CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Women prefer Conservative men
Women prefer masculine men. It's a biological fact. Liberal "men" think pink should be their favorite color, don't want to fight for their country, are afraid of guns, and think "my little pony" is a nickname for their lover.
Well, I've never had anyone able to explain what makes something more masculine than anything else. Perhaps you might want to tell that so I can learn from your wisdom. (Now that's what I call an obscure reference.)
Yes. Being a man typically comes naturally to men. If you required VHS tapes to assist you, it could only be because being a man was in some way unnatural to you. I have to wonder why, after trying hard to identify as a man, you have taken up the cartoonish position of pretending to hate those who have similar gender issues as yourself, only to come fully out of the closet and admit that you have personally struggled with being a man, but watched some videos that helped. A better cover would have been to let it be, you were perfectly passable before.
Let's be CLEAR... This is a "when did you STOP beating your wife" question... So, there's NO way I can answer. Instead, I'm gonna crush your argument...
Ok... On second thought, ANYBODY who thinks a manly man MUST be conservative simply doesn't pay much attention... Frankly, it's HARD for me to believe that such people exist. Yet, here you are, and you've got lots of help piling on... Makes you smart, huh??
But, if you already BELIEVE that nonsense, NOTHING I can say will change your mind...
But for those THINKING conservatives, if there ARE any on this website, I offer the following: When MY ship was BLOCKADING Cuba, so you could be SAFE to pee your diapers, I did it for YOU, whether you appreciate it or NOT.
When I came home, I was SPIT on, and you're STILL spitting on me.. I know you're NOT ashamed of yourselves, so I'll be ashamed for you..
Nahhh... I've NEVER been a conservative. I was protecting the US because that was my JOB. It wasn't a liberal job.. It wasn't a conservative job.. It was an AMERICAN job.
I just wonder how many of these so called REAL men put their ass where their mouth is...
It is possible to be against something while also being against legal action that would stop it. The understanding that Liberty is a greater societal good than censorship means that one must support the rights of others to do what one personally finds reprehensible.
Even liberal women literally want to rip my clothes off. They can't help it. Why? I'm ooze masculinity from my brontoness and my beautiful bronto personality. You know it's true.
Well, I've never had anyone able to explain what makes something more masculine than anything else. Perhaps you might want to tell that so I can learn from your wisdom. (Now that's what I call an obscure reference.)
Traits that arise from the presence of testosterone, and traits that are simply common to men in a given society, are both examples of what makes a thing masculine.
Perhaps, if the society was ancient Sparta. But liberal America? .... No.
Liberalism is a direct defiance of biology. It tells men to not be men and for us to supress our natural survival instincts towards threats.(example: Islam).
Well, that's just one of the places from where his definition seems to fall apart.
I don't think that they argue that every Muslim should be allowed in. Though I wouldn't trust too much anyone who seems to worship a book that promotes violence, because their current intentions then mean little. But considering that they've been forced to since a long time, because the countries are very intolerant, there is a high probability that you won't have radical Muslims at the end - perhaps even secular atheists.
My reasoning has two parts, one biological and one social. What you are describing is the social aspect, but you should not forget the underlying biological causes of a society's common traits. The social expression derived from biological causes will vary from culture to culture. So masculinity will not look identical from one culture to another.
One culture may value masculine dignity while another values masculine honor. The outward expression of masculinity will then be very different, though both derive from a desire to be, or appear to be, strong in the face of an opponent.
So you can know masculinity by what is common to men in a given culture, or by the source of a given behavior, ie the presence of testosterone.
But if a culture were neutral to being strong against opponents, or too peace loving that it were actually discouraged, what would you describe as masculine?
Imagine a culture where females are encouraged to be dominant. How would you explain this masculinity to an adult male of the culture?
Now, imagine a person who has always been isolated from any human contact. Say, a male. Since he is the only male he has ever known, wouldn't he be unconditionally masculine?
Is something that only males might do masculine if it is done by a minority of males?
But if a culture were neutral to being strong against opponents, or too peace loving that it were actually discouraged, what would you describe as masculine?
Peaceful cultures are usually Dignity cultures which I mentioned before. There are always opponents, but in this case the opponent is the self. Self-control for the value of peace, in the face of adversity, is honorable, often courageous, and masculine. The most peaceful culture that comes readily to mine, Tibet, was a patriarchal society.
Imagine a culture where females are encouraged to be dominant. How would you explain this masculinity to an adult male of the culture?
Can you give me a non-imaginary example?
Now, imagine a person who has always been isolated from any human contact. Say, a male. Since he is the only male he has ever known, wouldn't he be unconditionally masculine?
