seems like you'd need to explain the counterfactual. How does B fail to occur without A, and when A occurs, B follows from it through a chain of consequences, but A cannot be said to cause B? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Understand. I guess, as an empirical consideration, sure, that may not have happened otherwise - but there's no reason why it couldn't. Perhaps that doesn't do anything for you - for me, its a fairly stark difference between a truly proximate cause and something which contributed to the event in question. I may be triffling here but I always find it hard to conclude a cause without some very clear, fairly exclusive, reason for the act being caused by whatever is in question. Here, I don't see it.

The question would be, when do we hit the sui generis "cause-like-but-not-cause" phenomena and why is it different? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Im unsure your description is all that accurate. The act itself arises from the mentation of the subject, not the causal train of physically receiving whatever information we're talking about. The empirical causal relationship between lets say utterance in A and thought B cannot be rightly extended to the act, imo. Im unsure i need to answer the question above here.

Even if you want to allow for some form of libertarian free will, it seems like it simply cannot be the case that other people's words or other communicative acts never "put things in mind," or motivate action. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. But motivation is not a cause on my account. Its an invitation or inspiration. I don't think anyone would claim that Kant's CPR was caused by Hume. I distinguish between something being 'put in mind' and an act being 'caused'. It seems you're not? Sorry if i've got that wrong - if i've not got it wrong, it would explain some of the daylight here.

It is — Count Timothy von Icarus

A better example might be promissory estoppel. If its reasonable that someone(B) acted in good faith pursuant to a purported commitment from (A) which was then either ignored or disregarded entirely, it's held that if the commitment caused B to do something (think: promise to buy/sell property where B takes that as commitment and sells their property in order to buy A's property). Here, a law takes your definition of 'cause' wholesale, so I must concede my use of law to defend my point was at best inconsistently applied. That said, I do think there's a significant difference between an 'act' in general and an 'act' as against another person.

More to the point, even if words don't "cause" acts, it seems like their relationship to acts still has to fulfill pretty much all the characteristics of naive conceptions of cause — Count Timothy von Icarus

it seems like their relationship to acts still has to fulfill pretty much all the characteristics of naive conceptions of cause — Count Timothy von Icarus

With this I would agree, and just rest on my emphasis within the above. I think the idea that a fully indirect act, from which there is no connection to the act save for the subject's interpretation, is a proximate cause, is just plainly wrong. No one can reasonably claim that GTA causes similar types of crime as shown in the game, despite someone claiming it did. You'd say no, you're culpable by the fact of your actually having carried out a guilty act. The game has nothing to do, per se, with that act.

A. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. My understanding of both how those laws are written (cross-jurisdictionally) and the case law around them is that it is purely the intent (which matters later) that the person is being charged for. It is not the act of murder. It is the setting-in-motion a chain of events. It does not mitigate the actor's guilt. I am not all that up on US law though, so if you can provide a caase where someone is plainly convicted of 1st Degree Murder, but hte actor isn't, Id be happy to retract all this. I just can't see that ever happening. They both have the mens rea but their actus reus differ. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong.

B. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Important, but a truly held belief that what you did wouldn't cause the consequence in question is a defense to almost any charge. Including rape, which is pertinent here as its an act against another for whom your mindstate has zero mitigating effect. But, if you can successfully argue that you thought there was consent, you're good to go basically.

Likewise, someone who tricks someone into poisoning someone else by telling them cyanide is medicine, etc. is responsible for the murder — Count Timothy von Icarus

I believe this is inducement, by deception, and not 'murder', which is the act of killing someone unlawfully. Again, I could be wrong as i'm not across US law fully. Which speaks to what Im saying - it didn't cause the death, it induced someone to cause the death.

It can't be just intent. If this was the case, some random basement dwelling Chud posting on the Internet about the need to "exterminate the Jews," would be as guilty of "genocide" as top Nazi officials. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is entirely wrong to me. At what point has some internet Chud had any part in a Holocaust? If you can point to one, we will have a discussion about the two cases. Otherwise, this isn't relevant. Internet Chuds get fined and arrested for their intentions regularly (at least in places with Digital communication regulations). Their intent, and not their act, is an actus reus of its own. Going further to the act would be another actus reus for a different charge. If they knew they had some real-world minions carrying it out, they would be. Osama bin Laden is in this camp., but he was cave-dwelling. You seem to note this, but don't note its consequences for the position..

lacks the capability to adequately think through the consequences of actions "put into their mind," by the father. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agreed, but there's a significant difference between adults and children when it comes to culpability, either morally (on almost anyone's account) or legally. Im unsure what this is doing for either side of the discussion. I think a better example would be one between two adults - the second adult is not somehow less culpable because they were told to shoot. That just isn't a move available to them unless they are mentally impaired - which is equivalent, by degree, to being a minor in the law's eye.

