And isnt the content dependent upon the type of senses you have? Does more senses at work mean more consciousness for an entity?

What about others who have the same number as senses as I do but aren't as easily awoken when touched or spoken to? Are light sleepers more conscious than heavy sleepers?

My question would be how do we know we have the correct system of logic? Wouldn't we have to do epistemology first? — 83nt0n

Is there an incorrect system of logic? How would you know that you are thinking meaningfully or making useful statements about any topic - especially epistemology - without the logical rules of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, etc.?

But what your describing sounds more like thinking generally, not necessarily the subject of the rules of thought as propositions, etc., which is what logic is. Then we have to ask -- what were philosophers doing before the "logic" was even put forth in Aristotle? — Xtrix

This is like asking what were our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors doing when they learned about the animals in their environment, how to grow plants, etc. before "science" was even put forth in Galileo. Humans have done science and thought logically since our arrival on this planet, but not always.

I think those who are voting "logic" are equating logic with thought. I don't see them as synonyms, however, any more than the rules of grammar is synonymous with language. — Xtrix

No, we are equating logic with a particular type of thinking - correct thinking vs. incorrect thinking. Aristotle simply pointed out the differences in a formal way, and why one is better than the other when it comes to answering life's toughest questions.

OK, Harry. I'm somewhat loath to enter into a conversation with you, on past experience. But once more...

I'll agree with you that "objective" can take on the sense of "true"; hence, when it replaces "true" in the OP it does so without replacing the meaning.

Otherwise, your post seems to me a list of the problems ensuing from taking the object/subject distinction seriously. — Banno

I wouldn't expect anything more from someone who claims that language is a game.

So you agree with me that "true" and "objective" are synonyms but my attempt to define "subjective" in relation to "objective" is taking the distinction seriously? Are you saying that there is no distinction, or that the distinction isn't useful?

It would seem to me that if you agreed that "objective" and "true" are synonyms, then isn't "subjective" the opposite of "objective", meaning that "subjective" would be the antithesis of "true"?

The OPs that get the most attention are about Trump or racism, where everyone feels okay yelling at each other and calling each other names. (You’d think everyone would have made their point by now). — Brett

Well, that's because this is a "left-leaning forum" - as stated by some of the mods themselves. So, this forum certainly isn't a reflection of the world - only part of it. It's a shame because we do need effective police reform for everyone, but those that are condoning looting, violence, defunding the police and focusing on race are overzealous and overreaching and will hurt the legitimate movement to change how police polices it's citizens.

I think I've made my points, which is why I've moved on to other threads, but even there you'll find ad homs being thrown about, and it turns a viable discussion into a shouting match, or tit-for-tat - the likes of which you find elsewhere on FB, Youtube, Twitter, etc. I think most of the recent bannings were more of a means to curtail some of the sub-par OPs, like you were talking about, and that is perfectly fine. While I think we should be accepting of new-comers and those that don't have a degree in philosophy, we should also limit obvious trolling and fundamentals using the forums as a means to proselytize (not just in religious topics but political ones as well).

How does materialism even begin to explain how moving electrons across synaptic gaps in certain ways gives rise to conscious experience? The only things I've been seeing lately are vague handwavings about integrating information or lame attempts to define conscious experience out of existence. There's been no actual progress on how non-conscious stuff can produce consciousness since Descartes.

Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? At what point do we begin to question the premise "brains produce consciousness"? — RogueAI

I would agree that any attempt to define consciousness out of existence, or to say that it is an illusion, would be lame. However, I don't see the "integrating information" concept as vague handwaving. I don't know about you, but I get the distinct feeling of being informed while being conscious and that thoughts are a type of information that can be processed as the act of thinking.

i. What does "conscious experience" do for an entity? (re: functionality) — 180 Proof

It informs an entity.

ii. What does an entity do with "conscious experience"? (re: utility-adaptivity) — 180 Proof

It uses the information to find food and mates, and avoid predators.

b. Substitute "conscious INexperience" (e.g. trance, 'autopilot') for "conscious experience" in questions i-iii above. — 180 Proof

Conscious experience seems to be a requirement when learning something. Once we have learned it, we can perform it as if on "autopilot". Think about learning to walk, ride a bike and driving.

c. Substitute "UNconscious experience" (e.g. blindsight, dreaming) for "conscious experience" in questions i-iii above. — 180 Proof

Our brains seem to be in the habit of filling in gaps in information that our senses aren't providing, but were meant to provide but aren't as a result of faulty sensory organs or having those connections between the senses and the conscious part of the mind minimized when asleep. We still wake up when touched or hearing a loud noise, so our senses aren't completely turned off when asleep, for survival reasons.

Notice that the OP says pretty much the same thing, even though I removed the word Objective.

How's that? — Banno

So I'll answer my own question. It's truth that is important, not objectivity. — Banno

I thought the answer was that "objective truth" was a redudancy. You could remove "truth" from the OP and replace it with "objectivity", and get the same meaning, too. So the fact that you can get by with using just one of the terms and that they are intergchangeable, means that they are redudant.

That I prefer vanilla is justified subjectively. The answer to "why do you prefer vanilla" can be "I just do".

Objective justifications can be contrasted to this. That Hydrogen is flammable is not subject to my preference. — Banno

The fact that you prefer vanilla is justified objectively.

The answer to "why is hydrogen flammable" can be "It just is".

That you prefer vanilla is not subject to my or even your preference about you preferring vanilla.

A "subjective truth" would be an oxymoron. A subjective statement is like a category error. If you say, "Vanilla is good", that would be a "subjective truth", where you attributed "good" to the vanilla, when "good" is a characteristic of you when eating vanilla, not a characteristic of the vanilla.

