I'm glad to hear that. Don't worry about me. It's just that currently, between school and work my free time is severely limited. I tried to reply as soon as I can last time and I'm sorry it came off as me not appreciating what you had to say. I didn't mean that at the slightest. I also didn't check myself well after you pointed me out and came off as crass. I can understand your frustrations against me.

If you have anything you want me to clarify about my position, don't hesitate. I'll be looking forward to it.

Maybe I should've kept things simple and replied with: Are rigid straight rulers useful? Are consistent precision clocks or scales useful? Are fair dice useful? ... Each helps us better align our beliefs (i.e. predictions, expectations) with reality, don't they? — 180 Proof

I like the metaphor you use here a lot. A ruler, clock and scale is a lot like how we do our best to describe reality as it is, in that we both need to create the measurement system, the tool for the measurement, and a method in which to use the tool correctly. Risk is also a very important part of daily life, although I never gambled, so it seems like dies are fair game as well.

My main concern is if there aren't falsities that are more useful than these tools in their respective domains. For example, in a shipping factory, we can use rulers to measure the dimensions of a package every single time, but it can be inefficient. So then a company might just say, "guess with your eyes instead" and it can be useful enough. Individual estimation of the package by eye is not as accurate as a ruler, but it is accurate enough for reality to be more useful than the ruler.

I also like your previous post's analogy of truth to light. I resonate with this and the previous one heavily. You mention adaptivity, but isn't that just usefulness in a differing situations? So again, IF a falsehood exists that overwhelms the truth in this domain, then it would be better than the truth?

Additionally and also as you said, this belief has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function.
A belief seems not to require evidence, but evidence nevertheless helps. — noAxioms

Sorry, I lack clarification here. I meant belief as in your belief of validity. Function as in, to invalidate another belief by using some evidence provided.

It isn't? You have an example of something that contradicts neither itself nor empirical evidence that is nevertheless invalid? — noAxioms

Let me start by clarifying that I don't intend to criticize your beliefs in particular at all. My example was to describe a scenario in which a person lives in a logically righteous world because they do not have the same strenuous validation process as you might. They can invalidate other beliefs because validation requires the belief to be his own. All other beliefs are invalid inherently according to this belief. I suspect that the reason you say this specific belief is invalid is because you are working on the belief that validation requires non-self-contradiction and supporting empirical evidence. While many people here will agree with you, including me, the unreasonable individual, as in the example given above, believes otherwise.

That's good to hear, because I actually enjoy the conversations that I have with you quite a bit. There are still worries I have with geothermal energy but I have no research to ground it in.

I think if you were honest you'd acknowledge a tendency to take to the keyboard before having done the reading. I'm just telling you, it's very obvious to other people when you do that. — counterpunch

I try not to do so as much as I can, because I know the insult it causes to the receiver. I can honestly say that I do, but I have limited time and I think I wasn't in the most pristine mental condition when I sent my replies the first time. I was fairly sure this morning that you didn't imply any hints to geothermal but I was proven wrong pretty handedly. I'm afraid I'm an imperfect being that forced himself to engage in debate with other thinkers when he knew he didn't have the capacity that met theirs. I can only ask that you have the patience with this imbecile and take the time to clear any misunderstandings that I have.

As you've said, the basis for invalidating a belief for you is that the belief must be self contradictory. This is a reasonable view because it allows room for the opposing believer to offer their own reasoning to why they are valid. Additionally and also as you said, this belief in validity has a weakness in that it needs evidence in order for it to function. IE, there needs to be evidence that the belief is self contradicting to invalidate said belief. I believe that is a reason why you struggle now. You believe that a non-self-contradicting perspective is a valid one, even if it contradicts the one that you believe now.

However a belief can change the very definition of what is valid or invalid for the individual. A belief that invalidates all other beliefs inherently allows for a logically sound environment in which that person can reject all other beliefs without lying to themselves, regardless of whether that belief is based on truth or falsehoods.

Do I understand correctly if I say that truth is reality as an individual understands it, and Truth is reality as it exists?