Actual cases of people who grew up isolated from human contact cannot be said to act like a man or a woman. Their behavior is not similar to that of a human. We are social animals. They usually don't walk upright and cannot speak. Without acculturation or people to interact with, the masculine features of a feral man would be those caused by testosterone, ie facial hair, a strong jaw line, broad shoulders, or a large adams apple.
I believe there are... I remember reading about some... but I'm not willing to search for it.
If there are none, my point is re-enforced.
How is that not using your cultural ideals out of their context?
I said that people isolated from human contact cannot be said to act like a man or woman because they act more like animals than humans. We have areas of our brain dedicated to processes that require social interaction. When an isolated person is introduced to humanity, they never learn how to speak. They never learn how to walk upright. We have been social since before we were human, and our brains evolved with social requirements. I am not forcing my cultural ideal, I am saying they don't have any culture. They don't have any socialization. They are lacking in fundamental human qualities and would be considered to have significant disabilities among people.
A point which doesn't matter. Unless you have a real measure for it, which I'd like to see (a photo or something)
Well, it doesn't matter for me at least. I'm not the one who can't understand masculinity. Would you also like a measure and a picture of health? Would that help your diet?
So, without other males to mimic, there can be no concept of masculinity?
Nice job dropping all context. Humans need socialization to be fully functioning humans (though that's not always sufficient as you constantly remind me). Without socialization, we wouldn't have brains enough to contain concepts. But even without concepts we would still have strong jaw lines and increased aggression.
Well, it doesn't matter for me at least. I'm not the one who can't understand masculinity. Would you also like a measure and a picture of health? Would that help your diet?
The only scenario in which complaining against thought experiments makes sense is if you have a concrete scale which doesn't measure them.
But even without concepts we would still have strong jaw lines and increased aggression.
So they would be masculine?
Without socialization, we wouldn't have brains enough to contain concepts.
I don't see how.
Nice job dropping all context.
I wonder how copying the full paragraph would have made any difference.
The only scenario in which complaining against thought experiments makes sense is if you have a concrete scale which doesn't measure them
I have no scale for masculinity. The frustration comes with your implication that it is a subject where measurement is applicable. Measurement is as applicable to masculinity as it is to health. Regardless my explanation of masculinity, having stood on its own merits and without substantial challenge from you, you have begun to bring in other distracting things to be wrong about.
So they would be masculine?
They would have the biological expressions of testosterone. Which meets one part of my two part explanation. But sense they would hardly qualify as people, they would hardly qualify as men.
I don't see how
I know you don't. Language is the starting point of conceptualization. Words are the fundamental concepts upon which more complex concepts are built. Without words, an animal cannot get past the basic persceptual experience. And language is a social phenomenon. It must be taught. This without socialization there is no language and there is no concept. No concept of anything, let alone masculinity.
I wonder how copying the full paragraph would have made any difference
It would have made the nature of your question apparent and perhaps saved me the repetition of re-explaining.
I have no scale for masculinity. The frustration comes with your implication that it is a subject where measurement is applicable. Measurement is as applicable to masculinity as it is to health. Regardless my explanation of masculinity, having stood on its own merits and without substantial challenge from you, you have begun to bring in other distracting things to be wrong about.
So, I ask again, if females were taught to be dominant in a tribe, how would your concept of masculinity apply?
I know you don't. Language is the starting point of conceptualization. Words are the fundamental concepts upon which more complex concepts are built. Without words, an animal cannot get past the basic persceptual experience. And language is a social phenomenon. It must be taught. This without socialization there is no language and there is no concept. No concept of anything, let alone masculinity.
Nope. Language is just about expressing and communicating things. What you believe would translate to that one can never hope to understand something not in his vocabulary.
They would have the biological expressions of testosterone. Which meets one part of my two part explanation. But sense they would hardly qualify as people, they would hardly qualify as men.
So someone who has a lot of testosterone AND is social is the embodiment of masculinity? And one is only as masculine as he resembles him?
if females were taught to be dominant in a tribe, how would your concept of masculinity apply?
If up were down, how would your concept of gravity apply? Proposing a thought experiment that is not relevant to reality does not discount the reality of things. Give me an actual example, then we can talk. But until then, I would say the biology precludes your example.
Nope. Language is just about expressing and communicating things. What you believe would translate to that one can never hope to understand something not in his vocabulary
I should never have started down a path I knew you to be incapable of following. Language is not merely communication. It is an important aspect of cognition. If we do not learn language by a certain point in our cognitive development, we will never learn language. We cannot conceptualize much beyond what can be taught a dog. You can say "nope" but that amounts to an expression of ignorance on your part. If a person learns language, then they can conceptualize (including concepts not in their vocabulary). But a person who never learns language, subsequently never can, and no concept beyond the perceptual is ever open to them. This isn't a philosophical proposition, it's a fact of humanity.