I may disagree. "Vanilla is not good. Chocolate is good." Our disagreement is a product of our projecting our state of "good and not good" onto the ice cream (if flavors of ice cream is what we were talking about). If we realized that what we are actually talking about were our different mental states when eating chocolate and vanilla ice cream and not some innate property of the ice cream, then we realize that we aren't disagreeing at all - we're simply talking about different things (our mental states) and not the same thing (chocolate/vanilla flavored ice cream).

It is an "objective truth" that you prefer vanilla and I prefer chocolate. Our family and friends may know this and give us the appropriately flavored ice cream with the appropriate flavored cake on our birthday. It is a "subjective truth" that "chocolate/vanilla cake is the best".

IF quarks are conscious, do they sleep? Can they be anaesthetised? Can they be knocked unconscious by a blow to the... string? — Banno

When you sleep, you dream. Are you conscious when dreaming? How do you know when you're unconscious? Even when asleep you are jolted awake by a loud sound or being touched. Are you conscious of loud sounds and a being touched when unconscious? You are only conscious of being conscious, never of being unconscious. Is a neuron conscious?

Logic is the most fundamental branch of philosophy, as it is applied to all the other branches. Without logic, you can't make reasonable or sensible arguments in the other branches. You wouldn't even be able to make viable distinctions between the other branches.

This totally misses the point. Systemic racism is not about "intent" or people "purposefully" doing things now to disadvantage blacks. Let's say yesterday it was legal to take all your shit and today we're like "oh, let's be buddies and be equal" but you still can't have your shit back. Are we really equal? Or did I get a nice headstart thanks to your old shit? — Benkei

Following this same line of thinking, we should be holding the descendants of illegal immigrants responsible for the illegal actions of their ancestors coming into a country and taking jobs away from blacks, and the mostly left-wing policies that allow that to happen.

The left-wing solution for racism is to be racist to some other race.

When words are just visual scribbles and sounds, what does it actually mean to assert that thinking is "propositional", other than that thinking should consist of particular visuals and sounds in the mind being manipulated for some purpose?

I find it difficult to believe that pre-language babies or animals don't think. How does one learn a language without the ability to think prior to learning it?

Can one provide a reason to live? — JacobPhilosophy

My reason is simple. I want to see what happens tomorrow.

Prima facie, a compelling argument based on the premise that if a certain type of thing, x, interacts with some other thing, y, then the thing y must of the same type as x.

Basically, if matter interacts with something then that something is matter.

The question then is this: [are there] some things that matter interacts with [but] are not matter?

Light? Radio? EM radiation in general? — TheMadFool

Matter is coagulated energy. Could we then say that everything is energy?

If consciousness is not strictly materialist in origin- being nothing more than a complex product of chemical reactions and electrical impulses of cells, then why can we completely alter the state of consciousness/our experience with chemicals, drugs or neurotransmitters.

I understand that this is a reductive way of thinking regarding one of the most complicated phenomena in existence but it just strikes me that if I add Chemical A to experience B I get an altered experience - C. Such effects made by mood enhancers, antidepressants, mood stabilizers or anesthetics, tranquilizers and painkillers.

How do you reconcile these observed medical qualities with ideas such as pan-psychism consciousness is a fundamental force of nature, or inherent to all matter, or that it is something beyond and larger than the brain or part of gods mind or an illusion? — Benj96

Or..... maybe something simpler than implying the existence of gods and the supernatural. What if everything was information? Information changes when interacting with other information.

The thing that seems to make minds a different type of information compared to say, a rock formation, is that the mind is a kind of information feedback loop between the body and the environment. In this sense, it might be something "beyond the brain", as a relationship between (meaning, it would consist of) the body and it's immediate environment.

Tell an ordinary person your race and ethnicity, for example, and think they know everything about you. — Wheatley

What is an "ordinary" person? Is that another type of major human category? What does that tell us about a person - only that they think they know everything about you?

I believe that these "where you're from" categories (in the title) are holding us back. — Wheatley

Holding us back from what?

Suppose I were to be presented with the following form:

Race: _________________

Religion:_______________

Ethnicity:_______________

Nationality:_____________ — Wheatley

Doesn't ethnicity encompass race and religion?

I ask myself the question: Why is it important that I provide these details? Does it really matter where I am from? — Wheatley

In certain situations, yes, it does. In certain medial situations, it might be necessary to know your racial ancestory - to know what types of diseases you might be more or less susceptible to.

One's religion would be important in religious discussions, and nationality when having certain political debates.

So these categories only matter in situations logically entailing those categories. If you try to assert that certain religions or races are only good for certain things that have no causal relation with their religion or race, then you have made a category error. It's not these categories that are holding us back, it is the category errors - what some might refer to as the "folk" notions, or social constructions, that are holding us back.

There are also categorizations of age, sex, sexual orientation, occupation, married or single, wealthy or poor, single child or not, growing up in a single parent household or not, being adopted or not, etc. I could go on. So there are many other types of "major" categories that humans find themselves as part of.

So yes, if you think that there are only 3 or 4 "major" groups that humans are a part of, then you will have trouble reconciling that with the fact that we are much more diverse than that.

The notion of karma is fundamentally causal in character but in the moral dimension. It basically claims our moral actions have moral consequences and this system operates in a hedonistic setting with pain and pleasure performing the function of karmic currency in which form moral debts are paid off. — TheMadFool

This implies some kind of (natural) selective process that objectively judges our actions and puts our minds into other bodies. This also implies that our minds are seperate from our brains/bodies, or that we have souls that can be placed into different bodies.

Morality is not objective. The causes of any one of us suffering more than others has nothing to do with what we did in a prior life. It has to do with the circumstances and environment in which we were born and live. Think of it as being born at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Being that I am half Hindu, I see karma as consequences of our actions, which could include the reactions of others. Humans are a highly intelligent social species. People that you have wronged can remember that and tell others about your behavior. Your reputation precedes you, and can lead to you being rejected by your social group.