As with truth, so with usefulness. In enquiry, truth is often useful. In ordinary life, this depends on the person. I think it makes sense to have usefulness in mind, while keeping in mind that what's useful depends on your own interests. But any obsession with Truth, shouldn't arise, I don't think, we are likely to be wrong, as has been the case throughout history. — Manuel

I agree, truth is often useful. I don't understand you fully in the last part though. What do you mean by an obsession of Truth? Do you refer to liars like drug addicts?

I stand corrected. I misread your post, and sorry that I seem to have put you into a foul mood.

I mentioned harnessing magma heat energy using drilling technology. I've mentioned it often enough, and we've spoken often enough - you should know that. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd know that - but you never do. It's not the first time, I've read your response - and it's clear you haven't read the post you're responding to. — counterpunch

I'm sorry to hear that but I only joined this forum recently, and while we have talked before I don't think we talked too much about renewable energy. You might've mentioned geothermal energy (which is a good one, admittedly) before but that was far from the main topic which was about political divides. You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance.

I'm sorry for assuming your position and I'm not confident enough in my knowledge to talk about geothermal energy. I hope you understand my position of argument though, because wind and solar are still a very popular source for green energy, and while you might not believe in it many people do.

Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth.
— FlaccidDoor
Truth seems to not be something relative to a person or a belief, so despite the fact that I hold what I would label as 'beliefs', I'm not so naive to assert that those beliefs correspond to truth. — noAxioms

Sorry I was unclear. What I meant here is that it would just seem to that person that it is a truth, not that it actually is. A person's ability to believe as if something is true is different from that actually being true.

You use the word 'know' like 'believe' here. One can believe something (be certain about it even, which is the lying to which I refer), but true knowledge is seemingly out of reach because there is not enough data. The existence of alternate valid interpretations of things means there is no way to know which interpretation (if any) is the true one. No, such lying is due not to knowing something else is true, but to realizing that something else could be true. — noAxioms

I agree with your reasoning but there's a simple solution to it. That your belief includes believing that other beliefs are invalid. I think many in this forum treat this as taboo, dogmatism, zeal and so on and so we look down upon it, but while unreasonable, it is logically valid.

I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? — Jack Cummins

I think it is, but far from a useful one ontologically speaking. It's also not a philosophically proven truth but I think those horrors of life describes reality correctly at least at a single time and place.

That seems like an interesting book. But I suspect the perceived "death of truth" is just a realization that there is no such thing as unbiased information, especially in journalism. In the past when news were presented mostly on paper, big news outlets were able to fact check their information to ensure some standards against their own biases. They had time since the most recent news were still a day late considering printing and distribution time. However today, those same outlets have to compete for viewer retention online, with news presented at the same hour with explosive headlines being rewarded the most. Since established news outlets were forced to lower their quality of service, other outlets, including anyone that can google, can compete for the "most trustworthy news source" position.

it is better to live the reality as it is — javi2541997

I agree. You shouldn't deceive yourself from the reality as it is presented to you, because it often sets you up for failure. When I don't want to work or eat well, sometimes I find myself trying to trick myself into thinking that I will just do it tomorrow, when past history has clearly shown that I will not.

So then usefulness is the correct criterion for judging if we should pursue truths.

I wrote my post to explain the usefulness of truth, and you didn't read it before you replied. That's why you're confused - because you've made no effort to understand. Does the phrase "limitless clean energy" suggest windmills and solar panels? No, it does not. But thanks for the heads up on just how little impact my ideas have had. — counterpunch

I didn't think I was confused until now. Limitless clean energy does suggest windmills and solar panels unless it refers to nuclear energy. However that still has it's own problems and many people don't describe it as limitless because it technically isn't. I'm not sure what other technology you could have been referring to, unless it's perpetual motion machines.

While I did digress a bit my purposes of going into this topic was to criticize your example of useful truths in which you named science. I don't think science presents any truths in the form of understanding per se because science does not offer conclusions. It just pushes for affirming and then reaffirming evidence and any conclusions made from said evidence isn't science. Just a logical assertion made by the researcher. I assumed you were talking about renewable energy because renewable energy is a popular scientific topic boasting green, limitless energy, but it's false at it's current state. This was meant to show that science, as you named it, is a potential source of (useful?) falsehoods.