So someone who has a lot of testosterone AND is social is the embodiment of masculinity? And one is only as masculine as he resembles him?
Not "a lot", as that would be abnormal. All else being equal, A person who has a "bell curve normal" amount of testosterone for a man, will tend toward behavior common to that hormone as modified through the culture of ones upbringing. That person would be masculine in nature and physical appearance.
There is no more an embodiment of masculinity than there is an embodiment of health.
I'm not sure I can make it more simple than this. If you have a legitimate challenge, please present it. If you have more questions, please read a book. Or I may need to start charging.
If up were down, how would your concept of gravity apply? Proposing a thought experiment that is not relevant to reality does not discount the reality of things. Give me an actual example, then we can talk. But until then, I would say the biology precludes your example.
So, being female AND dominant is an inherently contradictory concept? Or is it being male AND not dominant?
All else being equal, A person who has a "bell curve normal" amount of testosterone for a man, will tend toward behavior common to that hormone as modified through the culture of ones upbringing.
A bell curve? You mean someone with any higher level of testosterone is only as masculine as the level lower by same amount to the normal one?
This isn't a philosophical proposition, it's a fact of humanity.
Yet you couldn't reply to the full argument. Not in your vocabulary? And your reply, thus, as I expected, is no different from the simple "nope" you pretended to hate.
Yes, you can't learn grammar beyond an age. You solved the spin of Meno's Paradox that I could have asked, at best. (Not really, though - you haven't.)
Your questions usually apply to a narrow or willfully ignorant interpretation of my previous statements. As such you ask questions that are either previously explained or irrelevant. That's why I won't suffer them any longer but rather refer you to relevant books.
Yet you couldn't reply to the full argument. Not in your vocabulary? And your reply, thus, as I expected, is no different from the simple "nope" you pretended to hate
Your argument, that language is simply about expressing and communicating, is factually inaccurate. I stated as much and then explained why. There would be no issue with your "nope" if you were correct, but your not. That's why it simply expresses your ignorance on the matter. Which is nothing to hate, it's just what it is. What I dislike is that you stated that no one has been able to explain masculinity to you, but you failed to say the reason why. Which is that you refuse to understand. Your ignorance is willful.
Meno's Paradox isn't really relevant here. But I'm not surprised you would try to apply it. It is, again, indicative of your ignorance of the matter.
That's why I won't suffer them any longer but rather refer you to relevant books.
Guess what? I see no references here. Even bronto was more skilled in providing references.
I stated as much and then explained why.
An explanation which couldn't resolve a little contradiction. But with this,
Meno's Paradox isn't really relevant here. But I'm not surprised you would try to apply it. It is, again, indicative of your ignorance of the matter.
I'm not surprised. I would have been, perhaps, if your inability wasn't so explicitly obvious, though even then probably not.
Which is that you refuse to understand. Your ignorance is willful.
Once again, your "Ignorance is wilful when disagreeing with me!" without the ability to address basic questions.
Whatever, I don't want to debate psycholinguistics with you right now, because you can't do that. Yes, that's a word you can never hope to learn because you didn't know it as a kid.
The other part remained unanswered. Really, it was just two choices, which were even mutually inclusive. Perhaps quote yourself where you already answered which of those is correct? I doubt you can.
The only reference required in this entire thread was when you came up with a theoretical culture to counter my explanation. This culture would not exist if the biological aspect of my explanation were accurate. Showing that it exists would be the only legitimate counter argument you came close to presenting, but then you declined. Everything else was a series of questions, not clarifying in nature, but irrelevant.
I expect your argument style is in the form of simple questions (usually of an uncomprehending nature), because the moment you begin to present multiple sentences, you become incoherent. This is because you are referencing things in your head without referencing them in text. I do not know if this is because of your lack of command of the English language or because of you lack of intelligence. Either way, it is inferior.
It's ironic to display bravado while asserting firmly that you cannot understand masculinity.
I've seen kids with Down's Syndrome celebrate when they loose at tic tac toe. This isn't dissimilar.
One of my interests is personality psychology - and I can say that the gender differences are not too high or low, but just enough to be mainly cultural. In today's time, that is - it's a continuation from old times when the biological differences mattered a lot, before civilisation was so widely present (and that, in turn, had evolutionary reasons).
The major part of the post is only a bookmark-ish thing. Intending it for you would have been a waste; I know that. You can reply to such content, but that needed at all.
The paragraphs which refer to you, on the other hand, especially non-rhetorical questions, and the arguments are a different matter. They are, of course, intended for you.
