Posts by Rebecca Cox2

Butterfly Night said:That’s exactly where I was heading when I started this thread.

If that's the case—and it absolutely is—then why isn't abortion prosecuted with the same weight as murder? Because it effectively IS!

Are our laws ultimately just a massive exercise in hypocrisy?

Think about it: why isn't male masturbation treated as a homicide? Or why isn't killing another mammal judged as murder (if we want to take this even further)? Isn't this just a form of speciesism that we might soon rightfully condemn, much like racism, sexism, or nationalism?

As Adobe pointed out, legal hypocrisy is inevitable, and as the Atlantic noted, debating "when life begins" is a fundamentally pointless endeavor...😉

ropeclimber said:Hmm... have you ever looked into Putnam's counterargument?

I have. And honestly, this is just a re-interpretation of that exact point. I agree with him—it’s frankly pointless to dwell on it because there is simply no way to "step outside" our own universe to verify the data we receive (or think we receive). Still, it serves as a fascinating mental exercise for those who insist that reality can only be one specific way. It’s actually quite startling to see how much effort some people put into denying even a theoretical "The Matrix" scenario; you'd think even highly educated folks would be able to wrap their heads around it, yet some just can't...

In fact, you can find a brief summary of this on Wikipedia here. You can also find more info regarding the "brain in a vat" theory on Wikipedia right here😎 (I assume I don't need to translate that part).

I posted this over on the Religion board, but I ended up having to walk my "wild scientist wife" through the exact same argument after she started giving me these totally dogmatic answers to some philosophical and epistemological questions.

I felt like this leaned more toward philosophy. Perhaps some actual philosophers would want to dive into this, offer their own commentary, or maybe provide a much stronger argument for accepting "reality" than my simple shrug of "we can't escape it anyway, so why bother?"

My hidden motive? It’s probably just so I always have a link to this thread ready to go whenever someone tries to call me a "scientific dogmatist" or something along those lines.

I haven't seen any posts from r0nin yet. Is there something specific you'd like me to address? kaže:
Can someone provide a mathematical proof that consciousness actually exists? I want more than just theory—I want you to measure it. Give me a specific numerical value and map out exactly where consciousness is located on a spatial diagram... right this second.

Without any actual evidence, what you’re laying out here is nothing more than pure speculation. Isn't it just guesswork at this point? 😉

I mean, something is definitely there. 😉

Why bother drowning in complex math and graphs that don't even apply here, when you could just use pure logic?

Let me expand on that a bit: Nothing. There isn’t any concrete evidence to suggest that... What’s up? It’s entirely possible—everything we experience could just be a simulation, something straight out of The Matrix. My "brain"—and I put that in quotes because we can't even be certain if what we call a brain actually exists in the way we think—might simply be receiving sensory inputs that my... Consciousness. It’s one of those big, heavy concepts that we all experience every single second, yet most of us can't even begin to define it. What actually is it? Is it just a byproduct of neural firing in the brain, or is there something deeper at play? I find myself wondering if we're truly perceiving reality, or if we're just interpreting a very limited version of it. Is consciousness the driver, or merely a passenger? Whether we call it a program, the mind, or the soul—whatever it may be—we tend to interpret this as "the real world," even though that might not be the case at all. Is it possible that everything I perceive is simply my own imagination? It’s a valid question. Everything, absolutely everything. What exactly am I experiencing? It feels like I’m tapping into other "consciousnesses"—different minds that I believe I'm communicating with—and they all seem to be sharing this same illusion with me. But here’s where things get complicated...

Since these illusions are constant—and since there’s really no way out of them unless I decide to "terminate" my own consciousness—I simply treat them as a permanent fixture of my reality. Something real. (Since I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what a "true" reality might actually look like). In other words, if there is no way for me to break free from this universe, dimension, simulation, or whatever this headspace is, then isn't it only logical that I start acting as if this is all there is? Reality? How can one even begin to function within that? Reality? Based on the data currently available—assuming this upcoming "information" doesn't introduce any contradictions—everything remains consistent. This holds true for me and for those other minds I might still only be imagining. After all, they represent constant truths, much like the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, or evolution.