"African Americans are far more likely to be arrested for petty crimes." Here's just one study demonstrating that "a black person more than 3 1/2 times more likely to be arrested for possession [of marijuana] than a white person, even though rates of usage are similar." — Baden

Legalize marijuana. :cool: Problem solved.

Anyway this is just more generalizations, as if there aren't black cops arresting blacks. What percentage of cops are targeting blacks? If you're willing to admit that the stats aren't reflective of all police, then what percentage of cops are targeting blacks? What percentage would qualify as systemic racism? How do you distinguish between a small percentage of individual cops targeting blacks on their own vs. systemic racism? It seems like you are unwilling to make that distinction. Pockets of racism still exist but that doesn't mean that it's systemic. We have laws against racism, just as we have laws against rape, but we still have some racists and some rapists. It doesn't mean that racism and raping are systemic.

So you need to show what percentage were white cops, and how many blacks vs whites each one arrested. If we end up showing that only a small percentage of cops were arresting more blacks does that still mean that racism is systemic or that we simply still have some individuals are racist, like we still have individuals that are rapists? Does it even mean that the reasons that more blacks are being arrested could only be racism?

Do we know how many of these arrests were simply for possession, or selling it, or tied to gang activity, or that marijuana possession was in addition to other charges that they were being arrested, or stopped, for? It seems like you're unwilling to ask these pertinent questions about these stats. Using stats that don't take into account other relevant information is typically spinning stats to support your assumptions, as if racism is the only cause of each and every black person being arrested for marijuana. Any time stats on blacks being arrested at higher rates without also showing that blacks commit crimes at higher rates is an endeavour in intellectual dishonesty.

It's the same logic used to show that blacks being murdered by other blacks is because of the close proximity of other blacks. Well, when you're committing crimes at higher rates, then you're going to be exposed to bad cop decisions at higher rates, not necessarily racism. Again, you keep assuming your conclusion - as if every stat you show is indicative of racism being the only possible explanation for the stats.

There are no subspecies of humans, — Baden

Then you're basically saying that humans are somehow special.

So, it's all there even in your own material. Race essentialism is bunk. — Baden

Not if you read and watch Jerry Coyne, which you didn't address at all. I will also take issue with your interpretation of the content of the other links in just a moment, but let's look at what Coyne has defined race as:

Races (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are simply populations of a species that are both geographically separated and differ genetically in one or more traits. There are plenty of animal and plant races, including those mouse populations that differ only in coat color, sparrow populations that differ in size and song, and plant races that differ in the shape of their leaves.
Following this definition, Homo sapiens clearly does have races. And the fact that we do is just another indication that humans don’t differ from other evolved species. — Jerry Coyne

So there are two qualifiers here: being geographically isolated and differing genetically in one or more traits.

Humans were geographically isolated for thousands of years once they moved out of Africa. They began to diverge genetically, but even 100,000 or so years isn't long enough in evolutionary time to diverge too much, but still enough to where certain alleles became more prominent in certain groups as opposed to other groups.

It is believed that early Europeans mated with neanderthals, which is categorized as a different species, with a 0.3% difference between them and homo sapiens. If this is the case, then there are certain groups of humans that have more neanderthal DNA than other groups, which counts as a genetic difference and is geographically isolated from Africa and Asia.

Coyne goes on to say in his blog that I linked:

Under that criterion, are there human races?

Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups. — Jerry Coyne

So while we used to be geographically isolated, we are no longer isolated like we used to be, but most of us still live our lives in our communities we were born in, mating with those within our community.

The lines are beginning to blur, and eventually there won't be races as Coyne has defined them, unless some of us move to Mars and lose contact with Earth for 100,000 or more years.

The quotes you took from Whittle:

"...it is important to distinguish between the word ‘race’ as it is socially used — say, the Black/African American, Native American, White, etc. racial categories used in the US census — from the biological sense, used to describe distinct populations within a species.

...the idea of an overarching ‘Black’ race utterly fails to capture the genetic diversity of African (or African-descended) peoples, irrespective of how we are now able to distinguish genetically related groups within the wider human population of Africa." — Baden

You don't see that he is making the distinction between the socially used word and the biological one? They are two separate things. One is "folk" and the other a biological reality. One is racist/xenophobic while the other is scientific, and science isn't in the business of assigning values to those differences. Cultures do that.

Your quoting the other link:

"In some ways all non-Africans can be thought of as a subset of the genetic variation of Africans. Those humans who reside outside of Africa are simply a diversified branch of Africans." — Baden

That's what a subspecies is.

A: No, no, no, watch this Dave Rubin video, he explains everything! — Baden

You obviously didn't watch any of the videos. It was Rubin that was being educated by his guest, and I was hoping that they would educate you as well. The rest of your A and B example is ridiculous and it makes wonder if you actually received your degree as a surprise from a box of Froot Loops. The fact that you're using Wikipedia to try and debunk a well-respected evolutionary biologist says a lot as well.

Anyone who mentions genetic drift as support for the idea of the folk notion of races... — Baden

That isn't what is being done here. As I have shown there is a distinction between the "folk" notion and the scientific one, so you're using a straw-man. The latter isn't supporting the other. It is simply making discoveries that might or might not be used to promote some already built-in assumptions about certain people. Science doesn't define distinctions as inferior or superior. Cultures do that.

Since you like Wikipedia so much:

The founder effect is a special case of genetic drift, occurring when a small group in a population splinters off from the original population and forms a new one. — Wikipedia

The "Out of Africa" theory explains that a small group of Africans moved out of Africa (splintering off from the original population) and forms a new, geographically isolated group.

