How many hard determinists do we have here?

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.



No

Free will legit

Pre determined, no, rather pre destined

God knows what we will do but we can still choose
Anti Capitalism
Anti Individualism
Anti Ego-centrism
Anti Consumerism
Anti Nationalism

Interests: Nutrition & Health, Islam, Fashion, Economics

Hates: Hypocrites & liars
PostThis post by sephon was deleted by puanewb on Sun May 31, 2015 8:46 am.
Reason: Requested by sephon



It's hard to know.

Whether determinism is true or not has huge implications.

I'm generally on the side that quantum physics invalidate determinism in our universe, but even then doesn't necessarily mean "free will" exists.

First you have to define what free will means.
Life is written in bone.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:It's hard to know.

Whether determinism is true or not has huge implications.

I'm generally on the side that quantum physics invalidate determinism in our universe, but even then doesn't necessarily mean "free will" exists.

First you have to define what free will means.


lol @ believing jewish physics :lol:
Image
Image
[img/]http://i58.tinypic.com/5uhenn.jpg[/img]

RodgerRabbit wrote:Trying to fix yourself is literally a race against the clock. It's a catch 22. By the time you've fixed all the flaws that prevented you from slaying, you will have lost the one thing most essential to slaying in the first place -- youth.
NewGenious119 wrote:This idea that nobody owes anyone anything completely goes against the entire point of even having a society in the first place. If society doesn't owe an individual person anything, then the individual owes society nothing either, so don't be surprised when they take their frustration out on the world.

There is absolutely NO GOOD reason why, in the 21st century, every person shouldn't have their basic needs met. That means food, shelter, clothing, and transportation for all and, yes, if you are a male, sexual access to attractive females as that is considered a basic need for men as well.
Leebyunghun wrote:The number one source of strife in human existence is the inequality of looks among the male species.
germanDream wrote:a woman would fuck a cute dog or horse over an average faced man ANY day of the week. its not even close. women are repulsed by non male model men
PuaKiller wrote:Most women couldn't last a month as an incel male. They'd suicide. Prostitution would be legal worldwide and virgin shaming would cease if women were put in the shoes of an incel male for even a month. They couldn't handle it.
firehaze wrote:If a girl has never made it obvious that she likes you then you're a lot more subhuman than you think.



http://twitter.com/incelvoice

#NoHymenNoDiamond

Anti-Degeneracy crew

https://www.reddit.com/r/Truecels/

OmegaKV wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:It's hard to know.

Whether determinism is true or not has huge implications.

I'm generally on the side that quantum physics invalidate determinism in our universe, but even then doesn't necessarily mean "free will" exists.

First you have to define what free will means.


lol @ believing jewish physics :lol:


just lol at believing science has a race.

Also, Einstein, most famous Jew scientist could wrap his head around quantum physics.



hard determinist right here
Two or three surgeries away from being Ja Rule gang.

Image
Image

SupportLocalSluts wrote:hard determinist right here


How do you believe in hard determinism given Bell's Inequality?

Image

you realize shit like this is completely random?

Hard to believe, but it's true. I grapple with this all the time. We know very little about existence, the universe, and how they fit with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:hard determinist right here


How do you believe in hard determinism given Bell's Inequality?

Image

you realize shit like this is completely random?

Hard to believe, but it's true. I grapple with this all the time. We know very little about existence, the universe, and how they fit with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


I don't see what The Strokes have to do with any of this.

DiamondInTheRough wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
How do you believe in hard determinism given Bell's Inequality?

Image

you realize shit like this is completely random?

Hard to believe, but it's true. I grapple with this all the time. We know very little about existence, the universe, and how they fit with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


I don't see what The Strokes have to do with any of this.


lol, it's an image of a particle collision.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:hard determinist right here


How do you believe in hard determinism given Bell's Inequality?

Image

you realize shit like this is completely random?

Hard to believe, but it's true. I grapple with this all the time. We know very little about existence, the universe, and how they fit with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


I'm familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but not Bell's Inequality. I realize that science has a lot of difficulty with phenomena like Qualia (the subjective experience of what it's like to be something; e.g., what it's like to be a bat); however, I'm not so sure the type of information involved in qualia is necessarily relevant to science?