I'm sorry, I am not fluent in Marxist writing. In fact you could say I'm completely new to the language. I just looked at the Wikipedia page about the Labor Theory of Value because everyone here was talking about it. I just thought it was weird that an object's value would be measured by the labor put into it, because a rock I smashed for 6 hours into dust is not worth 6 hours of my labor. Then I found that Marx actually never used the term the Labor Theory of Value according to that page, and that he believes that society needs to value that labor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Marx

Thanks to those who added to this thread. I'll sign off for tonight. Until next time

I'm only disappointed you didn't also reach for the sceptical argument underlying utter epistemic relativism, and conclude by suggesting we can't actually KNOW anything! — counterpunch

Well I think it's absurd to suggest that we can't know anything because we, as people tend to be, claim to know a lot. If it's knowing as in, knowing something to be true, then I find myself definitely heading towards that direction, but I don't want to conclude that. To be honest I'm more surprised there are no Descartes yet to talk about a priori.

*credible lies / — counterpunch

I think this is misworded. I mention falsehoods as in, statements or ideas that describe reality falsely, not necessarily something that is spouted purposefully as a lie. People can speak falsehoods without lying (on purpose) if they believe it is the truth.

I think science now constitutes a highly valid and increasingly coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit — counterpunch

I agree that science has some of the highest validity of any contemporary beliefs regarding objective reality, but I disagree that it contributes any understanding. The greatest strength and weakness of science is that it doesn't make a conclusion. It just associates the evidence to a theory or conclusion. It takes a humble position of not 'understanding' anything, allowing for the natural selection of theories so only the strongest theories remain. However as soon as strong enough evidence to disprove a theory pops up, that theory is replaced with something better. The understanding that you mentioned are conclusions made by scientists and are imperfect and deserving of criticism even in its own field of science.

Nil points for repeating yourself. In fact, one demerit. — counterpunch

I was trying to summarize but I'm also not the greatest writer. I'll try to watch out for it.

Painfully aware of how difficult it is to get anything done, I've sought to identify the key log - and it is limitless clean energy. It's the most scientifically fundamental approach - and the greatest good for the least cost, with least disruption. I can imagine fossil fuel producers freaking out at the very idea, but I would argue more energy gives us more time and discretion in the short to mid term, and would be applied to create sustainable markets in the long term. — counterpunch

This digresses from the main topic but I'm confident in my share of research into renewable energy and I must say there's a reason the fossil fuel industry has survived today, and it's not just because of lobbyists. Wind and solar energy is expensive and arguably more damaging to the environment because the sheer amount of plastics and rare metals that it needs for batteries as well as the electrical generator. These plastics and rare metals all need to be mined or fracked, often with environmentally disastrous methods in poorer nations like China. Once built, they usually have to run for decades (I think solar panels needed to run for around 25 years with our current technology) just to pay for itself. That's IF the technology doesn't lose effectiveness from wear over time which it certainly will, if it doesn't straight up break. So to summarize, clean and limitless energy is a dream that's still far from reality.

I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.

I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful. — Jack Cummins

I resonate with what you're saying because my interests definitely does its part in swaying the direction of my thinking. I want a belief that justifies how I lived and will live. I suspect this is true for other philosophies and makes me question the motivations behind philosophies like anti-natalism.

I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead? — Jack Cummins

I wonder where you find yourself now. It's interesting because I don't associate fear in broad universal truths as much as I do truths at an individualistic level. Violence, rape, torture, mutilation, genocide...they only become truly horrifying when you zoom in. Then I feel immense disgust and fear to these acts and sometimes to how I react to them.

Think of all the people with contradictory philosophies who are nevertheless completely convinced that they're the ones in the right, with everybody else being wrong. They're all lying to themselves, and believing the lies. Not lying that their view is the correct one, but lying that it must be the correct one. — noAxioms

Wouldn't lying necessitate that you "know" something else is true? When I asked about the liars from a previous post, I was implying that those liars believed some falsehoods to be truths, rather than lying to themselves per se. So if people with differing philosophies know believe they are right, they can also believe that they must be the correct one without lying.

I personally hold contradictory beliefs. I thus know that some of my beliefs cannot be correct, but one cannot simply will ones self to unbelieve something.