What happens when I run into a contradiction? Or better yet, what's my plan for when new information comes my way that completely challenges what I thought I knew? Is it steady enough? Should I start treating them as if they were actually real? The evidence. If I can’t find any other way to explain something besides calling it "divine intervention"—regardless of which deity we're talking about—then I’ll have to look at it, accept it as new data, and label it as reality. But there's a catch: for me to truly accept it, that force has to be as constant and predictable as gravity.

Since I’m fully aware of my own mental limitations, I can just tuck them away in a drawer. It lets me speak plainly, without all those constant "ifs," "buts," or the constant need to add disclaimers and asterisks. There's really no point in trying to shatter the illusion anyway. The real question is: are you aware of the boundaries within your own mind and consciousness? Or, if you happen to be just another facet of my own psyche—has that part become self-aware yet?

"Reality is nothing more than a very consistent illusion." — Albert Einstein

And that’s exactly why I can. It’s only logical. One could argue that consciousness exists—if nothing else, there is this singular awareness that I am a part of, the very thing through which I perceive my own existence.

This was just a little exercise in solipsism—and a study in how pointless such things can actually be. Reinstalling. Why ask a question like that when you've already provided an answer? Or at least, until some new information comes along to contradict everything we thought we knew. Once you can get past that hurdle, then maybe we can actually have a real conversation about the nature of consciousness—the kind of consciousness we believe surrounds us—and its overall consistency.

And if that still doesn't cut it, please just go ahead and kick the bucket 🙂 so you can haunt me as a ghost to prove there's actually some other dimension out there—though, since it would really just be another part of my own consciousness, I don't think I'll have much of a conscience about it. 😁

analogwolf63 said:Fear?

Disgust?

A sense of inferiority?

Or just a tactic to fish for compliments via reverse psychology?

Imbalance?

Anxiety?

Moral decay?

Immaturity?

Sadness?

It boils down to insecurity and low self-esteem, just like someone else pointed out earlier.

Personally, I tend to steer clear of people like that, and if I'm being honest, I don't know anyone who actually enjoys having them around...

I honestly believe it’s just baked into our DNA—that specific rhythm, the howling, the smashing of glasses. And of course, if it’s considered "cool" (which, let's be honest, is great for making older rock fans lose their minds!), and everyone else is listening to it? Well, where could you go wrong?

Then there's the fact that not knowing foreign languages makes the lyrics feel simpler and easier to connect with, which is a total win. Though, can't music stir up deep emotions even without words, or when you don't understand a single syllable of Portuguese or French?

Right now, I'm planning to dive into some Madonna (even if my elementary school French is limited to about three words), and then I might spice things up with some Rammstein (I never studied German, but I've looked up the translations online because their lyrics are actually incredible)

As for the pop trash and low-brow radio hits, I'll leave those to the people who actually enjoy them...

ANUŠKA said:I watched an interview tonight with that girl who was held captive for eight years by that psycho, and I honestly couldn't believe how confident, rational, and composed she appeared. I expected to see someone broken and terrified, but instead, there she was, just holding her own. I was genuinely fascinated. As for the kidnapper? I'd love to give him a piece of my mind. What do you all think?

I didn't have the energy to slog through all six pages of comments, so maybe someone has already pointed this out...

Look, if you were just glancing at the interview while multitasking, you probably saw a self-assured, intelligent young woman who was simply waiting for her moment to escape.

But if you actually watched closely—really watched—you would have seen the body language of a traumatized and deeply frightened girl. She likely only managed to pull herself together enough for the interview with significant help from a psychiatrist (and even then, it’s questionable, given how many "cuts" there are in the footage). They probably told her this was the best way to process the trauma, convincing her she’s back in control and that she remained "herself" the entire time she was captive. To be fair, that’s somewhat true—both the captor and his victim become prisoners of the same system—but that is essentially the only hand psychiatrists can play after eight years of trauma...