Here is an in-depth article explaining the genetic variance supporting the theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267120/

In Figure 2, it shows "Phylogeny based on the first mtDNA complete sequence data available in 2000 (from 52 individuals randomly selected around the world)". Around 83,000 years ago, a branch split off from the African L3 branch that then became the foundation of all the other non-African races and ethnic groups. These branches aren't social constructions. They are outcomes of scientific research. The lines aren't meant to be interpreted as one being more superior as some other. That is the "folk" use of the word, race, that you are referring to. Science is simply about making discoveries that allow us to live our lives better by hopefully using this information to make medial breakthroughs that can help each individual.

There exist huge math theories that have no applications at all, and math people often tend to be proud of such math that can not be used for any practical needs. — Andrey Stolyarov

Sounds like mathematical poetry.

Searle says that syntax can not give rise to semantics, and claims this to be the lesson of his "Chinese Room" paper. I don't agree, but I don't see the relationship as simple, either. — A Raybould

The problem with Searle's Chinese room is that the man in the room does understand something - the rules he is following - write this symbol when you see this symbol. It's just not the same rules that Chinese speaking people follow when using those same symbols.

The meaning of symbols can be arbitrary. Just look at all the different words from different languages that refer to the same thing. When we aren't using the same rules for the same symbols it can appear as if one of us isn't understanding the symbols.

That's what understanding is - having a set of rules for interpretting symbols. In this sense, computers understand thanks to their programming (a set of rules).

Numbers are symbols that are only useful and meaningful when applied to real world situations. Does 0.999... in your calculations get your spaceship to the next start system, or does 1? If not then the correct solution lies somewhere in between. So if you really want to know if 0.999...=1 then apply it to the real world. If you can't, then the distinction is meaningless and useless.

It's on page one of the thread, so I expected you would find it yourself. In any case, here it is and it's in line with the standard definition. — Baden

I didn't see this as a definition because it is just as vague as your other explanations. You even admit at the end that it is subtle.

You give an example on housing from last century. What about policing? You said that not all cops are necessarily racist, yet you claim that systemic racism occurs in policing. How is that not a contradiction? Give concrete examples.

As for race not being a biological reality, I found some interesting tidbits from actual evolutionary biologists. Jerry Coyne writes in his book, Why Evolution is True:

Traveling around the globe, you quickly see that humans from different places look different. Nobody, for example, would mistake a Japanese for a Finn. The existence of visibly different human types is obvious, but there’s no bigger minefield in human biology than the question of race. Most biologists stay as far away from it as they can. A look at the history of science tells us why. From the beginning of modern biology, racial classification has gone hand in hand with racial prejudice. In his eighteenth-century classification of animals, Carl Linnaeus noted that Europeans are “governed by laws,” Asians “governed by opinions,” and Africans “governed by caprice.” In his superb book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould documents the unholy connection between biologists and race in the last century.

In response to these distasteful episodes of racism, some scientists have overreacted, arguing that human races have no biological reality and are merely sociopolitical “constructs” that don’t merit scientific study. But to biologists, race—so long as it doesn’t apply to humans!—has always been a perfectly respectable term. Races (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are simply populations of a species that are both geographically separated and differ genetically in one or more traits. There are plenty of animal and plant races, including those mouse populations that differ only in coat color, sparrow populations that differ in size and song, and plant races that differ in the shape of their leaves.
Following this definition, Homo sapiens clearly does have races. And the fact that we do is just another indication that humans don’t differ from other evolved species.

The existence of different races in humans shows that our populations were geographically separated long enough to allow some genetic divergence to occur. But how much divergence, and does it fit with what the fossils indicate about our spread from Africa? And what kind of selection drove those differences? — Jerry Coyne

And here is a link to his blog where he discusses it more:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

And a sit-down discussion with Rubin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAH2qOFHggE

And here is another article written by Patrick Whittle who has a PhD in philosophy and is a freelance writer with a particular interest in the social and political implications of modern biological science.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/02/13/genetics-and-race-how-do-we-have-this-awkward-conversation/

Here is another article showing how the founder effect can lead to genetic drift. When a population of humans left Africa, genetic drift set in. This is actually evidence for the "out of Africa" theory.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/which-population-is-most-genetically-distant-from-africans

So it seems to me that you are clinging to the idea that race as a biological reality has been debunked.

Wrong again, I gave an explanation of it earlier in the thread. If you were interested in reading instead of.. whatever it is you are doing here, you'd know that. And if you don't know what systemic racism is now, you must not want to know. — Baden

You didn't have a problem posting a link to fdrake's post with the videos, but you can't seem to do the same thing when it comes to your definition of "systemic racism". Why are you being so evasive?

Did you even bother watching the videos I posted in the previous post? If blacks are disagreeing that systemic racism exists, then how do you explain that? Just as theists need to explain the existences of atheists who don't see the existence of god as obvious, you need to explain why blacks disagree that the existence of systemic racism isn't obvious. If you don't know what god is, then you must not want to know. :roll: See how stupid that argument is?

I literally just dealt with this type of objection and pointed out it was a strawman in the last post. And yet you insist on repeating it. So, again, every instance of a black person being killed by cops does not have to be racist nor does every cop have to be racist for systemic racism to obtain. Please tattoo that on your forehead and look in the mirror before responding to any more of my posts. — Baden

Your objection was to disqualify the existence of systemic racism as put forth by Anaxagoras in their post that you "liked". If not all cops are racist, then why did you "like" Anaxagoras's post that had a link showing the rate at which cops kill blacks vs whites, as if that shows systemic racism in law enforcement? Such statistics don't show racism, so then why like posts that have links showing such statistics? :roll: I'm waiting on your definition of "systemic racism". Did Rubin define it properly in the video I posted a link to? As Rubin attempted to define each instance of systemic racism, Larry Elder debunked each one.