As for lies I tell others, I've never told my Mother that I've abandoned belief in God the way I was raised. What's the purpose in telling her that? She just doesn't need to worry that her child is going to hell, although I admit to having been at several funerals of vocal atheists where the mourners (and even the pastor) still comfort each other with words like "he's in a better place now", which is exactly a lie told for a purpose. — noAxioms

I can relate pretty heavily to that. My family is Christian and growing up I could never swallow the ideas they threw at me about bibles, prayers, "Christ's love" and especially when they say "God works in mysterious ways" when someone dies in a way they didn't deserve. I don't intend to make fun of these things. I was jealous they could believe it if anything, because people who did actually enjoyed the boring bible lectures and prayer times. I've come to terms with it recently with pragmatism, in that believing in those Christian things have usefulness to them. I agree that there are lies that are told in these environments, like "he's in a better place now" but they attempt to be useful lies.

Truth refers to many kinds of ideas so this is a pretty loose series of questions. — FlaccidDoor

I had a weird feeling that I was missing a key component and I think you might've hit the nail, thanks. I didn't have a strict idea of truth when I made this post, but I believe the closest definition in my usage is that truth is a statement or idea describing reality as is, as opposed to falsehoods which are statements or ideas that do not.

With this definition, would there be falsehoods that are more useful than truths?

I also feel like philosophy in many forms fail to be useful in 'quotidian' (new word!) activities. Its usefulness is in soothing my curiosity about the next stupid question that pops up in my head to gnaw at my mind.

It may not seem, immediately - one suffers any ill-effects, but so long as the lie is maintained as truth, then the clock is ticking on the cuckoos coming home to roost. — counterpunch

I agree that's what I feel goes on in my experiences, but what if there is a "perfect" lie in which the lie does not come back in a negative way. With the causal analysis, that lie would appear just like a truth.

Changing perspectives, if a person only has a day to live, there are many lies that this person can spread without having to meet the negative consequences. Now we don't only live a day, but in some respects, the human lifespan is short and some lies may take longer than that lifespan to prove its falsity.

If either of these lies exists, then there are possibilities that some "truths" that we take for granted by causality may be falsehoods instead.

Aren't there falsehoods that are more useful?
No. The only instance of a 'useful falsehood' of which I'm aware is a falsehood – fiction – that conveys a 'truth' indirectly, ironically, figuratively (e.g. poetry, painting, theatre, erotica, etc). Otherwise, falsehoods are useful as lies, blocking or concealing truths from others and/or yourself. — 180 Proof

So only truth is useful, other than to cover truths, and any falsehoods that seem useful, in this case fiction, just has truths hidden in it? I see where you're getting at but there at least seems to be manipulative benefits to lies in regards to people. If you tell someone a lie, you definitely cover the truth, but depending on the lie you manipulate them differently. This seems like a usefulness independent of truths.

No. Along with 'beauty' & 'good,' 'truth' is itself a criterion for judging that's grounded in – constituted by – understanding: so, the less confused (i.e. untintelligible, inexplicable) your understanding, the less irreflective (i.e. dogmatic, incorrigible) your criteria for judging and then, therefore, the less maladaptive (i.e. frustrating, immiserating, self-defeating) your agency becomes. — 180 Proof

Wouldn't then, truth having value as a criterion for judging ultimately be rooted in its usefulness in "improving" your agency? So then if a falsehood that is more useful in improving our agency exists, then that falsehood would be better than truth.

They are literally believing in falsehoods but they do not want interpret it as truths because probably this will so painful for them soy they rather live and believe in falsehoods. — javi2541997

I'm not sure I follow. Why is believing in falsehoods not the equivalent of interpreting it as truths? If you believe it is real, convince yourself it is real, then to that person it is as if that is a truth. Do you think we turn to falsehoods only because we are unprepared or scared to face the truths?

I ask because I see some people believe in falsehoods because it 'works.' For example, a thief may be able to become a greater thief if they believe that the rich he steals from deserves it, especially inherently. The thief is able to steal with less hesitation and thus is able to be more efficient and effective, regardless of how true this perception is.