I am relieved she escaped, and that’s a "happy beginning," but a "happy ending" is a long way off, if it even exists at all...

Stay strong, Natascha!👍

Hmmmm. Low voter turnout. You can't exactly force that kind of engagement on anyone.

Maybe it’ll change when the next massive blockbuster comes out with those long intermissions, and someone gets just as worked up as I am... 😉

robybaggio said:I personally love action movies that clock in at around 90 minutes—real action doesn't insult the audience's intelligence or need three hours to get the job done—and sci-fi films up to about 120 minutes. Nowadays, it feels like decent action is a dying breed (when are we finally getting more stuff like *Snakes on a Plane*?), and quality sci-fi is becoming increasingly rare, mostly being replaced by animated junk like *Lord of the Rings*. In this kind of climate, an intermission is always a welcome addition to any movie.

Look, I don't mind a 300-minute epic if the story actually earns it, though I'm just as certain that almost anything could be tightened up into a solid 150 minutes. If they have that much material to work with, why not just split it into two 90-minute films? That would have worked perfectly for *Lord of the Rings*, where they could have easily produced six 120-minute installments instead.

Ultimately, it’s a matter of principle. I wish AMC would at least give us the option to choose whether a screening includes an intermission or not, similar to how they handle the choice between subtitled and dubbed animated features...

Until they catch up, I’ll be heading over to Broadway (especially since they finally started offering free parking in their garage, just like AMC did). As far as AMC is concerned, they won't be seeing me for quite some time.

nimblemarlin17 said:Given the kind of movies being made and released in theaters these days, what kind of "movie feeling" are we even talking about?

It's about the experience of watching any movie, really. Personally, I love a good blockbuster with heavy special effects—provided there's actually a decent story behind them—and those are the ones I usually head to the theater for. Anything else, I'll just grab on Blu-ray...

nimblemarlin17 said:An intermission is nice if you need to run to the restroom or catch up for a bit with whoever you're sitting with.

You’re a total maniac! And you can't even hold it! 😁

Who even talks during a movie? I my girlfriend am practically a stranger to her while the film is playing! 😬

Her: "Wait, why did he just do that?"
Me: "Shh! Quiet down, please..."

It’s really just an attempt to dodge a much deeper ache—women like that would find being alone far more painful.

And let's not overlook the fact that some people actually find pleasure in pain. We can call them masochists or whatever else we want, but they definitely exist.

I’m dead serious. A few years back, they pulled the exact same stunt with The Matrix Reloaded at the AMC Theatres and X-Men 2 as well. I was just as livid back then...

It seems like Broadway is the only honest movie theater left—they played The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and King Kong without any interruptions...

I practically flew into the Pirate theater to catch Caribbean when I was warned that this nearly two-hour-and-forty-minute movie includes a fifteen-minute intermission. Between that and those damn fifteen minutes of commercials, you’re looking at over three hours of sitting there.

In my opinion, this is completely unacceptable behavior from AMC Theatres and the distributors (whoever is calling the shots here). Even if they argue the film is "for kids" and needs a break—well, why not just schedule an earlier screening with an intermission specifically for families? Or better yet, offer a later showing without one for the serious cinephiles?

The way I see it, this is pure greed. It's all about squeezing more money out of snack sales and milking people for parking fees—after three hours, you've definitely had to pay up, haven't you?

Nice, nice... A few solid points here.

Alright, let me clarify a few things...

It’s obvious that these aren't the ultimate or absolute reasons why people behave the way they do, and there are certainly much deeper explanations out there (starting with evolutionary natural selection, for instance).

But humans don't actually function that way—nor do any other creatures capable of complex thought. People base their actions on immediate, tangible motivations. It’s only very recently (in geological terms) that we’ve developed enough brain capacity to even sit around and debate the deeper stuff.