Yes, I know what they are and I think you know I do but are playing some silly game here. Apart from having a basic knowledge of these things, I studied genetics and evolution in university and have a related degree. Now stop the bluffing and man up. What is your scientific argument? Where are your references? What are your objections to what's in the video? You haven't even told us that. You come across as not having any substance behind your rhetoric. Prove me wrong. — Baden

I asked for the credentials of the person that made the videos in fdrake's post, but you failed to do that. If you have a degree, then I don't understand why you're using videos by someone who you can't verify as having a degree in lieu of your own explanation when you do have a degree.

The fact that you think I am playing silly games just goes to show that you aren't going to take my explanation seriously. But I'll give it a go anyway, at least for the more reasonable people on this forum.

First, what determines what, or who, you are? Your genes? Philosophical discussions on this topic seem to disagree on what exactly defines you as you. So to assert that genetics determines your "you" seems to have some philosophical implications that not everyone agrees with.

Even if we give you that genes determine who or what you are. There are still genetic differences between the races, thanks to genetic drift. You might claim that the differences are small - genetically - but to the eyes, the macro-expression of those genes, the differences seem much larger. That has an effect on kin selection. If the genetic differences are only skin deep and our genetic similarities lie under our skin as in our bodily systems (we all have hearts, lungs, brains, blood clotting, etc.,) those qualities don't play a role at all in kin selection, and how those differences become pronounced over time.

Some of the research I have found indicates that neanderthals and homo sapiens mated, even though they are different species. What is the genetic differences between homo sapiens and neanderthals compared to the genetic differences of human races? If neanderthals and humans are categorized as different species, and they are able to mate, and their genetic differences are minimal, then what does that say about the genetic differences in human races?

The stats I have found is that neanderthals share as much as 99.7% DNA as homo sapiens. If that difference qualifies as a difference in species, then what benchmark qualifies as a difference in races? If there are differences at all in the frequency of certain alleles within certain geographical groups, and those alleles are expressed only on the outside as in skin color, hair type, facial structures, etc. (AND those differences occur together, ie Asians, blacks and whites aren't simply defined by the color of their skin, but their hair type and facial features as well - skin color alone doesn't determine your race), then that small genetic difference will have a large impact on psychology and behavior, as in kin selection.

I guess it depends on which size scale of reality you want to focus on that determines what makes you you and me different from you - genes or the macro expressions of those genes and their impact on behaviors like kin selection.

Again, systemic racism does not mean that all cops are racist — Baden

Then all you have done is show what systemic racism isn't when I've been asking for what it is. You haven't shown the existence of systemic racism at all. You've only shown that there are some bad apples in law enforcement. No one is disagreeing with that. What we are disagreeing on is your terminology.

If you want to keep bringing up history, then that doesn't cut the cake, as I am asking for examples of systemic racism today, and to bring up history is to ignore that if the roles were reversed - that if blacks were the more technologically advanced than whites - then whites would have been slaves, as if blacks aren't subject to the same errors in thinking as others are, and that it is wrong to give special treatment to anyone because of the color of their skin. As such, affirmative action is a good example of systemic racism. So, I might actually agree that systemic racism exists, just coming from the other side now as the pendulum swings. We need to stop the pendulum from swinging so that it becomes stationary in the middle.

If blacks are more likely to be killed by other blacks because they interact more with blacks, then why is it not the same thing for blacks being killed by cops at a higher rate relative to their population? If blacks commit more crimes relative to their population, then they will encounter cops at a higher rate relative to their population. It's the same logic, but you aren't applying it consistently.

Here are some examples of how this conversation can actually be had in a rational way, not the way it has been done here with a lack of intellectual honesty and consistency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo
At 21:55 is where Rubin and Elder begin talking about racism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-VrsK93GE
Here Coleman Hughs agrees that the problem is systemic corruption in law enforcement, not necessarily racism.

It still stands that the bills being circulated in Congress have no language in them that provides special treatment to blacks. They are bills limiting the powers of the police against all races, not just one race. They are treating everyone as equal victims of police brutality and corruption.

What ideas do you think have been falsely debunked? What does it have to do with race? And what is your evidence for it? So far, you give the impression of being an ignoramus with regards to the issue of genetics and "race". So, now is your chance to prove you're not. Lay out in scientific terms exactly what you are trying to say. If you can't or won't, we'll be justified in drawing the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about. — Baden

You mean to claim that you know what you are talking about but don't know what genetic drift and kin selection is? How do we know that the person in fdrake's video knows what they are talking about? What are their credentials on the subject? If the person never mentioned those terms that I did, then I wonder if they actually know what they are talking about.

And it still stands that it is people like you that are playing the race card, by assuming that every instance of blacks being killed by cops is an instance of racism. It is you that keep inserting race where it isn't necessarily so. So if races don't exist, then why are you contradicting yourself by bringing race into an event where race might not have been the cause. You have to have good evidence that it does, and to provide that evidence you'd have to know what the cop was thinking at the moment.

In common language: there’s always some mental activity happening. — Olivier5

Would you categorize some mental activity as not thinking, as opposed to thinking? Would dreaming qualify as thinking?

In theory it can be done, but current ones can’t so by my definition they are not “thinking”. What I mean by aware is: I can hear myself thinking. I have some knowledge of what I think while I think it. — Olivier5

You can "hear" yourself think? How were you able to accomplish that?

To say that you have knowledge, is knowledge dependent upon thinking? Isn't saying anything dependent upon some sort of thinking before saying it? Can you think about thinking? isn't this just an information processing loop that we can program a computer to do as long as the information being processed in the loop is about itself to some degree? Again, what would the information need to be about for it to qualify as thinking? Do the thoughts necessarily need to be about the self - reflective - to qualify as thinking? Are ants self-aware? Are ants capable of thinking?

The brain is not an electric machine, for the most part it is an hormonal machine with a bit of electricity to speed it the signals. — Olivier5

Do you have any citations to support this assertion? Even if you did, are you saying that thinking is dependent upon hormones? We can write a program that emulates how our emotions impact our thinking.