In case you were wondering, this is the thread you were pretending to quote me from in an unrelated debate. You can refresh you memory on this thread and create a debate if you disagree with what I have said here about language, conception, and perception. I hope you do, because I might get an actual position out of you rather than a "nope" mixed with faux sophistication.
What have we learned? If you are going to quote someone, make sure they actually said it. If you are going to cite something brainy (Meno's Paradox) make sure it applies to the topic at hand.
I know you don't. Language is the starting point of conceptualization. Words are the fundamental concepts upon which more complex concepts are built. Without words, an animal cannot get past the basic persceptual experience. And language is a social phenomenon. It must be taught. This without socialization there is no language and there is no concept. No concept of anything,
I believe you can understand what you have said by yourself.
If you are going to cite something brainy (Meno's Paradox) make sure it applies to the topic at hand.
(Meno's Paradox)
Oh really? How so?
Next lesson?
That you should understand more properly what you are saying, else it's just boring. We aren't in Ancient India where I might have incentives to win an argument. So I'm here just for reasonable discussions.
I hope you do
Nope, it isn't something I'd make a debate on. You can perhaps challenge me to one, but your position is already too hopeless for that.
I believe you can understand what you have said by yourself.
I do, but this has never been the problem. What I haven’t said is that those without a language do not exist or that language somehow unbinds the soul. Those are two direct quotes of your misunderstanding.
Oh really? How so?
I know this question is meant as a challenge for me to explain my statement. But if I were like you, I would pretend this question, rather than a rhetorical challenge, is indicative of an ignorance or inability on your part. It’s a cheap tactic that I don’t think anyone actually believes. But for now I'll say that if you understand the topic you are discussing, you shouldn't have too much trouble finding relevant things to cite.
That you should understand more properly what you are saying, else it's just boring.
Everyone gets bored sometimes. But stupid people often feign boredom when they don’t understand.
We aren't in Ancient India where I might have incentives to win an argument.
That explains why you never do.
I'm here just for reasonable discussions.
Reasonable discussion might normally entail reasoned support of one’s own statements. You rarely do that.
it isn't something I'd make a debate on
That makes sense. You don’t understand what I have said. If you did understand, you still couldn’t articulate a position concerning it. My hope that you might create a debate was that you might actually say something of substance.
Your method is apparent. You don’t take firm positions on anything (except that you are certain of your uncertainty). You misunderstand what you read, frame it as something it isn’t, and then attack the straw man. When challenged on you method, you pretend your opponent is stupid. Then, in the hope to appear smart, you present an academic snippet hoping that it will be relevant.
but your position is already too hopeless for that
A fine example of what I have just illustrated. You don’t understand. But you are incapable of taking position (a product of infinite doubt I suppose). So you pretend like the thing you are confused about is the others confusion. You will insult me in the same way that I insult you, but the difference is that I explain exactly I think you’re an idiot. If this goes on long enough, you may drop the name of someone smart as though it makes you smart
that those without a language do not exist or that language somehow unbinds the soul. Those are two direct quotes of your misunderstanding.
They're the logical conclusion to your statements, after adding to it that earlier debate, and I referenced both of them there. Seems like you should read that for a while.
But if I were like you, I would pretend this question, rather than a rhetorical challenge, is indicative of an ignorance or inability on your part.
Your pretense to be like me is not holding together, for you lack enough insight to reason. I'd recommend you don't try.
Everyone gets bored sometimes. But stupid people often feign boredom when they don’t understand.
Perhaps... I doubt it'd matter much.
That explains why you never do.
Yup, when the opponent is as irrational as you.
except that you are certain of your uncertainty
With such an absurd claim, all you've said near it seems to be more applicable to you.
You will insult me in the same way that I insult you, but the difference is that I explain exactly I think you’re an idiot. If this goes on long enough, you may drop the name of someone smart as though it makes you smart
There's a difference because I don't care about insulting. You just make it necessary sometimes.
Language is the starting point of conceptualization. Words are the fundamental concepts upon which more complex concepts are built. Without words, an animal cannot get past the basic persceptual experience. And language is a social phenomenon. It must be taught. This without socialization there is no language and there is no concept. No concept of anything,
Experience accounts for 100% of the certainty/doubt in question. Anything outside of this parameter does not exist.
(from which) If you can't be certain that you exist, then you don't exist.
Tell me if you would need more intermediate steps. Or better yet, you can read all you've said by yourself unabridged.
(from which) If you can't be certain that you exist, then you don't exist.
Herein lies your confusion. If you read that second quote in context, you will see that I am discussing the nature of certainty. That you experience certainty and uncertainty. That uncertainty is an experience. A 100% experience. This does not logically lead to the erroneous conclusion that if you can’t be certain you exist, then you don’t. Rather, it leads to the conclusion that claiming uncertainty that you exist is irrational, since uncertainty is itself evidence of existence.