Whether choice is an illusion or not, we can't escape that our mind perceives real choices and that a proper society must hold people accountable for those choices. Exceptions go to the mentally ill.

butthurt_manlet wrote:Whether choice is an illusion or not, we can't escape that our mind perceives real choices and that a proper society must hold people accountable for those choices. Exceptions go to the mentally ill.


agreed

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
How do you believe in hard determinism given Bell's Inequality?

Image

you realize shit like this is completely random?

Hard to believe, but it's true. I grapple with this all the time. We know very little about existence, the universe, and how they fit with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.


I'm familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but not Bell's Inequality. I realize that science has a lot of difficulty with phenomena like Qualia (the subjective experience of what it's like to be something; e.g., what it's like to be a bat); however, I'm not so sure the type of information involved in qualia is necessarily relevant to science?


Interesting that you bring up qualia, because I was just thinking of that. Yes, science does have problems with qualia, especially if you take a pure empiricist approach. This is why although I reject philosophers like Descartes, I see that they could be right about some things.

My own belief is that the computations of the mind happen in physical reality along the lines of neural networks. But somehow when we experience qualia, we are experiencing other Platonic "universes". Somehow the mind is able to access these universes, probably through the use of quantum physics. Scientists like Roger Penrose are looking to this. It just seems impossible that you could build up Qualia from superposition of signals. The fact that I can see colors leads me to believe that Platonism is valid. Thus, I believe it's possible to merge these vastly different philosophies.

For most science, these topics don't matter. Depends on what level of abstraction you want to conduct science in.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
I'm familiar with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but not Bell's Inequality. I realize that science has a lot of difficulty with phenomena like Qualia (the subjective experience of what it's like to be something; e.g., what it's like to be a bat); however, I'm not so sure the type of information involved in qualia is necessarily relevant to science?


Interesting that you bring up qualia, because I was just thinking of that. Yes, science does have problems with qualia, especially if you take a pure empiricist approach. This is why although I reject philosophers like Descartes, I see that they could be right about some things.

My own belief is that the computations of the mind happen in physical reality along the lines of neural networks. But somehow when we experience qualia, we are experiencing other Platonic "universes". Somehow the mind is able to access these universes, probably through the use of quantum physics. Scientists like Roger Penrose are looking to this. It just seems impossible that you could build up Qualia from superposition of signals. The fact that I can see colors leads me to believe that Platonism is valid. Thus, I believe it's possible to merge these vastly different philosophies.

For most science, these topics don't matter. Depends on what level of abstraction you want to conduct science in.




I'm not well-versed with Penrose, but doesn't he have that quantum theory of consciousness? I've never been interested in that level of cognitive science. It's too abstract, haha.

I've rejected Descartes, too. Dualism of any kind makes no sense. You can't have immaterial things affecting material things.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
Interesting that you bring up qualia, because I was just thinking of that. Yes, science does have problems with qualia, especially if you take a pure empiricist approach. This is why although I reject philosophers like Descartes, I see that they could be right about some things.

My own belief is that the computations of the mind happen in physical reality along the lines of neural networks. But somehow when we experience qualia, we are experiencing other Platonic "universes". Somehow the mind is able to access these universes, probably through the use of quantum physics. Scientists like Roger Penrose are looking to this. It just seems impossible that you could build up Qualia from superposition of signals. The fact that I can see colors leads me to believe that Platonism is valid. Thus, I believe it's possible to merge these vastly different philosophies.

For most science, these topics don't matter. Depends on what level of abstraction you want to conduct science in.




I'm not well-versed with Penrose, but doesn't he have that quantum theory of consciousness? I've never been interested in that level of cognitive science. It's too abstract, haha.