Even the harshest hate crime law advocates do not say we should hang people for urging genocide, and yet even people who don't want any hate crime laws see hanging Nazi officials who oversaw the Holocaust as completely justified. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Disagree with the former and the latter just seems to be a emotional position on either party's part. The holocaust was a genocide, so I think they're confused to distinguish too strictly. The Holocaust isn't sufficiently different from genocide as either a definition, or an historical concept, to be held apart imo. Just an extreme example of.

Social context matters. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree here, but it would have us speaking on an entirely case-by-case basis which I don't think either of positions can result in.

the difference lies — Count Timothy von Icarus

in the intended fall out. Not the actual fall out. If you yell Fire in a crowded theater, but are mistaken, you are not culpable since you believed there was a fire. The resulting fracas and potentially injuries are not on your head, if you truly believed there was a fire.

So I come with disabilities. — Tom Storm

Likewise, but this:

They may question whether mathematical concepts truly represent universal truths or if they are constructed within specific cultural contexts. — Tom Storm

struck me as inherently plausible as a PM position, but inherently implausible as a serious position per se. Im not sure how it could be argued that natural numbers, for instance, are culture-bound as a concept.

Very much so. Its quite novel, and seems like a bit of a dead-end in the development of philosophical ideas insofar as no one picked up his threads, from what I know. He essentially tries to reverse Hume and Kant in that they go from Subjective to Objective, he goes hte other way.

His use of 'novelty' as a force for creativity in 'concrescence' is pretty fascinating to me, if a little shaky.

Thanks for that - really interesting delve into pheromonal theory there. All new for me to chew on, and as you note, relates pretty squarely with my proposed hypothesis.

It can't involve both? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It sure can - but on my view it’s not caused by the question. The response is caused by something the person responding. I Can’t grok the causal relationship. Putting someone in mind of something shouldn’t considered causal imo.

I don't think you can have a sexual assault without a sex act. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You can, though. A “sex act” could be a text message. So depends how you’re defining it but legally, “sexually assault” doesn’t per se require physical contact. Might just be a bad example as that doesn’t change the premise of what you’re arguing.

et if the murder or sex act does occur, it seems perfectly reasonable to find the person engaged in coercion responsible — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not to me. And apparently not really to the law. Coercion only has a mitigating effect on sentencing for those types or crime. “Under duress” doesn’t remove the charge and responsibility for the act.
The coercive party did not commit the act. The actus Reus differs.

If asking someone to do something cannot cause them to perform an act, there would be no reason why war criminals who order mass executions should be considered criminals in the first place, so long as they don't pull any triggers — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, good. Tricky but my understanding is they are guilty of genocide which is intention-informed and not act-informed. It isn’t murder, basically. It’s another act deemed illegal based on the intent. Conversely, carrying out unjust military acts is illegal qua soldier (as Eg) and if circumstances allow, they’ll be charged with murder or the wartime equivalent of. I think this inversion is more telling - carrying out a killing on the say-so of another doesn’t reduce your culpability for committing the act (minor exceptions when one, or one’s immediate family is in mortal danger in a civilian setting - yet this still only mitigates and a guilty act has still been committed).

Really appreciate the full, thoughtful and in some ways crushing response :lol:

Volume? — Apustimelogist

Explanation by implication being that its a different requirement to feed a million than ten thousand. That type of volume-driven difference.

What do you mean? — Apustimelogist

I mean to say that the aim of the (different) behaviours does not seem appreciably different to me, in these various scenarios, unless purposefully ignored/changed to the societies detriment (noted elsewhere in the comment you quote). And, where that is the case, I don't really understand Humans to be askance from the determining factor simply because it was ignored (on this account.. Im not tied to it).