I hope the above elucidation is sufficient to remove your confusion of my position and put this matter to rest.
Herein lies your confusion. If you read that second quote in context, you will see that I am discussing the nature of certainty. That you experience certainty and uncertainty. That uncertainty is an experience. A 100% experience. This does not logically lead to the erroneous conclusion that if you can’t be certain you exist, then you don’t. Rather, it leads to the conclusion that claiming uncertainty that you exist is irrational, since uncertainty is itself evidence of existence.
Then what about your existence itself? I didn't find any direct claims about it, and reconstructing such things from fragments is only important in theology, because you can't simply ask for a complete premise there. So, what are your similar views about it?
What I've found as the answer amounts to, "If you don't think in qualia, then you don't exist." Since thoughts and experiences are concepts, and you claim the qualia of concepts to be formed of language, anyone who doesn't know language doesn't exist.
Your addition of perception as a seperate type of thought would have been decisive to ensure an easy win, but you gave away by saying that even though concepts are a higher stage than perception, language does not unbind the soul in any way.
Then what about your existence itself? I didn't find any direct claims about it
In the relevant debate from long ago, I claimed that I am certain that I exist because I have experiences. That the existence of ones experience, once had (or while having), cannot be doubted. That which is impossible to doubt must be certain. If I never made a statement about my existence, it is this, that I am certain that I exist.
What I've found as the answer amounts to, "If you don't think in qualia, then you don't exist."
This is a simple fallacy of denying the antecedent. It is true that if you experience, then you exist. But it you cannot derive from that statement that if you do not experience, then you do not exist. I don’t have reason to believe that rocks experience, but they do exist.
Since thoughts and experiences are concepts, and you claim the qualia of concepts to be formed of language, anyone who doesn't know language doesn't exist
Experience is not necessarily a concept, though to have a concept is to experience it. We do use language to conceptualize, but this does not imply that experiencing life in a non-linguistic or non-conceptual way (such as a worm perhaps) eliminates you from the realm of existence. You are applying the same logical fallacy.
but you gave away by saying that even though concepts are a higher stage than perception, language does not unbind the soul in any way.
Go ahead and quote where I talk about a soul at all. That was something you came up with.
Perceptions are the raw information of our senses. They provide basic singular information. Concepts are more complex organizations of information.
Your supposition of my contradiction is based on a logical fallacy in your own interpretation, rather than on the substance of my position.
don’t have reason to believe that rocks experience, but they do exist.
So not only the "I", you have no idea what to mean by "exist" either. Great.
Then what about your existence itself?
I wonder why I wrote it that way. Even with an example and all, it isn't framed well enough. It's supposed to be without the "your". I probably shortened it from "your notions of", something that I see hasn't gone too well here.
Experience is not necessarily a concept,
Every qualia of experience is necessarily a concept that attaches to your self and makes you feel it.
You are applying the same logical fallacy.
Even for my having overestimated your claims, it isn't that bad a guess. Yes, the same reply goes here too.
Go ahead and quote where I talk about a soul at all. That was something you came up with.
Perceptions are the raw information of our senses. They provide basic singular information. Concepts are more complex organizations of information.
Your supposition of my contradiction is based on a logical fallacy in your own interpretation, rather than on the substance of my position.
You didn't have to repeat yourself in such simultaneous discussions.
Every qualia of experience is necessarily a concept that attaches to your self and makes you feel it.
You would likely be better at this if you didn't attack others positions based on your fallacious interpretations. But it would also help if you knew what a concept was.
Conceptualization is complex thought. Basic perception is the simplest of thought. Whatever a worm perceives in its simple experience, it does not conceptualize. Concept creation doesn't occur in simple creatures, even though they presumedly experience. They have perception.
You're mistaking basic reaction stimuli for the ability to experience things.
Also, thinking about it, you might be doing the distinction between active and unconscious thinking rather than complex and simple conceptualisation, in which case the disagreement is imaginary. Or perhaps you have a better way to refer to the missing layer?
You're mistaking basic reaction stimuli for the ability to experience things
If I had referenced a Venus fly trap this may have been a plausible objection. But worms have brains and a nervous system. If nature has consistency, then similar biological attributes should produce similar outcomes. To mistake animal sensation for automoton stimuli response was a mistake of Descartes. Just sayin.
Perceptual thought is not necessarily unconscious, though it is automatic. When something harms you, you don't typically think about whether to feel the pain. Nonetheless, pain occurs in the brain just as any other thought does.
Symbolic reasoning, catagorising, labeling. These are all facets of conceptualization, and requirements for language.
You can consciously notice the thoughts, but they're still unconscious.