I've rejected Descartes, too. Dualism of any kind makes no sense. You can't have immaterial things affecting material things.


lol sorry if I'm being confusing. I confuse myself a lot. It's like I have two sets of beliefs that are pretty much irreconcilable. Ultimately a lot of these things may be unprovable. I also believe that it's a disservice that we take a lot of old philosophers seriously when they couldn't have known the things we know about now, such as Godel Incompleteness theorem and quantum physics.

At the end of the day though, the things I can be sure about is that a lot of religious people are completely wrong that they say their God can be complete and consistent. At least we are closer to the truth than most people, even if we are confused. As long as you are willing to consider different options, I think you are headed in the right direction.

Have you ever heard of Temark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis? I need to read his book, but sometimes I feel like I should spend my youth trying to get laid and to save this philosophical stuff for when I'm older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... hypothesis

Anyway, about Penrose - I think he's wrong that consciousness could not arise from algorithms. Yet, on the other hand, I don't think qualia could be generated purely from algorithms. So I think the the microtubules that Penrose talks about are actually making us experience qualia rather than giving us consciousness. We now know that plants and animals sometimes exploit quantum phenomena, so it could be possible that it happens in our brain as well.

Hopefully, at least some of these problems will be resolved soon. But even then I have doubts. It could be possible that every time we learn more, the universe fights back by becoming more sophisticated. I've heard of a SF book called "Permutation City" that discusses this. It's a thought I've had before.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:Anyway, about Penrose - I think he's wrong that consciousness could not arise from algorithms. Yet, on the other hand, I don't think qualia could be generated purely from algorithms. So I think the the microtubules that Penrose talks about are actually making us experience qualia rather than giving us consciousness. We now know that plants and animals sometimes exploit quantum phenomena, so it could be possible that it happens in our brain as well.

Hopefully, at least some of these problems will be resolved soon. But even then I have doubts. It could be possible that every time we learn more, the universe fights back by becoming more sophisticated. I've heard of a SF book called "Permutation City" that discusses this. It's a thought I've had before.


These problems are not going to be solved any time soon. One objection to microtubule theory I've heard is that microtubles are much, much larger than the scale that quantum mechanics operates on.

I don't see how qualia could be generated purely from algorithms, either. There's some school of philosophy that lines up nicely with my perspective, I just can't remember the name of it.

A lot of these problems like qualia are partially a result of how reductionistic neuroscience currently is.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:Anyway, about Penrose - I think he's wrong that consciousness could not arise from algorithms. Yet, on the other hand, I don't think qualia could be generated purely from algorithms. So I think the the microtubules that Penrose talks about are actually making us experience qualia rather than giving us consciousness. We now know that plants and animals sometimes exploit quantum phenomena, so it could be possible that it happens in our brain as well.

Hopefully, at least some of these problems will be resolved soon. But even then I have doubts. It could be possible that every time we learn more, the universe fights back by becoming more sophisticated. I've heard of a SF book called "Permutation City" that discusses this. It's a thought I've had before.


These problems are not going to be solved any time soon. One objection to microtubule theory I've heard is that microtubles are much, much larger than the scale that quantum mechanics operates on.

I don't see how qualia could be generated purely from algorithms, either. There's some school of philosophy that lines up nicely with my perspective, I just can't remember the name of it.

A lot of these problems like qualia are partially a result of how reductionistic neuroscience currently is.


Yes, I am aware of the criticisms of the microtubule theory. I don't have any answers tbh.

Dem, you are fuckin legit bro. :lol:

I'm glad there is a new appreciation for qualia in Cognitive Psychology though. We are getting there. See how far we've come since the days of the Behaviorists.

There's a difference in trying to figure out what is useful and what is actually true, and this is where different scientific theories clash.

"Everything simple is false. Everything which is complex is unusable."

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
These problems are not going to be solved any time soon. One objection to microtubule theory I've heard is that microtubles are much, much larger than the scale that quantum mechanics operates on.

I don't see how qualia could be generated purely from algorithms, either. There's some school of philosophy that lines up nicely with my perspective, I just can't remember the name of it.

A lot of these problems like qualia are partially a result of how reductionistic neuroscience currently is.


Yes, I am aware of the criticisms of the microtubule theory. I don't have any answers tbh.