There is no need to ask "what is in line with biological factors" because what you want is just what is empirically best for that situation — Apustimelogist

"best" reads, to me, on this account, as "what is in line with biological factors(goes to the above response too). The food example was a good one to illustrate that. Hunger Strikes are fine, and have an aim that isn't biological, while over-riding, to the individual's ultimate detriment, the biologically-determined factor of needing sustenance.

You don't think there are big differences between western society now, medieval europe and maybe some prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribe? Sure they may all have some kind of hierarchy in some sense but thats so general its trivial and it isn't even restricted to humans so I don't see how that is useful for anything. — Apustimelogist

Hm, good. I think I disagree that its general, trivial or avoidable in discussion of social development. There are no societies I'm aware of that have developed in contrary forms, and survived (which is where the "determined" would come in, if this ends up holding any water). I see differences of detail, but no appreciable differences of type or kind. The results, in aggregate, are roughly the same. Though, this is an empirical argument, so im stepping on my own toes now..

Most social behaviors are enforced by ideas of norms and deviance in society, to differing extents of stringency. — Apustimelogist

I agree, as enforcement goes - but I would have to bite the bullet that 'hierarchy' (if this view holds any water) is not a purely social phenomenon. I think it would be very hard to argue that co-operation in obtaining food isn't driven by biological need and state-of-affairs (chemical bonding), even though different systems are clearly social in their contrasts. "socially enforced" isnt to imply that there's a conscious intention but that a norm is enforced by the natural (on this view, biologically determined), required behaviour of humans based on their biology in concert with one another toward the organisms aim. Whether that holds weight, who knows. But I'm just wanting to be careful that 'socially enforced' doesn't mean the mechanisms origins are social, but manifest in social relations.

novel — Apustimelogist

Not the type of novelty I was expressing there. Conscious choice v natural development due to biological factors. I think you're describing the latter. But this likely just speaks to my inability to be precise and articulate in my thoughts yet.

The idea of "natural" makes no sense because biology is in flux — Apustimelogist

This is precisely how I make sense of it. Biology being in flux accounts for differences across time, traced to evolutionary origins. The fundamental driving force is the same, in that their is am aim to our organism (though, this is up in the air, i take survival/propagation to be safe assumptions), but the required behaviour may be changing (epigenetics is a spanner in the works) and biology implores us to meet its requirements, regardless. That's the beauty of evolution!

No human can survive outside of the tropics without clothes, a completely "artificial" yet now ubiquitious aspect of human society. — Apustimelogist

So then, to me, it's biologically determined that a lack of clothes outside the tropics would, given enough time, extinct the species. Therefore, its biologically determined that we wear clothes outside the tropics to achieve (or,maintain) the overarching aim of the species (non-extinction, plainly put).

The idea of artificiality is very thin I think in a biological context. — Apustimelogist

I do agree with this, and it presents problems for my language, but I would just, if pushed, define my own terms to delineate between true artificiality and something required by biological function, such as clothes in the example. Although, fire, being a totally natural product, would do the work with the right organisation.

more or less the same — Apustimelogist

Yes. I am in a pretty privileged position, as were many people at that time. But, we absolutely still have serfdom the world over, and in fact more slaves than we've had since the dark ages. Maybe we use the term 'pirate' or 'king' now. But they are ubiquitous, anywhere but the West - and that is arguable. Many believe the working class is in fact a class of serfs. Not entirely dismissable, i think.

Thats totally different. — Apustimelogist

Only in detail. The aim is hte same.

Hmm.. in the B&E example, the assault consists in their act. Not the response to it. So, i see nothing absurd there. Elicit was a better word, but the causal nexus is still totally unclear to me. You're given a choice, not a determined set of choices. We just, by habit, respond with relevance, close in time, usually.

If I ask someone "what is the capital of Florida?" and they respond "Tallahassee," would they have uttered the word Tallahassee if I hadn't asked the question? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Who knows? It was certainly elicited by your invitation in this instance, but had they answered "Albany", could you make that same inference? In your eg, the cause may have actually been their knowledge of the correct answer.

No, but your eliciting a response is an act of yours. Just as your post elicited this reply. I would not have written this were it not for your post, and hence this post is an act resulting from your act. — Banno

This seems an externality and not a result of the act.