When something harms you, you don't typically think about whether to feel the pain.
Yes, pain is one of the strongest of them, so you generally notice it unless there are perception problems.
Symbolic reasoning, catagorising, labeling. These are all facets of conceptualization, and requirements for language.
For the conscious brain, the one you feel yourself to be. Thoughts can occur without language or images, but they can't be monitored as well as those with it.
So, you can never hope to be aware of unconscious thoughts?
Once you become aware of them, they are not unconscious.
That no matter what you do, they lie outside your existence?
Outside your awareness. They impact your experience and your existence indirectly. You aren't aware of sub-conscious thoughts because they are in the background. It's like when you have a problem, and you stop thinking about it, but then you wake up in the middle of the night with the solution. You were thinking about the problem the whole time, but you didn't experience those thoughts.
Impulses are monitored of images
What does this mean.
Feelings are mental states rather than thoughts or perceptions
Feelings are created in the brain in exactly the same way as thoughts. From the outside looking in (FMRI), feelings and thoughts are identical (the difference is in the experience of them).
It isn't merely a hardcore linguistic determinism
Not at all. I don't believe that "Si", "Oui", or "Da" are fundamentally different from "Yes" in how they effect our worldview. When I refer to language, I don't mean a particular language. I mean language as such.
From the outside looking in (FMRI), feelings and thoughts are identical (the difference is in the experience of them).
That's unlikely... Feelings are in the limbic brain, and thoughts are in the cerebral cortex.
Once you become aware of them, they are not unconscious.
Their nature is still unconscious, for they don't depend on you being aware of them, for they're deeper than what you can consciously affect.
What does this mean.
You know, like conscious thoughts are monitored of words.
Not at all. I don't believe that "Si", "Oui", or "Da" are fundamentally different from "Yes" in how they effect our worldview. When I refer to language, I don't mean a particular language. I mean language as such.
So you mean that somehow what your worldview is built of won't affect your worldview?
They impact your experience and your existence indirectly. You aren't aware of sub-conscious thoughts because they are in the background. It's like when you have a problem, and you stop thinking about it, but then you wake up in the middle of the night with the solution. You were thinking about the problem the whole time, but you didn't experience those thoughts.
Yes, that's right, the conscious monitor is not always needed for you to think things. Therefore, language doesn't lie at the core of things.
That's unlikely... Feelings are in the limbic brain, and thoughts are in the cerebral cortex.
Less than unlikely, it is the fact of the matter. Though different areas of the brain are dedicated to various functions, a neuronal firing for emotion looks the same as a neuronal firing for thought. This isn't to say they are actually the same, only apparently so, materialistically speaking.
Their nature is still unconscious, for they don't depend on you being aware of them, for they're deeper than what you can consciously affect
This is a semantic difference. You cannot be conscious of unconscious thoughts any more than you can enjoy sunlight at night. Once the sun is out, it isn't night. Once you are conscious of a thought, it isn't unconscious, regardless of the control you have over them. I determinist should think you have no control over any of your thoughts anyway.
So you mean that somehow what your worldview is built of won't affect your worldview?
Your worldview is built of concepts, these are expressed in your language. The utterance or symbol one uses to express a given concept will affect their outlook only superficially, not fundamentally. Thus, a person can have any possible language and still have any given worldview. If there is a concept that doesn’t exist in a given language, people simply create a word for it. If a concept has no corollary in your language, it may indicate that you haven’t given the concept any previous thought, it does not mean you are incapable.
Yes, that's right, the conscious monitor is not always needed for you to think things. Therefore, language doesn't lie at the core of things.
Language expresses concepts and enables conceptualization. Higher level math could not be arrived at without symbolic representation of numbers and functions. Once a mathematician has categorized the various mathematical concepts with mathematical language, his brain can now work out problems that it couldn’t before, in the background as well as in the foreground (conscious and unconscious). Prior to having the symbolic understanding of math, his subconscious was no more equipped to solve problems than was his conscious mind.
Imagine taking a billion grains of sand and putting them into a box. The sand represents percepts and the box represents concepts. We cannot hope to count the billion grains of sand, let alone add it to or multiply it with another billion. But by categorizing the innumerable percepts of the world into manageable concepts (represented and enabled by language) we attain higher level cognition. Without the box (label, category, word), we would not be able to function much beyond the perceptual. We would be stuck with only the simplest of concepts; those that can fit into a perceptual experience. Another way to understand language is as "symbolic reasoning". It doesn’t lie at the core of all cognition, but it does lie at the core of higher level cognition.
a neuronal firing for emotion looks the same as a neuronal firing for thought. This isn't to say they are actually the same, only apparently so, materialistically speaking.