Dem, you are fuckin legit bro. :lol:

I'm glad there is a new appreciation for qualia in Cognitive Psychology though. We are getting there. See how far we've come since the days of the Behaviorists.

There's a difference in trying to figure out what is useful and what is actually true, and this is where different scientific theories clash.

"Everything simple is false. Everything which is complex is unusable."


They didn't give me a bachelor's degree in cognitive science for nothing :lol:.

Behaviorism is extremely useful in a practical, clinical sense. IMO, some cognitive psychology experiments are methodologically behaviorist. In fact, connectionism (i.e., neural networks) has been criticized as being neo-behaviorist given that the hidden layers of the network are basically treated as a black box and can only be understood in terms of non-linear dynamics. Those networks are "trained" using what amounts to a behaviorist paradigm that involves hundreds of consecutive trials, feedback (almost analogous to reinforcement or punishment), and then adjustment of connection weights.

I think the field has come very far since in some areas since Skinner ruled the world; however, they threw the baby out with the bathwater in their offense to behaviorism. Concepts like reinforcement, punishment, matching law, the discriminative stimulus, and functional analysis have proven to be extremely clinically useful in the past 30 years. Furthermore, the Chomsky-era cognitive scientists didn't end up coming up with anything productive and have been left in the dust by connectionism (which is something they theoretically disagree with), which actually provides a real theory of learning that lines up quite nicely with behaviorism.

Qualia is a pain in the ass for reductionistic cognitive science and is probably this irreducible, emergent state.
Last edited by SupportLocalSluts on Sun May 03, 2015 10:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.

This is why philosophy is a pathetic venture.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Same sort of stylistic argument this brings. Nobody has the slightest clue if free will exists, but it sure as hell feels that way. It is very easy to make your own decisions in life. People who claim that it was determined you would make that choice seem like the people who love to debate about religion. Those edgy atheist autists.

This is not a subject anyone with a fulfilling life would discuss. Free will seems to exist, and there is nothing worthwhile to prove otherwise.

WhiteManWalkin wrote:This is why philosophy is a pathetic venture.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Same sort of stylistic argument this brings. Nobody has the slightest clue if free will exists, but it sure as hell feels that way. It is very easy to make your own decisions in life. People who claim that it was determined you would make that choice seem like the people who love to debate about religion. Those edgy atheist autists.

This is not a subject anyone with a fulfilling life would discuss. Free will seems to exist, and there is nothing worthwhile to prove otherwise.


yeah, there are lot more interesting things to think about, imo. a scientific account of everyday behavior is a million times more interesting and useful. the research in cognitive science involving computer models of language processing is also much more interesting and useful.
Last edited by SupportLocalSluts on Sun May 03, 2015 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the criticisms of the microtubule theory. I don't have any answers tbh.

Dem, you are fuckin legit bro. :lol:

I'm glad there is a new appreciation for qualia in Cognitive Psychology though. We are getting there. See how far we've come since the days of the Behaviorists.

There's a difference in trying to figure out what is useful and what is actually true, and this is where different scientific theories clash.

"Everything simple is false. Everything which is complex is unusable."


They didn't give me a bachelor's degree in cognitive science for nothing :lol:.

Behaviorism is extremely useful in a practical, clinical sense. IMO, some cognitive psychology experiments are methodologically behaviorist. In fact, connectionism (i.e., neural networks) has been criticized as being neo-behaviorist given that the hidden layers of the network are basically treated as a black box and can only be understood in terms of non-linear dynamics. Those networks are "trained" using what amounts to a behaviorist paradigm that involves hundreds of consecutive trials, feedback (almost analogous to reinforcement or punishment), and then adjustment of connection weights.

I think the field has come very since Skinner ruled the world; however, they threw the baby out with the bathwater in their offense to behaviorism. Furthermore, the Chomsky-era cognitive scientists didn't end up coming up with anything productive and have been left in the dust by connectionism (which is something they theoretically disagree with).