Asking a question doesn't determine anything as response to it. Invites? Sure. Does not cause any response, I don't think. But you'd have been free to not respond, response with some irrelevant etc.. etc.. which would then be unconnected to the invitation in large part. But are your acts, entirely.

You read and responded all on your own and at your own leisure. — NOS4A2

I like it.

A tentative comment i'd make, at risk of upsetting some of the more stringently critical here, is that its entirely possible we in fact do have an electrical sense of some kind, and that this would support the view you outline.

People "intuiting" that they are immediately to receive a phone call or text message on their cell phone may be understood by the body 'receiving' the signal ahead of the device (for some, as-yet unknown reason), and subsequently giving a certain sensation(not-yet-articulable) that tells the brain to act as if that is about to occur. I have nothing but anecdote to support this (though, seems widespread - not mine alone) and some Sheldrake work (lol) so, ignore if appropriate. But i find it very interesting, and think it would expand Kantian terms interestingly.

But wouldn't you say that all these examples are very different and societies can live in many different ways? — Apustimelogist

I don't think 'very' is justified here. They only seem to be different by virtue of volume, and not really behaviour. That's an entire study on it's own, though, so understand if that comes across as a bold unsupported claim. I take that on the chin.

Sometimes its more egalitarian, sometimes more strictly hierarchical. — Apustimelogist

Again, agree empirically, but I can't see that there's any appreciable difference in aim (which would be the determined feature, i guess). I think forcefully overcoming a biologically determined state would appear this way, regardless. It's, then, a problem for which situation has required an 'overcoming' of biology, as it were. Though, I'm not really trying to support that, and I'm not arguing that all non-hierachy-driven societies would fail by that light - but I would argue they fail unless constantly maintained from without (and usually, that's a form of hierarchies of society, rather than individuals). That often requires far more force than is typically seen in a hierarchical structure, as positions are accepted, ideally the latter, and in the former they are demanded, or assumed or whatever else is required to make decisions that don't seem obvious.

How does that apply to policy when policies are based on specific situations, cultures, socio-economic climates, not the generality of human biology which itself is diverse and results in a diverse range of societies. — Apustimelogist

I think this is a half-good point. There are plenty of laws that are intended to be universal, and biologically-derived (protections for females in law tend to be universal in absence of an ideological principle that precludes it, but yes, all societies differ in various degrees as to policy - but most policies aren't relevant to anything that would be biologically determined. I've mentioned that some are - so, you make a point worth noting but I think it doesn't do a lot. At best it gets us to the question, again, of which laws are 'counter' to biological factors, and which are 'in line' with them. Couldn't know, on current data. I think either assumption is reasonable, as I can see both arguments fairly clearly.

The fact that some kinds of societies are more common than others too is somewhat incidental. — Apustimelogist

I think its more incidental when societies aren't aligned. Usually, incidental to a prevailing non-empirical ideology (religious, for instance). Most societies develop in the same direction in lieu of over-riding principle-driven resistance. There aren't multiple strains of secular social development, from what I can tell. Just triffling differences in detail - probbaly based on geography, largely.

Is there really an "overriding of impulse" if such conditions naturally led to that kind of society? — Apustimelogist

My argument, in a given case, would be that if the supporting conditions are that of social enforcement, it would hard to argue it was 'natural' versus something more general. A society of homosexuals would be an example (ignoring hte problem of sustenance lol) where the overarching nature of the society is artificial as no where in nature has that ever occurred without the express intention for that novel situation to satisfy specific, individual sensibilities. So, only in humans. That's a very rough example, but I hope the approach is clear, even if the detail is shaky.

Just as say the conditions that change with a progressed humankind have led our hierarchies to change since 1100 AD "naturally"? — Apustimelogist

Could you outline how you feel they have? I don't see a significant difference between 2000BC and now, frankly. Tinkering, and some rights-based progress - but a reduction in intensity of the biological determining factors wouldn't negate them (on an account that accepts them).

Diagnosis, I would think.

rocess and Reality - Alfred North-Whitehead. — AmadeusD

Still working through this. A Doozy if ever there was one.

I think, from spending time in both Muslim and devout Christian communities, I think 'righteousness' is a more apt motivator.

New single out from Pearl Jam. Bit of a return-to-form imo. I have a feeling its a Matt Cameron number, and it goes hard.

Also announced a world tour - looking forward to seeing them again in November :)

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.