All processes in the brain occur by neural firing. Materialistically, when you seperate the firing itself from all the other things, you aren't left with sufficient details to say whether two things seem to be the same. It's easier to just use whichever form (materialism or not) is convenient for the purpose and translate it whenever needed. I'd still need a source for that claim, though.
I determinist should think you have no control over any of your thoughts anyway.
You can control your thoughts using conditioning. And thoughts aren't too random and chaotic anyway. That's a problem for hardcore dualist determinists, anyway - a materialist would understand that whether determined or not, your control is still your control. Probably even an immaterialist would understand that.
If a concept has no corollary in your language, it may indicate that you haven’t given the concept any previous thought, it does not mean you are incapable.
So you've understood that you aren't limited in vocabulary to what you've learned as a kid?
Higher level math could not be arrived at without symbolic representation of numbers and functions.
It could be, but without the universal forms, it would have been rather meaningless. Just under specific cases, people could use pretty complicated concepts without seeing how they can apply elsewhere unless prompted for it.
So yes, the conscious monitoring isn't too redundant.
You cannot be conscious of unconscious thoughts any more than you can enjoy sunlight at night.
It really isn't. Unconscious thoughts are those which you can't think by willing to do so, such as pain. They still come under the conscious monitor, and if they're in a code that it understands, you can be aware about them. (Subconscious problem-solving, for example, isn't.) That's images, sensations/feelings, sounds or words, in the descending order of average strength to gain attention, though thoughts are generally combinations.
a materialist would understand that whether determined or not, your control is still your control
This sounds like a compatibilist position.
So you've understood that you aren't limited in vocabulary to what you've learned as a kid?
I’ve never implied that learning a given language limits you in your capacities for other languages. I said that not learning language at all hinders one’s ability to later learn language at all. That part of the brain where language occurs needs to be utilized and conditioned within a certain span of time, or else it can hardly develop at all. If it has been developed, if language has been learned, then new language can be learned.
I said that higher level math could not be arrived at without symbolic representation of numbers and functions, to which you responded:
It could be, but without the universal forms, it would have been rather meaningless. Just under specific cases, people could use pretty complicated concepts without seeing how they can apply elsewhere unless prompted for it.
There is no reason to believe that higher level math could develop without the fundamental language having first been established, not only because it would be meaningless, but because many, if not most, higher math concepts arose as a result of working with the language of fundamental math.
Unconscious thoughts are those which you can't think by willing to do so, such as pain. They still come under the conscious monitor, and if they're in a code that it understands, you can be aware about them. (Subconscious problem-solving, for example, isn't.) That's images, sensations/feelings, sounds or words, in the descending order of average strength to gain attention, though thoughts are generally combinations
This is a semantical difference. I distinguish conscious/unconscious differently than voluntary/involuntary. You have put them together.
This is a semantical difference. I distinguish conscious/unconscious differently than voluntary/involuntary. You have put them together.
It's actually "subconscious" rather than "unconscious", a distinction that arises when looking closely but fades from afar. Subconscious is all involuntary thoughts, when conscious is all understandable+voluntary ones. Unconscious are the nonunderstandable thoughts to the conscious monitor, such as internal bodily processes.
This sounds like a compatibilist position.
As a materialist, you can't attribute your control to things from which you are isolated. An immaterialist and a duelist can do that, for you have completely different criteria for the "self" that can effectively separate it from its material causes and effects.
I said that not learning language at all hinders one’s ability to later learn language at all. That part of the brain where language occurs needs to be utilized and conditioned within a certain span of time, or else it can hardly develop at all.
It seems contradictory. First, you say that it's hindered. Then you say that it can hardly develop at all. Earlier, you had used only the latter claim.
There is no reason to believe that higher level math could develop without the fundamental language having first been established, not only because it would be meaningless, but because many, if not most, higher math concepts arose as a result of working with the language of fundamental math.
It's unlikely, and, of course, wouldn't be the conceptual branch as I said, but merely consisting of particulars. It's still possible, though, but without language and learning, it will generally be pretty primitive.
Though the parts of advanced pure maths which are not pragmatic enough to notice even for particulars will stay unnoticed.
It's actually "subconscious" rather than "unconscious", a distinction that arises when looking closely but fades from afar. Subconscious is all involuntary thoughts, when conscious is all understandable+voluntary ones. Unconscious are the nonunderstandable thoughts to the conscious monitor, such as internal bodily processes.
This is still a semantical difference. I prefer to parse things into finer points. In a subject that will only get more complex, it is worth while to differentiate the conscious, the voluntary, the unconscious/sub-conscious (often interchangeable), and the involuntary. Thus you can have conscious involuntary thoughts or processes which are different from unconscious involuntary thoughts or processes. Blinking versus digesting.