Haha, sorry I can't keep up with you about the psychology stuff as much. I only took one Cog Psych course, but I learned a lot from it. Is Cog Psych the same as cognitive science? It seems like in my class we talked more about scientific evidence and mechanisms of the brain. I don't know a lot about Chomsky, but from what I've seen, I don't like him, lol.

I'm a Computer Engineer and I've done NN programs before. It's kind of weird to me how people would criticize connectionism as a neo-behaviolism, but I guess it kind of makes sense. Like what else do you expect? :lol: :lol:

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
They didn't give me a bachelor's degree in cognitive science for nothing :lol:.

Behaviorism is extremely useful in a practical, clinical sense. IMO, some cognitive psychology experiments are methodologically behaviorist. In fact, connectionism (i.e., neural networks) has been criticized as being neo-behaviorist given that the hidden layers of the network are basically treated as a black box and can only be understood in terms of non-linear dynamics. Those networks are "trained" using what amounts to a behaviorist paradigm that involves hundreds of consecutive trials, feedback (almost analogous to reinforcement or punishment), and then adjustment of connection weights.

I think the field has come very since Skinner ruled the world; however, they threw the baby out with the bathwater in their offense to behaviorism. Furthermore, the Chomsky-era cognitive scientists didn't end up coming up with anything productive and have been left in the dust by connectionism (which is something they theoretically disagree with).


Haha, sorry I can't keep up with you about the psychology stuff as much. I only took one Cog Psych course, but I learned a lot from it. Is Cog Psych the same as cognitive science? It seems like in my class we talked more about scientific evidence and mechanisms of the brain. I don't know a lot about Chomsky, but from what I've seen, I don't like him, lol.

I'm a Computer Engineer and I've done NN programs before. It's kind of weird to me how people would criticize connectionism as a neo-behaviolism, but I guess it kind of makes sense. Like what else do you expect? :lol: :lol:


Yeah, the Chomskyan's made that criticism. They're the same goons that tore down experimental behaviorism back in the 1950s. People needed to start researching cognition and language processing, though, and real behaviorists balk at that inquiry.

Cognitive psychology, imo, is basically the bedrock foundation of cognitive science. It creates all the problems for cog sci to give a computational account of. People say cog sci is this interdisciplinary field, but it's really just cognitive psychology with computer models that are sometimes biologically plausible (although often nowhere near plausible). There are some less mainstream cognitive scientists who might disagree with me on that one, but that's what I saw where I went to university.

That's pretty cool that you took cog psych as an engineer. There's some serious problems in cognitive psychology (particularly in the natural language processing and visual perception areas) that are probably relevant to engineering on some level. It's a neat field.

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
Haha, sorry I can't keep up with you about the psychology stuff as much. I only took one Cog Psych course, but I learned a lot from it. Is Cog Psych the same as cognitive science? It seems like in my class we talked more about scientific evidence and mechanisms of the brain. I don't know a lot about Chomsky, but from what I've seen, I don't like him, lol.

I'm a Computer Engineer and I've done NN programs before. It's kind of weird to me how people would criticize connectionism as a neo-behaviolism, but I guess it kind of makes sense. Like what else do you expect? :lol: :lol:


Yeah, the Chomskyan's made that criticism. They're the same goons that tore down experimental behaviorism back in the 1950s. People needed to start researching cognition and language processing, though, and real behaviorists balk at that inquiry.

Cognitive psychology, imo, is basically the bedrock foundation of cognitive science. It creates all the problems for cog sci to give a computational account of. People say cog sci is this interdisciplinary field, but it's really just cognitive psychology with computer models that are sometimes biologically plausible (although often nowhere near plausible). There are some less mainstream cognitive scientists who might disagree with me on that one, but that's what I saw where I went to university.

That's pretty cool that you took cog psych as an engineer. There's some serious problems in cognitive psychology (particularly in the natural language processing and visual perception areas) that are probably relevant to engineering on some level. It's a neat field.


Ah, you've reminded me of the concept of superdeterminism. I haven't thought about it in a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

I guess this would be what you are, no?