Every rationalization is essentially just the brain hunting for a deeper justification for an action (not necessarily the *final* one, but certainly not the first). However, the primary and immediate cause (which might be several layers deep) of all human behavior still boils down to one of those two drivers—and that’s without stretching the definitions of pleasure and pain to such an absurd degree that everything becomes its own opposite)

As always (once I start typing, I realize...), I should have been more precise when setting the stage. But here is the question again: is there anything at all humans do that cannot be explained by one of those two motives?

I recently stumbled upon a pretty radical concept that I actually find quite appealing because of how simple it is: the notion that every single human action is driven by one of two things:

a) escaping pain

b) seeking pleasure

Obviously, an idea like this essentially (if not literally) dismantles the last century of psychology and psychoanalysis. Naturally, anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo will push back against it. But let’s look at this hypothetically—is there truly anything people do that cannot be explained by one of those two motives?

coppernomad59 said:😬 Evolution just doesn't exist. If it did, why hasn't a single bird evolved into an intelligent, speaking creature over millions of years? Why haven't humans grown wings or developed hooves? That’s what evolutionary theory would actually require us to see, isn't it? The same logic applies to social evolution. Despite our massive industrial leaps and rising standards of living, we still live under essentially feudal conditions where the sheer power of money dictates everything. We haven't actually progressed toward some utopian, humane society where everyone is truly equal. Even today, certain tribes live in deep jungles, fully aware that we are in the 21st century and have even walked on the moon. Look at our history: in the 20th century alone, we endured two World Wars back-to-back, fought for all the obvious reasons, and now we're surrounded by endless local conflicts. Where exactly is this "social evolution" everyone talks about? How are ancient barbarian hordes really any different from modern neo-Nazis, cultists, or guerilla fighters?

Is there any way to actually convince you that evolution through natural selection is an established fact? Or that violence—rather than some concept of sin—is simply hardwired into the human species? I mean, wouldn't we have failed to survive otherwise?

Honestly, has anyone actually read a single book other than the Bible?

I honestly can't wrap my head around this level of willful ignorance toward reality and the blatant distortion of evolutionary theory. At this point, the only logical response is to simply ignore posts like this—which is exactly what I plan to do moving forward. 👎

mistyfox812 said:Rebecca Cox2, I find it genuinely strange that you’re attempting to define our modern needs by looking back at what people required ten thousand years ago—especially when we actually know so much less about them than we do about ourselves today. Doesn't it feel like there's a tendency here to push the actual issue into some vague, foggy territory just so we can claim "there's no problem"?

Quite the opposite. I am actually trying to convince you that it exists. What truly drives us? When you strip away the noise of daily life, what are those fundamental, universal human needs that actually move the needle?Are there certain truths that remain just as present today among the vast majority of people—not everyone, of course, since there’s always that outlier edge on the bell curve—as they were 10,000, 100,000, or even a million years ago?

Some of these needs have already been validated by psychologists, neurologists, and biologists—the scientific community at large has largely caught up. Yet, there is still such fierce resistance to accepting these "controversial findings." Why is that? It seems to stem from three distinct camps: politicians and social theorists who cling to the dogma of the "tabula rasa," religious enclaves and certain philosophers who remain wedded to the idea of the "ghost in the machine," and the critics of civilization who romanticize the "noble savage." I'll admit, I used to fall right into that last group myself.

mistyfox812 said:When we look at the distinction between biological needs and social ones, how do we interpret a sentiment like this? "I want her and only her! No one else—without her, life isn't worth living. I need her!" Is this an expression of a primal, biological drive, or is it rooted in deep-seated social and emotional requirements? Where exactly does that line get drawn?
Nature? Or society?

It’s either one or the other, or perhaps neither. Would "that person" actually take their own life if something were to happen to "her" by accident? Or would they simply drift through life out of pure habit, lacking the will to ever seek out someone else? And if that’s how they choose to live, isn't it true that no one will bother looking for them? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Would "that person" just settle for whatever they feel they need to get by, or would they wait until someone truly compatible finally comes along?