So your view is that the truth is necessarily the most useful in the long term, where falsehoods are not so. My view aligns with yours but why would this be true?

Probably, but falsehood is not connected with believe in due to are contradictory. — javi2541997

Logically yes, if the truthfulness is known but reality is rarely that way. We are presented with a barrage of information where we have to validate ourselves if they are truths or not. Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths?

I'm interested in where I might read the foundations of philosophy as you mentioned, but I have some doubts whether philosophy was born to promote happiness, as if people can start thinking solely to make themselves happy. For example I feel like happiness is subverted due to certain philosophical ideas, with a noteworthy one being extreme nihilism.

When I lie to myself, I do feel like I am not good enough but things need to get done regardless. The value of getting my work done trumps the truth I suppose. That's an interesting way to think about it.

Truth is essential to believe in. — javi2541997

Doesn't that imply that if a falsehood can be believed in, then the truth no longer is needed?

It's a shame that many respondants are splitting hairs about the way I asked the question rather than taking up what was clearly my main point. Presumably they pass their whole lives refusing to see the wood for whatever tree is infront of their nose.. — Tim3003

A major premise that OP is based on is that their knowledge is complete or at least complete enough. Thus if people do not know exactly what I know, then they are ignorant. This is a very arrogant and dangerous assumption, as we are all (probably) not medical experts but just crayon eating internet surfers that proclaim we are philosophers. There's an argument to be made that the evidence is overwhelming, but that evidence tends to be based on journalism, which we all know is trustworthy.

There may be an article that interests some people talking about a research paper that concluded that the US death rate has not changed at all in 2020 compared to previous years, among other things. Meaning the introduction of Covid was not significant in the US death toll. Most interestingly, this research was pulled a couple days after its release, as if there were people who did not want the word getting out

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/11/27/johns-hopkins-study-saying-covid-19-has-relatively-no-effect-on-deaths-in-u-s-deleted-after-publication-n1178930

So you don't want to consider an ideal death because then that would raise your expectation? I feel like we refer to an ideal as an ideal partly because we consider it an impossible prospect. As in, an ideal shouldn't be associated that closely with something as real as expectations.

If you don't want to be disappointed, would your ideal death be where you expect the most painful death, but the actual experience was like a flip of a light switch?

I would want it. Not to necessarily use it immediately, but to open the pill and find out what's inside. I feel like my curiosity would shove me in that direction first. What if it was made out of newborn's foreskins? Jokes aside, whether I would take it or not, I'm not sure. I felt really depressed when my cat, that's been with me since I was 4 died. I can't really imagine what it'd be like if I outlived all my friends and family.

If there were enough for my friends and family, I'm sure I would. Death would be reduced to either a choice or an accident and I don't see anything wrong with that. I have an uneasy feeling that we will see mental dysfunction as we rack in the time though. I feel like we would reach a point where our memories cut off heavily after we accumulate too much memory, like a hard drive that has it's storage space completely full.

Sounds like you know more about this stuff than I do. My can of spray says "NOT FOR USE ON HUMANS". Active ingredients are Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids (Derived from Oleoresin of Capsicum) 2%, with 98% other ingredients. — James Riley

I know that at it's essence it's just really spicy. Like they literally take the same things that make chili spicy in a concentrated form most of the time (Read: Capsaicin), but I'm not sure if there aren't other ingredients that are included in bear sprays and pepper sprays.

The entire quote goes

[Bear spray] is intended to deter the bear from attacking you while you’re out in the wild, and isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, which is why it contains only 1 to 2% OC but has a Capsaicin and Related Capsaicinoid concentration of 2%.

Apparently the OC content makes the burn here but I'm ignorant of what it is, where capsaicin is the spicy component I just mentioned.