As a materialist, you can't attribute your control to things from which you are isolated
What is an example of something you are not isolated from? If we live in a causal world, how can you be said to control anything at all (isolated or not)? How can you say you control rather than causes control?
It seems contradictory. First, you say that it's hindered. Then you say that it can hardly develop at all. Earlier, you had used only the latter claim.
It’s not contradictory. If development is severely hindered, then development will hardly happen at all.
It's unlikely, and, of course, wouldn't be the conceptual branch as I said, but merely consisting of particulars. It's still possible, though, but without language and learning, it will generally be pretty primitive.
You believe it is possible. Since there is no reason to, I don’t believe so. Higher level mathematics cannot be primitive.
Though the parts of advanced pure maths which are not pragmatic enough to notice even for particulars will stay unnoticed
Unnoticed, undiscovered, unknown, unknowable. Without language, much of math is not pragmatic.
Red States prefer conservative men. So that's pretty much every rural state between the coasts. Meanwhile the Blue States, including the coasts and all the most famous large US cities of worldwide fame, prefer liberal men. That's what the populations and votes show you.
So basically, do you want to score in Peoria or do you want to score in NYC? Trump, despite you fools thinking he is your champion, not only lives totally in the Blue zones but also bags his women from those zones. He goes international to get lucky, not to Tulsa or Bismark.
Oh, and by your argument, women all over the world must be longing for Putin, and for every dictator you ever heard of.
Not really. How people vote means nothing in terms of who they are attracted to, nor which group is better at picking up pletheras of women, even in blue states.
And besides, we are talking about the new generation of "white culture" liberals, not foreigners trapped in liberal plantation politics in order to survive.
Population is the ultimate confirmation. There are more non-conservatives than conservatives, period. Unless there's just a handful of conservatives out knocking up all the non-conservative women.
Who said that women weren’t fantasizing about Putin? Can you prove otherwise, and how do you know how females feel sexually about the Russian Umpa Lumpa?
"Meanwhile the Blue States, including the coasts and all the most famous large US cities of worldwide fame, prefer liberal men. That's what the populations and votes show you."
Didn't show to well in the last Presidential election did it Progressive LMMFAO !
Just today, Trump signed an executive order that will make conservative men far less "preferable" to women. Like many conservative posts this one is based on Faux news and imagination stimulated by the right's brainwashing that convinces them that THEY are the "super race" that Hitler was once looking for!
Here in Canada most Cons are 50+ old farts, and the younger ones are high school fringe graduates who moved to Alberta to support their cocaine habits because minimum wage won't cut it. I've lived here for almost 30 years and I can say that being conservative is a turn off to both men and women.
They're seen as trailer trash, nothing more.
tl;dr: Cons are attractive to old people and uneducated coke addicts
Why is cocaine such a problem there in Canada ? Younger ones from high school fringe graduates moved to Canada for the cocaine they can use ? Why won't minimum wage cut it the Canada ?
I said no such thing. I stated that a large number of conservative fringe graduates have such bad grades that their only hope to continue their cocaine habits is to work on an oil rig.
Cocaine is in no way, shape, or form an issue in Canada, except in the Conservative LaLa Land that is Alberta. Please ask questions that have some sort of foundation rather than putting words into my mouth.
You Progressives can't keep up with your own madness but here is what the Unhinged Progressive said and i quote -"the younger ones are high school fringe graduates who moved to Alberta to support their cocaine habits because minimum wage won't cut it."
Cocaine is in no way, shape, or form an issue in Canada so the Progressive says but doesn't quite add up to your above statement LMMFAO ! You Progressives are crazy !
Do you have any ability to gather info from a sentence? Any normal person would take that sentence as "Young conservatives like cocaine".
I said Young Conservatives, not Canadians.
Now unless you have an actual argument to present or if you've come to the realization that you're a nonsensical rube and would like to apologize, please go away.
Here is what the Progressive said -"the younger ones are high school fringe graduates who moved to Alberta to support their cocaine habits because minimum wage won't cut it."
But then the Progressive says Canada doesn't have a cocaine problem LMMFAO !
I love how most of the responses are written by accounts owned by people who identify as men.
I prefer my men smart and geeky.Yeah I guess they tend to be tall and thin ( wimpy I suppose , in your standards) but hey isn't geeky the new sexy ;) ?
Women are attracted to power. And for now, those who gaining power are engineers and scientists: geeky and wimpy.
The only reason women would choose conservative men is for the money in their bank accounts. There is nothing conventionally attractive about playing polo or fox hunting.
Or because they actually act like men, rather than like flimsy, weak little ass clowns who will never be successful because they are too weak and stupid.