The past sometimes leads to the present, hence is why civil rights movement existed. Hence is why we have modified laws in the Jim Crow era to make it equitable for all people in the present. However this doesn't change the fact that their stories are very important to remember. — Anaxagoras

Yes, their stories are important to remember, not to be projected into the present as if they are still happening today.

My parents and grand-parents have passed on due to cancer and other ailments so I cannot show you anything. I've experienced racism myself. I've also experienced racial profiling. Of course the level of racism I've experienced is incomparable to what my parents and grand-parents experienced. — Anaxagoras

Maybe, but I've experienced racism too. How do you know that the level of racism I've experienced isn't comparable to what you have experienced?

Ok and where in my post have I done this? — Anaxagoras

Here:

Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/). — Anaxagoras

Are you not using statistics of cops killing blacks as evidence that all cops are racist, or at least most of them are? If not, then what exactly are you trying to show when providing these stats, while at the same time ignoring the context of those stats - as in blacks committing crimes at a higher rate relative to their population than other racial groups.

Where are the stats showing that doctors are allowing more blacks to die in the emergency room than whites? Where are the stats of teachers giving lower grades to blacks than whites? And what would be the causes of these stats? You are assuming your conclusion if you claim that everytime a black and white person come into conflict it has to be because of racism. Instead of looking at each case individually, you automattically assert your conclusion - that racism is the cause of each and every instance where a black person was killed by a white cop. That is illogical.

While I understand why people may fall for folk wisdom on race, what makes me suspicious is when they cling to it after it's been debunked. — Baden

What makes me suspicious is when people cling to the idea that certain ideas have been debunked. Sure, humans have a wide range of varying features, but some features only occur with certain other features. Genetic drift and kinship selection are real, natural processes.

It is BLM and people like you that are still focused on race because you keep using circular reasoning in assuming your conclusion (that cops are racist) to support your claim that the actions of cops are racist.

Why wasn't anyone marching in the streets after just one white person was killed,
— Harry Hindu

You'd have to ask the Caucasian community. — Anaxagoras

Excuse me? Who's focused on race again?

Black Lives Matter specifically focuses on the issues regarding injustice in relation to police brutality and the issues concerning the lack of transparency in police conduct in relation to communities of color. — Anaxagoras

Then BLM used the wrong name for their institution. It implies that All Black Lives Matter, but then you just explained that it doesn't mean that, so it is more of a political agenda than a movement to actually save black lives.

While nearly twice as many white Americans were killed by on-duty officers than blacks, the Post’s updated data showed, black Americans remained 2.5 times as likely to die at the hands of police when adjusting for population. — Anaxagoras

Here are some stats that put your stats into context, which is what you seem to have been trying to avoid for awhile now.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/offenders

As you can see, blacks kill more than twice as any whites as whites kill blacks. Blacks make up more than 24% of hate crimes commited when only 13% of the population. If you want to use stats to show racism, there you go.

What Descartes means when saying "I think therefore I am" is: I am conscious of my own thoughts, and thus I cannot doubt my own existence." A computer cannot reason as such because it is not aware of itself. — Olivier5

That's fine. But my point was that you are always thinking. You can never stop thinking. Even in clearing your mind, you are thinking about clearing your mind and focusing on that task. You are always thinking so when you are conscious, of course you are aware of the thinking because you are always doing it even when unconscious.

A computer could be programmed to be aware of itself, just as you are. And to say that you are aware of yourself, what exactly do you mean? Are dogs aware of themselves? Do they jump at the sound of their own bark? Do cats react as if they are being licked by another cat when cleaning themselves? How do you get woken up by external sounds or movements if your body isn't aware to some degree even when sleeping? Awareness of the self and its thinking process comes in degrees as well. To be aware of the self is to be aware of your body and its relationship with the world to some degree, not necessarily only being aware of your mind - which is just one process of many that make you "you". So can a computer be aware that it has been instructed to print out a piece of paper, because it seems to do that when I command it to.

As for the idea that brains are "mechanical" (as determined as clockwork), it is a bit counter-intuitive, and there is no evidence for it that I am aware of. — Olivier5

Well, then I would have to ask what you meant by "mechanical". I thought you mean materialistic and causal. We can't use our ignorance of how the brain works as evidence that brains can never be explained in causal terms. Computers are becoming less and less mechanical and more and more electronic. Hard drives are a great example of this in how going from the spinning disk IDE drives to the fully electronic solid state drives. Brains operate on electricity, as do computers. Throughout history, we've often tried to use mechanistic inventions as examples of how the mind works, but it wasn't until the computer came along that we truly have a good metaphor for how the mind works.

The police murdered a human being.
— Harry Hindu

Agreed.
-Anaxagoras

The color and sex are irrelevant. — Anaxagoras

— Harry Hindu

According to you. The history of my parents, as well as my grand-parents and their parents and so on tell a different story. — Anaxagoras

But we're talking about the present, not the past. I noticed that you didn't mention yourself here. If your parents and grand-parents still experience racism, then show us so that we can call out the racists together.

Calling all whites and cops racist just makes you a hypocrite while insulting the people you are trying to convince, and I'm not interested in promoting hypocrisy. I am interested in promoting an end to hating people that are different than you, but being that isn't what you are doing, you are doing the opposite, then I'm not interested.

White lives do matter if we take a historical comparison of the judicial system in their conviction between white men and black men (and women). Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/). — Anaxagoras

People like you have an agenda, or else you would have also posted this link from the same sight:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Notice how twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. Why wasn't anyone marching in the streets after just one white person was killed, but only after a black person was killed. Essentially two whites were killed for every black and more blacks are killed by other blacks than killed by police or whites. This has been pointed out several times but is ignored. You need to be more intellectually honest if you expectothers to agree with you.