It most likely boils down to a mix of genetic and biological predispositions—think intelligence, temperament, whether you're an introvert or an extrovert—blended with environmental factors like social conditioning and life experience. Am I oversimplifying things there? Or am I just stating the obvious?🤣 🤔

mistyfox812 said:From where I stand, there’s no debating the absolute essentials: air, then water, followed by food and sleep. Isn't that the fundamental truth of it all?
Anything else isn't exactly "necessary." Honestly, if that’s all you have, life just becomes a slow crawl toward nothingness. It makes you wonder: where is the actual humanity in a life lived like that?

That’s an excellent observation. It’s highly likely that a small, select group of people finds that way of life sufficient. But we have to ask ourselves: how much does that lifestyle actually reflect our nature as Americans? In other words, What truly defines the humanity within a human life?

mistyfox812 said:Look, I truly believe poetry is a primal human necessity, just as fundamental as sex. 🙂Who can argue with that?

Poetry is really just a subset of a more basic drive: the urge to express our thoughts, emotions, and observations through a unique lens. At its core, it's all just a way of documenting our experiences and how we interact with the world around us.

Whether you channel that energy into poetry, music, scientific papers, philosophical treatises, or even just keeping a journal or writing a novel—that’s ultimately a matter of personal choice. But all of these are simply branches of the same tree: the brain's innate need to keep itself occupied with meaningful activity. It's a leftover trait from when we had to become "creative visionaries" just to survive (which explains why our brains are constantly hunting for new "problems" to solve today).

Ashley Ramirez41 said:

😕 Natural and sexual selection. 😕 😕

Could you elaborate on that? I'd love to hear more about what you mean.

I’m simply describing what people are today: nearly hairless, upright beings with large heads and brains. We are creatures that utilize tools, possessing an imagination capable of conjuring entire other dimensions—whether those realms actually exist or not. We have developed complex linguistic structures to weave stories, and we possess enough intelligence to extract meaningful lessons from them. Most importantly, we have a cognitive framework that allows for some form of "free will"—be it illusory, limited, or absolute. Should we even get into a debate about that? Regardless, this is what we are. At least the last 100,000 to 150,000 years.And honestly, isn't it entirely possible that people possessing some—or even most—of those traits existed long, long before? I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of years ago.

So, if we take an extremely conservative estimate regarding the specific traits that actually define us as Homo sapiens... Natural selection at work. If we look at the "bottleneck" theory—where over 90% of our Homo species perished due to climate shifts following the last Ice Age, a fact backed up by the genetic markers found in Americans today—then what does that actually imply? Social structure. How should we actually organize ourselves? Is there anything truly different from a tribal system? Just 10% of our time. How long have we actually been this way?

Does this mean our brain—one of the most vital organs for our survival—is also fundamentally "wired" to function within a social framework? It seems we are shaped by the very dynamics of our relationships: the total number of people we interact with, gender, offspring count, the number of enemies outside our circle, and even the number of rivals competing for partners and progeny within our own group. Isn't it fascinating how much our biology relies on these social metrics?

In other words, our psychological state and how we interact with those around us—our social footprint—is essentially our phenotype. It’s all subject to the same evolutionary forces and pressures driven by natural selection. After all, isn't sexual selection merely a specific subset of that broader process?

Does this mean our brains simply aren't wired to handle the massive societal shifts you’re talking about? We are witnessing several fundamental transformations within a single generation right now—how can we possibly keep up?

So, what's the bottom line? Needs. What truly drives us today? If you strip away the noise, aren't our core needs exactly the same as they were 100, 1,000, or even 100,000 years ago? It seems to me that while we've spent the last 10,000 years obsessing over "civilizational needs"—all those complexities born from the dawn of agriculture—our fundamental essence hasn't shifted an inch. Why do we act like we're so different from our ancestors?

Clean. Biological needs. The basic biological necessities that lead to death if they are suddenly removed—air, water, food, and occasionally shelter depending on the environment—aren't really up for debate. They aren't exactly deep philosophical puzzles, are they? Unless you start pairing them with something more abstract, like the need for freedom, these requirements are just plain, obvious facts of life. That is, unless you happen to encounter someone who can survive solely on sunlight.

They seem much more engaging and far more rewarding to debate, don't you think? What truly drives us? It’s more than just physical survival; it’s about those deep-seated psychological needs that keep us grounded. We often overlook how much our mental well-being depends on feeling understood, valued, and connected to the world around us. Without meeting these core emotional requirements, can we ever truly feel fulfilled? What about those things you call "social needs"? I’m talking about the essentials—things like seeking validation from a mother, earning respect from your peers, or even the fundamental drives for freedom, security, fairness, and perhaps faith. Isn't that the core of it?

To have a productive debate without descending into total misunderstanding—which, judging by the attached, is exactly what would happen—we first need to agree on some fundamental premises. It’s like trying to discuss the mechanisms of evolution only to have a creationist jump in claiming there’s no evidence for it at all. Isn't that just a complete waste of everyone's time? I've learned that lesson more than a few times.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:

Evolution is a natural process. You might be able to talk about "social evolution," but that hardly has anything to do with actual evolution.

But aren't societies that survived through natural selection also naturally created?

"Social evolution" is just as much a natural process as "biological evolution." Beyond that—this very evolution directly impacts the survival odds of biological organisms within that society. The fact that it operates on a faster timescale is pretty irrelevant, not to mention the next point—that...

...those two processes cannot be compared—let alone equated.

- that's pure arbitrary taxonomy; an arbitrary distinction that would—in a biological analogy—claim a whale is a fish rather than a mammal simply because it lacks legs and swims in the ocean.

Have I clarified my point a bit better?

And can we agree that evolution (both biological and social) continues to act upon us—shaping our brains and our behavior—due to new conditions and evolutionary pressures created by environmental changes (regardless of how those changes came about)? What I mean is that the evolutionary process didn't just stop at some specific moment or era; it is still happening right now.

Alright, let's approach this from this angle then...

First off, can we all agree that we, as the species known as "Homo sapiens sapiens," emerged through an evolutionary process driven by natural selection, sexual selection, and potentially other types of selection currently being studied?

(Even if there’s plenty of pushback from crowds who struggle to accept facts that clash with their own deeply held beliefs)

Once we establish that, we can move forward...

I’d argue that any instance where secondary needs take precedence over primary ones is essentially an anomaly—a distortion caused by extreme circumstances.

Besides, it's quite rare for an entire group—say, everyone held in a single federal penitentiary—to go on a hunger strike due to inhumane conditions.

My suggestion? Let’s first "crystallize" what constitutes the fundamental primary needs of all human beings, and then compare those to what people actually prioritize today.

For example, under the category of "other essential needs," I would include something I find vital: the need for maternal love and peer acceptance, regardless of how old you are.

I’m well aware that most of what we crave in today's consumerist culture is manufactured. But for the vast majority of people, that doesn't change a thing—people act on needs they believe are genuine (after all, reality is just perception, right?) regardless of whether those needs are actually real or not.

mistyfox812 said:So it seems like we should dive a bit deeper into this relationship between actual needs versus "wants," and how rationality plays into it...

I couldn't agree more. Should we start a new thread for this?

My take is that human reason could help us distinguish "true" needs from "invented" ones if people were given the chance through proper education. Of course, providing that kind of awareness limits the potential for manipulation, which is exactly why those in positions of power are so reluctant to do it.

In my view, skepticism would be the first step toward achieving that. It’s also arguably the hardest step because it requires our brains to shift their perspectives based on new evidence—and fundamentally, the brain perceives that kind of cognitive shift as a threat to its own survival. You see this most clearly when someone starts questioning a system that provides immense security (like the concept of God and eternal life, for example).

Feel free to move this and your reply to a new topic if you think it deserves its own space...