On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries — FlaccidDoor

This 2nd quote was misleading, sorry. It should of been "On top of bear spray causing less pain, 'pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries" being a concentrated stream.

https://www.bushcraftpro.com/bear-spray-vs-pepper-spray/

I also know what self defense spray is (the kind cops use). Bear spray is on a whole 'nother level. If you have asthma, allergy or any pre-existing condition, it could kill you. And, as we used to say in the law, you take your victim as you find him. — James Riley

It was my understanding that bear spray is a less debilitating nonlethal method compared to pepper spray because of comparing descriptions like from this site. I've been exposed to pepper spray before indirectly but I have no experience with bear spray. "[Bear spray] isn’t supposed to inflict a level of pain and incapacitation on par with what pepper spray does, which is why it contains only 1 to 2% OC but has a Capsaicin and Related Capsaicinoid concentration of 2%." On top of causing less pain, "pepper sprays are specifically designed to bring down human adversaries – their OC concentration and their precise stream spray pattern (typically) makes them ideal for close quarter self-defense." As in the typical use coats the victims' skin, eyes and clothes.

I'm completely ignorant of the self defense spray you mentioned and maybe bear sprays have other ingredients I haven't considered. But I thought that the police are to be exposed to pepper sprays during training, and so the idea of an officer dying from a weaker version of it, that isn't delivered to the same capacity seems dubious to me.

That makes a lot more sense.

Knowing you can control everything, you would still try to keep it as bad as you can make it because you don't want to be disappointed? It sounds like a very sad case of a self fulfilling prophecy.

Another Kool-Aid guzzler, I guess. — praxis

Y E S

My point was that the integrity of news sources are to be questioned, and holding skepticism in said news sources' claims are not the same as rejecting said claims. As in taking headlines like, "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out" with a grain of salt, is not the same as saying the insurrection did not happen.

What gives me doubts that the insurrection isn't as impressive as it's made out to be is that, while being made out to sound like the most terrible thing in modern history, no one on the law enforcement side was killed. As I mentioned before, 1 officer was purported to be killed by blunt trauma but now it might've just been bear spray exposure, which both rioters and the police had. The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters.

Yes, I think many people would agree with you, but that kind of defeats the philosophical point of the question.

Does this scheme invalidate Marx's theory of labor value? ***

***One of the cornerstones of Marxian economics was Karl Marx’s ideas around the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value argues that the value of a commodity is determined by the average amount of time needed to produce the commodity. An example of the labor theory of value would be if a t-shirt takes half the time to make as a hat, the hat would be priced at two times the t-shirt. — Bitter Crank

Correct me if I’m missing something. Wikipedia seems to describe Marx’s ideas to be more complex than that. It describes that Marx believed that an object’s value is based on the amount of labor it took to create it with respect to how much society values that labor. So your example is only true if society demanded the labor for both T-shirt making and hat making equally.

Super violent



This actually has a lot in here but still very sparse with anything close to violent. Barbaric, maybe, on account of the property destruction. These people, walking at the police, need to be arrested, convicted, tortured and lynched on the spot, obviously.

The division b/w those who see no coup attempt here, and those who do, is the difference b/w literal and subliminal message. Someone can insert a statement that is contrary to their overall message; but to take that statement as proof that their alleged intention is a fantasy, is itself the actual fantasy — Todd Martin

Woops wrong protest. That one was peaceful, with gunshots of peace in the background.

Carrying doubt about the insurrection is not the equivalent of rejecting it. If you feel so then your view on the topic is too simplistic. Perhaps you should hold literal messages the same amount of doubt you hold subliminal messages.

Are there studies that show that those with larger prefrontal cortexes make better decisions or do the studies just show that decision making occurs in the prefrontal cortex? — Hanover

Yes. I'm not an expert but my understanding is that there are a lot of evidence to believe that the ability to make rational decisions is heavily associated with the prefrontal cortex. The experiments I've read were on people who had seriously impaired or missing prefrontal cortex function though, not people with bigger/smaller normal prefrontal cortexes. The data I mentioned about how the girls who developed smaller prefrontal cortexes being less successful in life suggests that though.

Thinking generally takes place in the brain, but those with larger brains aren't statistically smarter than those with smaller brains, so I don't see why an enlarged prefrontal cortex should correlate with it working better. — Hanover

I think you're confusing how differences in the brain sizes between people doesn't necessarily dictate IQ, which is true. But that's because the differences are relatively small. In the animal kingdom a bigger brain is indicative of higher intelligence. Also better (bigger) functioning prefrontal cortex does not necessarily make you better at taking an IQ test, for example, but can provide you with higher impulse control which is still plenty useful.