If you want to go there sure per capita but it doesn't cancel out the greatest crimes committed by white historically both in the United States and across the world. Considering you call yourself "Harry Hindu" I would assume you know the well documented treatment of Indians from India and how the British during their tenure there created colorism among the Indian people but I digress. I fail to see the correlation between your mentioning of crime rate and what Baden was saying. — Anaxagoras

Hmmm. It seems that you are forgetting all the crimes committed against blacks by other blacks, even in Africa before whites came with a need for slaves. It seems that you are cherry-picking your historical facts.

This is a common trope many white supremacists use to discount, deny, and deflect to the issues concerning police brutality. Those that ask "what about black on black crime?" I simply respond, there is no black on black crime just as there is no reverse racism. There is only crime, and there is only racism. Black people live in proximity to each other, like whites, and Hispanics and any other demographic. Blacks don't simply go out looking for other blacks simply because they're black, some commit crimes because black people live next to black people so that argument is played and flawed.
— Anaxagoras

"When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable. — Anaxagoras

You're missing the point. If Black Lives Matter, then what about those blacks killed by other blacks which far outnumber the lives taken by whites or cops? Black Lives Matter isn't interested in saving black lives. They are interested in promoting an ideology.

It certainly isn't a deflection away from police brutality. Black Lives Matter is to deflect attention away from all those lives lost as a result of the actions of other blacks and how growing up in a broken home leads to poverty and the inability to move upward economically, for any race.

I've been advocating for police reform before this happened to Mr. Floyd because All Lives Matter, not just Black Lives. I am the one being consistent fighting for reform no matter which life is lost. The color of your skin doesn't matter. Life matters. Checking the power over our lives that others are trusted with matters. Racism is just one narrow facet of police brutality. Police brutality affects all of us. The fact that you are conflating racism with police brutality seems to me that you don't see police killing twice as many whites as brutality. So then are we fighting for two different things? Are whites and blacks so different that we need to have two different ethical standards for each?

So blacks are doing the same thing
— Harry Hindu

If you are an intelligent person please stop with the pluralism in your words. "Blacks" aren't a monolith we all don't think the same. Considering you're talking about generalizations to Baden it would behoove you to use phrases like "It would appear some blacks" or "some blacks" not "blacks" for starters. — Anaxagoras

If you were an intelligent person then you'd realize that you are being a hypocrite. If it is wrong for me to making generalizations based on statistical evidence, then it is wrong for you to do as well when it comes to police and whites. Or are you saying that blacks aren't suppose to be held to the same moral rules as other human beings? We don't hold animals to the same ethical standards as humans. Is this what you are trying to imply when asserting the idea that blacks can make generalizations about the way people with a certain skin color think, or the way that certain people that wear certain clothes (police uniforms) think, but it's not okay for whites or cops to do that.

And yet, when people act mechanically and end up making a mistake they often say: “sorry, I wasn’t thinking”, as pointed by forgottenticket. — Olivier5

What they mean is that they weren't thinking correctly, as in being logical. You can't help but think - I think therefore I am. Whether or not your thinking is consistent and coherent is something else.

But their software is also ‘mechanical’ in that it is totally deterministic and unable to reform itself. No spreadsheet ever told me: “I’m tired with mathematics, I want to do poetry instead!” — Olivier5

A spreadsheet isn't software. It is the product of software and hardware. Brains are mechanical, so I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make.

Computers have memory - both working memory and long term memory. Computers arent just mechanical either. They need software or else the hardware doesnt do anything useful.

It's all a matter of definition. You can chose whichever you'd like of course but for me your definition is too broad. Life too can be defined as some sort of information processing, as it's all coded in DNA. Is life the same concept as thinking? I don't think so. — Olivier5

Your definition just doesnt work. There only needs to be awareness of thinking to possess knowledge of thinking, not just thinking itself. For thinking, all you need is to process information for some purpose.

It depends on the definition of life. Is life information? What isn't information? If everthing is information then thinking essentially exists wherever it is processed (changed) to achieve some purpose. Panpsychists would say that the universe thinks.

Would you at least agree that thinking involves memory of some sort? Can you think without possessing a memory whether it is working, short-term or long-term memory? Can you think without holding some information in memory over a period of time?

Processing information.
— Harry Hindu

... and knowing that you do. Otherwise a computer can think. — Olivier5

Why would thinking require that you know that you are thinking?

Before humans existed, did life exist even though knowledge of life didn't exist? Does a mosquito need to know it is thinking for it to think?

You seen to be confusing knowledge and what knowledge is about.

What defines thinking?

Processing information.

A little variation can matter a lot between species.

I was referring to a little within species; humans. The race categories we're familiar with have no genetic support. — fdrake

Differences between species are merely differences between "races" built up over longer periods of time of being isolated from each other. Humans were isolated geographically and genetic drift had begun to take effect in the human genome. It just so happens that we have found each other again before complete genetic isolation happened where the changes that built up prevented us from sharing genes and producing viable offspring.

But underneath there is the sense of the matter. Your question above is clearly rhetorical, — tim wood

No. It's logical.

Are black people human beings that possess characteristic human behaviors, or no?
— Harry Hindu
Yes. — tim wood

Then it can be possible that blacks are being racist against whites. When it is black on white crime, is it necessarily racism on the part of the black person? It doesn't seem that we are applying the same rules to all, equally.

If race is arbitrary, then why are we so concerned about black representation in government? Just as I should see a human being, not a black person, on the ground with a knee on their neck, blacks should see themselves when unarmed whites are being shot by police at twice the rate, and protest when it happens.

Intelligent human beings can see the contradictions - the hypocrisy - and ignore it. It's a shame because we really do need change in law enforcement - for all. Even if you are breaking and entering, stealing cars, or other petty theft, you don't deserve to be assaulted physically or shot in the back while running. Cops can assault you without fear of you fighting back because to an "assault a police officer" is a crime.