I admit that superdeterminism is the other possibility compared to what I described. Even Bell himself thought superdeterminism was possibly legit. Both ways are pretty much impossible to prove though. It would suck if we lived in a superdeterministc universe, but it would make sense why my life sucks so bad (jk).
Last edited by ThereIsNoGame on Sun May 03, 2015 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dude, :( you are actually convincing me now.

I remember I used to be a superdeterminist actually. When I had a psyhotic episode a few years back, I think I changed my beliefs.

I don't know what to think anymore. :(

ThereIsNoGame wrote:
SupportLocalSluts wrote:
Yeah, the Chomskyan's made that criticism. They're the same goons that tore down experimental behaviorism back in the 1950s. People needed to start researching cognition and language processing, though, and real behaviorists balk at that inquiry.

Cognitive psychology, imo, is basically the bedrock foundation of cognitive science. It creates all the problems for cog sci to give a computational account of. People say cog sci is this interdisciplinary field, but it's really just cognitive psychology with computer models that are sometimes biologically plausible (although often nowhere near plausible). There are some less mainstream cognitive scientists who might disagree with me on that one, but that's what I saw where I went to university.

That's pretty cool that you took cog psych as an engineer. There's some serious problems in cognitive psychology (particularly in the natural language processing and visual perception areas) that are probably relevant to engineering on some level. It's a neat field.


Ah, you've reminded me of the concept of superdeterminism. I haven't thought about it in a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

I guess this would be what you are, no?

I admit that superdeterminism is the other possibility compared to what I described. Even Belle himself thought superdeterminism was possibly legit. Both ways are pretty much impossible to prove though. It would suck if we lived in a superdeterministc universe, but it would make sense why my life sucks so bad (jk).


Jesus, what a mind fuck. That wasn't it, but thanks for sharing. Have you read Penrose? Could you recommend anything? I got so far into the language processing and connectionist side of things that I never really thought about his theories.

I think I'm basically an eliminative physicalist (i.e., mental states are irrelevant; only physical/biological accounts matter). Although I don't think Penrose is, right?

SupportLocalSluts wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:
Ah, you've reminded me of the concept of superdeterminism. I haven't thought about it in a long time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

I guess this would be what you are, no?

I admit that superdeterminism is the other possibility compared to what I described. Even Belle himself thought superdeterminism was possibly legit. Both ways are pretty much impossible to prove though. It would suck if we lived in a superdeterministc universe, but it would make sense why my life sucks so bad (jk).


Jesus, what a mind fuck. That wasn't it, but thanks for sharing. Have you read Penrose? Could you recommend anything? I got so far into the language processing and connectionist side of things that I never really thought about his theories.

I think I'm basically an eliminative physicalist (i.e., mental states are irrelevant; only physical/biological accounts matter). Although I don't think Penrose is, right?


No, I haven't read any books, just glanced over papers and talks. I'm not super serious about studying this philosophy stuff. You might get some kind of enlightenment, but it wont lead to better quality of life. Better to stick with the practical.

I don't know the answer to your question.

I looked at the wiki for "Eliminative materialism". Seems legit and I essentially already held it as a belief. I think it could even explain why it's so hard to argue with people about certain things.

"Eliminativists argue that, based on these and other criteria, commonsense "folk" psychology has failed and will eventually need to be replaced with explanations derived from the neurosciences."


Explains why the personality theorists on here are so dumb. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Eliminativism maintains that the common-sense understanding of the mind is mistaken, and that the neurosciences will one day reveal that the mental states that are talked about in everyday discourse, using words such as "intend", "believe", "desire", and "love", do not refer to anything real. Because of the inadequacy of natural languages, people mistakenly think that they have such beliefs and desires.[1]


LEGIT AF

Again, I'd say this is true up to a certain point. Once you get to discussing Qualia and Nature of Existence, you need a grander theory (duh). But just for describing how our mind generally function, I'd say that Eliminative Physicalism is legit.

mad respect to you, though we differ on a couple of things.
Next

Topic Tags

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dysfunctionalreject, Google [Bot] and 83 guests