The real message it would seem is that alcohol consumption affects a developing brain, so maybe hold off drinking until you're a little older. — Hanover

Girls definitely should be held off of drinking statistically, while boys might be improved by it even.

The event that ended with the emergency evacuation and of congress was probably the worst thing that can happen for Trump politically speaking. The concern that many of the people who were present that day at the capitol building were about the possibility of fraudulent votes. If congress was not interrupted, there might've been a good case to be made within congress that further investigation into the matter was warranted before confirming Biden as president elect. Warranted not because there had to be fraud per se, but because enough people had doubts in the integrity of the election. However what happened was that this protest against fraud became a symbol of insurrection that was condemned by all, putting the possibility of fraud in the backburner.

To add to fishfry's post, there's a popular narrative that is pushed that an officer was killed when defending against the rioters. This narrative was first that he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher which turned out to be wrong and quietly changed to ] he might've died from exposure to bear spray but actually have no evidence to back this up, including an autopsy. This officer is the only officer to have died in the riots, and there is an obvious bias to push the idea that he was murdered.

You know, considering that the capitol police were hopelessly outnumbered in a horrific, violent insurrection, only 1 police officer getting killed (maybe) is a pretty amazing feat. I guess it was the right call that a request for backup was denied. Who cares if there's a possibility for a new civil war starting at the capitol on an announced day?

even then I did so sparingly, like only about 5-7 times a week, on account of its utterly unsatisfying nature. — Janus

A change in behavior averaging once a day seems like a significant change in habit.

This sorry state of cyber-affairs reminds me of the US crime-wars in the US after Prohibition laws (1920s & 30s) suddenly made alcoholic beverages illegal. Since a large segment of the population had a strong desire for alcohol (for self medication of emotional problems?), — Gnomon

I'm sure alcohol dependency was a significant contributor to the backlash against the prohibition laws. Alcohol is also known to be a catalyst for violence and rape, inhibiting rational decision making. However in my circle and many people I know, it's an important social tool. This is in contrast to porn, which by nature seems to discourage the development of social connections.

With that said, my thoughts on it may change quickly because there are actors using outlets like Onlyfans among others that provide a feeling of intimacy along with porn. It's not just a random woman on the screen anymore. It is someone who you can contact and will converse with you (for money of course). Someone who can provide you social satisfaction as well as a sexual one. A part of me screams that this is even more dangerous than normal porn, but my main point that I want to get across is that porn seems to be evolving along with the technology that propel its distribution.

Fun fact: Boys who starts to drink in his preteens develop larger prefrontal cortexes than boys who don't. Ironically the prefrontal cortex is the section of the brain that's associated with decision making. However girls who starts drinking in their preteen develop a much small prefrontal cortex than girls who don't and they generally lead a much less successful life. While it acts like a poison to girls, it makes boys smarter.
From Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax

I think it's more productive to get to the roots, like what are we exactly interested in? — Saphsin

There is a reason that we should justify the existence of free will. There are numerous scientific literatures showing that belief in free will results in a happier life, as well as being more academically successful and productive at work. Because of the belief's positive effects on people, there is a moral incentive to have people believe in it.

From a certain pragmatist point of view, this evidence is proof of the existence of free will.

Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object. — Charles Sanders Peirce

This pragmatist believes that introspective knowledge (like a priori) is purely inferences from external facts. For example, the concept of self is created from the interactions we have with the world and not the other way around. This pragmatist further asserts that real and true are words that can only be understood in the context of 'what works' or in other words, its usefulness, such that what is the most useful is the truth. Thus, overwhelming evidence showing that believing in free will 'works' better for people, than not believing in free will existing is proof that free will exists.

This view is contentious even among pragmatists, but I try to present their view to address the original question. My version of pragmatism doesn't necessarily relate usefulness directly to truth, although I do believe that if a false belief is less useful than a true one, then that truth does not have as much value to be known relative to the false one.

Ascension, as in, to heaven? So given that heaven exists, you would choose ascension as compared to descent (to hell). But then that doesn't deal with how you die at all, unless you mean to say die in a way that God would approve your entry.

Or am I misunderstanding and you want to be shot up miles into the sky?