Interesting to think that from the first cell in the Precambrian soup to me is just a matter of genetic drift, mutation, and occasional isolation. It must be true, but it makes everything a little closer and cozier than I'm altogether comfortable with. We're family, practically fraternal twins! Can you lend a brother a quick $30,000? — tim wood

How about I just feed you to my pet lizard?

The common scientific understanding of genetics is that the more distant the ancestor, the more differences there are between you and that ancestor, but there are always going to be similarities, because they are your ancestor that you descended from that you acquired deep-seated biological and psychological behaviors from.

There is very little genetic difference between chimps and humans, yet their seems to a larger difference in morphology and physiology, even psychologically. Small differences can lead to big differences over time when small variations in genes coupled with the fact that these different groups of humans were dispersed without any interactions with different racial groups for 1000s of years, once humans moved out of Africa and began and our genes began to drift in different directions.

Then you're saying that even blacks are racist.
— Harry Hindu
*sigh* No, just that discrimination is a characteristic of human behaviour - also of most other living things. But there is no point in repeating my post. Its just above where you can re-read it. And perhaps with the hint I've just given, understand it better. — tim wood

You're not repeating yourself, you're contradicting yourself.

Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists. — tim wood

discrimination is a characteristic of human behaviour — tim wood

Are black people human beings that possess characteristic human behaviors, or no?

The statistics of the higher likelihood of black people being killed over white people shows that there is systemic racism in play. If that is because crime rates are higher in black communities, that is not counter to that conclusion, but supporting the existence of systemic racism, since being black is not the reason for higher crime rates. — Christoffer

Those are not the statistics. You have to remember there are two different stats - how many vs rate. More whites are killed than blacks, but relative to population more blacks are killed. If it were truly racism, then blacks would be at the top of both stats, but they aren't. You have to account for things like this. You can't just compartmentalize your statistics if you want to really acknowledge the truth of the problem so that you can get at a solution. Otherwise, you wouldn't be intellectually honest.

There are also the stats that show blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. It's not racist to say that. It's doing the same thing you're doing to show that cops are racist - using statistics. The difference is that it doesn't necessarily follow that black deaths at the hands of the police is a consequence of racism, if there are other possible reasons for being killed by police, like there are if you are white. Why blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population isn't linked to their skin color. It is linked to a common feature of a deprived family dynamic that exists in all races and produces the same result in all races - poverty and the inability to move upward economically.

Can you just watch "The 13th Amendment" documentary and return here please. See that and then return with some counter-argument to it. It perfectly describes the underlying systemic racism at play in US society.

It's important to be skeptical, but if you don't even attempt to take part in the perspective that argues there is systemic racism in play and concludes there to not be enough evidence, you are just ignorant. You've been provided with enough. — Christoffer

Why don't you go and find the evidence that shows that the vast majority of blacks in prison don't deserve it for what they were found guilty of. Some of them were found guilty by black jurors, prosecuted by black lawyers, and sentenced by black judges. It's so easy to shout, "Racism" when you ignore so many facts.

Are there instances where racism did play a role, yes, but those instances aren't as common as you're claiming them to be. You have been programmed to see racism everywhere there is an instance where the skin color is different, as if that could be the only reason for the conflict.

What percentage of blacks that are in prison are innocent, given that you know all the facts of each case?

Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists. Of course "racism" has a related and much darker meaning - again, obvious and trivial. So why be pedantic? Because what gets lost in the shuffle is the significance of part of what we do being part of, and a necessary part of, our DNA. — tim wood

Then you're saying that even blacks are racist. Are blacks exhibiting their racism (there metrics for telling differences between individuals) by accusing all whites and police of being racist?

Noticing distinctions isn't racist. If it were then accepting diversity is racist. Focusing on your skin color as a defining part of your identity would be racist. Black Lives Matter would be racist, and All Lives Matter isn't. So you definition seems to be in conflict with previous statements that you have made.

Noticing distinctions isn't racist. We notice the distinctions in the color of our eyes, but we don't associate any causal relationship between people with blue eyes performing better on the job. We don't hire more people with blue eyes than those with brown eyes. Hazel eyes don't run faster than blue eyes. There are no causal links between these physical characteristics and someone's job or running performance. Noticing eye color is only useful in certain contexts, like describing someone to someone else that has never met the person you're describing.

The same goes with skin color. Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks. If that were the case, then do we really have any control over ourselves, if it is our skin color that makes us do what we do, and not our minds and how they interpret things, then what would the solutions be to solve racism?

Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be. — tim wood

I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.

I don't understand what your definition of racism is if what your doing isn't it.

Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy. — Christoffer

I have yet to deny the existence of systemic racism. Asking for the definition of systemic racism is not denying its existence. It is up to you to provide a definition that fits observations and is logically consistent, as you are the one asserting its existence, not me. I'm willing to accept that things exist that I can't see, so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too.

The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. How do we even know that the reason the police shot the unarmed black person is the same as why they've shot unarmed whites? Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black?

You're right, in that it is probably impossible to know the answer to that question because you have to know the motives of the person at that moment. You're already assuming racism when the color of their skin is different. That is assuming your conclusion. That is a fallacy.

Re-read my previous post. I edited it as you were replying.

But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.

Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary. — Christoffer

No, that is what you are doing.

The link you provided is skewed - psuedo-statistics. It never mentions that twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks, even though blacks are killed at a higher rate relative to their percentage of population. I'm trying to account for that discrepancy with the statistics of blacks committing crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.

It implies that all cops are racist without specifying what percentage of cops actually shoot unarmed blacks, and what percentage of those same cops also shot unarmed whites. That is where you are failing to understand. You are the one basing your arguments on psuedo-stats.

What are you talking about? I was asking what percentages of cops are racist. Is that not asking for observable facts - like how police treat blacks vs some other group and that the causes are actually racist and not something else, like blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups?