User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14

Posts by Anal Turing

  1. Barman = Batman
  2. Johnny had a reputation for being the class serious.
  3. Retired sad clown
  4. Originally posted by blackbird It’s hard to imagine what that would be outside of an intelligent species artificially manipulating the course of evolution.

    The nature of life and replication would have to be very different, to begin with.
  5. Originally posted by vindicktive vinny taiwanese are like the confederates of china. they're southerners.

    PRC is the confederates, they just won the civil war.
  6. Originally posted by Lanny It's because pakis are a soulless r-type population, the culture has adapted to your expandability. Glorious westerners actually care about our friends and family so three days of sad and a meal just isn't going to cut it.

    Well no, Pakis just usually take for granted that you go to heaven. The mourning mostly happens because you don't think you'll be seeing them in the next 60 years.
  7. Originally posted by Lanny I've heard this argument before but I never really got how it was supposed to work. Like what is free floating thought without a subject to think? The idea of thought without someone to think is obviously something that's never been encountered in our experience

    The idea is simply that the observer isn't some unitary "bottom level" that experiences are delivered to, rather it is a phenomenon that emerges from and supervenes on unconscious phenomena, of which experiences and thoughts are a few.

    "You" aren't "using" your thoughts, "you" are just the "narrative center of gravity" for your thoughts (as Dan Dennett puts it).

    but OK, we're Cartesians, so is it logically invalid? Like it kinda seems like that to me but let's try and abuse the notions of "subject" and "thought" or "doubt" as much as we can and postulate the thought which happens without a mind to conceive it. So what? That thought exists, perception exists, would Descartes even be bothered by this? He just says "ah, that thought over there without a thinker, that's what exists, that's the cogito" and bam, done.And I'm still not convinced perception without the subject is coherent, I think the idea of a subject is embedded in perception and necessitates it, but even if it doesn't what thesis built on cogito ergo sum is overturned?

    Descartes would be very bothered, because the idea he is battling is that his thoughts and experiences could be a misrepresentation being "presented" to "him". Descartes was an interactionist who believed that the soul interacted with the body through the pineal gland, and the body was just syntactical machinery for the mind to manipulate.

    The whole problem of the evil demon hinges on a notion of an essential identity of experience. Simply accepting that the thoughts are what there are, leaves no problem: if an evil scientist is constructing these thoughts in a jar, there is no "essence" to pull out into the real world and give real thoughts to, any continuity between them would just be the persistence of a "ship of Theseus" blob of mental and physical states which are interrelated and form some kind of collective identity, none of which are at all essential.

    If "you" are just constructed out of your experiences, then there is no reason to doubt the validity of your experiences to you.

    Imagine if the evil scientist pulls Descartes out of a vat and retains all his memories except he changes the memory of his name in the real world to "Rene Detrolley". Is Descartes or Detrolley having the experience of being lied to about being the other?

    There is a reason why he resorted to "uhhhhh, god did it" in his dialogues with princess Elizabeth on dualism.

    What exactly is this supposed to be a test of?

    The fact that your experience isn't happening at some central location in your head, it is distributed throughout your body, and actually felt and experienced in your limbs. The head fallacy is a very easy mistake to make because our eyes and ears are in there, and both are central to determining our position in the world.

    Descartes would seem to disagree, maybe coordination of sensory information is also a function of the subject and the fact that we experience a variety of qualitatively distinct streams of perception is further evidence for the subject (i.e. the fact that there seems to be something which both sees and hears, even if these perceptions don't reflect reality, suggests there is at least a subject in which they are unified or integrated), but that that is something which "you" do doesn't seem like any kind of argument against "your" existence.

    That road leads to what is known as the homunculus fallacy, i.e. it simply transposes the question of how you perceive things and weave these threads together, onto how the little observer in your head does it. They are the same question. Does he have a little observer in his head?

    There is no need to reach for such silliness because the premise is just pointless and flawed: to experience sight is to experience sight, you don't need to have the experience and then another experience of the experience. The experience is the experience.
  8. Yeah I've noticed this echoed by many academics, white people and western cultures are legitimarely dogshit at dealing with grief and mourning. In Pakistan for example, we get sad for like 3 days, then have a big dinner to celebrate the deceased's life and move on.
  9. Originally posted by PrettyHateMachine If I wins billion dollars I would start a record label, record store, fund some vr projects and a game development studio and fund some white nationalist groups.
    Oh and I would give like $300,000,000 to a white nationalist to run for president they could use that money for their campaign.
    The rest I would give to Japanese nationalist groups a d other nationalists in Europe.

    This is why 70%+ of lottery winners go broke.
  10. Well, Cartesian doubt presupposes a subject. That idea melts away very easily under the slightest scrutiny. There is no subject, no Cartesian "theatre" of the mind, no "watcher" to call your self, no point where it all "comes together" in your head to be presented to some ghost in the machine: you don't perceive your sense impressions, actually getting your sense impressions itself is the act of perception.

    The easiest way to test this is simply to cause a touch sensation in your feet; no matter how you look at it, the experience does not happen, nor is experienced, in your head. There is simply no element of that experience itself in your head. The experience itself is the perception. This is what is called naive realism.

    All "you" are is a useful but ultimately flawed concept for coordinating all your sense impressions and formulating a response to what you construct of your environment.

    Run with that realisation, what you come to see is that solipsism isn't even tenable, because even your mind doesn't really exist in any way that's more meaningful or real or true than any other potential minds you may encounter. You cannot even establish the existence of a self to justify anything to.

    You are a flesh robot, just like everybody else. You don't have any grounds to distinguish yourself. Just relax and let it sink in, it's not so bad once you just accept it. In fact, it's a little liberating.
  11. More like faggota million
  12. Deep cover chinese operative posing as a Mexican
  13. Slanger
  14. Taiwan is basically China Pro, literally a better country in every conceivable way, and of course that's thanks to delicious capitalism.
  15. Originally posted by Sudo My genitalia is tiny and I'm so fundamentally weak in every way I'm barely human- Every Chinese person ever

    They are like little aliens lol, compare a chinese to the classic "doctor" alien archetype.

  16. RIP, Reddit banned /r/ladyboy
  17. Fluffer
  18. Dog gymnastics coach
  19. True chads smoke blunts
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. ...
  9. 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
Jump to Top