Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

Dumar_sl said:

The 'emotion of love'is not real. A certain emotion felt at a certain time, certain situation iscalled love, which is a gigantic chasm of a difference.Love doesn't exist: it's a word used to describe a WIDE (stressing wide here) range of hormonal and psychophysiological responses and impulses to a million different types of stimuli.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. I love my wife. I love to fuck sluts. I love my children. I love grandma. I love chocolate. I love WoW (ok, that's one a lie).

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word (god, heaven, love) used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (fire, lightning strikes, carnal desire for your wife, your mom, chocolate) is takenas real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give reasons for stuff going on in the real world.You cannot do thisif you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: It's because of love that we're together. No. That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to give a reason for some occurrence or concrete thing in the real world. The base hormonal and psychological reasons you might be together cansometimesbe called love, but you can't cite love asthe reasonthat something concrete occurs in reality, like staying together.Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of god that lightning struck khalid dead.' The term, god, is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

Long and short, your reality, is predicated on how your brain interprets signals brought to it by sensory organs. Those signals are reality, for you. In a jar or in your skull, it doesn't matter as long the signals are the same and the rules of the world match.

Click to expand...

Dumar_sl said:

With the statements recently, the obvious reductionist influence is obvious.By stating reality issimply justcomposed of sensory inputsand that you actually would prefer your brain in a jar, you're falling very deep into reductionism.

The problem with this position is that it describes reality only by the constituent parts that make up the ability to experience it- it doesn't describe realityas is. It ignores any downward causation of the system: that is, the whole of the system may exert influence on the parts that make up that whole. Reductionism completely ignores this and most emergent properties. For example, if reality is just a collection of inputs, how am I am able to discern, differentiate, and realize that reality may not be a collection of inputs? That's an emergent property of consciousness; it'snota property actualized by the underlying parts that facilitate consciousness itself.

Click to expand...

Dumar_sl said:

When I think of that bitch that cheated on me last month with my best friend, and I feel angry and pissed off, what's happening?

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

You received a set of signals indicating chemicals were exchanged between two people which you established in your consciousness under certain indicators (Most likely photons interacting with optic nerves, various molecules captured by membranes in your nose and mouth, and stimulation of auditory nerves). This new sensory information altered your perception of the state of your relationships--IE your consciousness. If the sensory stimulation had been sent via Matrix or through the real world, the alteration in your perception would have been net result the same IF the sensory information was the same. Wouldn't it have? (Yes. Yes it would.) Which means your mind did not alter the reality, rather it formed reality based off of sensory input. (And FROM there, the reality can be quite moddable--some guys will hate her, some might forgive ect.)

Click to expand...

Dumar_sl said:

When I think of that bitch, there was no stimulibut the thought itself: it is the product of the emergent system, my consciousness, and in turn, this product hasan effecton the apparatuses that cause that very system to emerge, as well as the system, my consciousness. I'm sitting here responding to monkeys hammering away on their keyboards, and I thought of her. And after a few moments of reflection, I'm now pissed off and angry. That's downward causation as defined in philosophy becausemy consciousness and what facilitates it has been affected by my consciousness.

Click to expand...

Dumar_sl said:

Absolutely Lith, even myself, with a terrible memory, remember well that conversation and how exhausting it was. Maybe we'll have another, sans hodj.

As I said previously, this is diverging from RP into real philosophy and even linguistics here. With these next posts we'll start getting into word spaghetti dinner.

We have to keep in mindpreciselywhat we're talking about, the specific meanings of words and our topic at hand. I have no doubt that there is some effect from consciousness on our biology and physiology, and you can see my argument for it in the previous quotes. Butconsciousnessis not the same thing asreasoned thought: consciousness is simply awareness, and we cannot conflate the two. I'm consciously thinking of my hotass girlfriend waiting for me at home tonight in sexy lingerie, for example: this produces arousal and amorous feelings, a downward causation from my consciousness to my underlying physiology. No one should disagree with this (well, except Lith and hodj back in the day, pure reductionists!). This isnotthe same thing as merationally making a choice on attractionin my head, deciding my wife is attractive based on reasoned thinking, and that choice therefore then causing limbic arousal, which never, ever happens - ever, in men or women.

We have to be specific and use words appropriately, else it will be a cafeteria of word spaghetti (which will probably happen anyway).

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

I've got some bad news for you guys:

"Pants" are not real. A certain article of clothing worn at certain periods of time in certain situations is called "pants", which is a gigantic chasm of a difference. Pants don't exist, it's a word used to describe a wide range of pairs of joined fabric tubes, as well as underwear in other cultures and also what a dog does when he's hot.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. My slacks are pants. My trousers are pants. My jeans are pants. I wear pants in public. I wear pants in private. I wash some pants in the washing machine. I dry clean some pants. Some pants are "dress pants". Some pants are "casual". Some pants are expensive and only worn on special occasions. Some pants are paint-stained and worn when renovating.

So, Tanoomba? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word ("cheese", "eyebrows", "pants") used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (what you wear, what you buy, what you wash, what you coordinate with your shirt) is taken as real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give descriptions of things being worn in the real world. You cannot do this if you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: "These pants are really comfortable." No. No! Bad boy. Bad! That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to express a concrete level of comfort experienced in the real world. The fabric and how it's stitched may sometimes be referred to as "comfortable", but you can't cite "pants" as the reason that you are experiencing comfort in reality. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of cheese that my uncle's arteries are clogged.' The term "cheese" is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe what we wear. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

I've got some bad news for you guys:

"Pants" are not real. A certain article of clothing worn at certain periods of time in certain situations is called "pants", which is a gigantic chasm of a difference. Pants don't exist, it's a word used to describe a wide range of pairs of joined fabric tubes, as well as underwear in other cultures and also what a dog does when he's hot.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. My slacks are pants. My trousers are pants. My jeans are pants. I wear pants in public. I wear pants in private. I wash some pants in the washing machine. I dry clean some pants. Some pants are "dress pants". Some pants are "casual". Some pants are expensive and only worn on special occasions. Some pants are paint-stained and worn when renovating.

So, Tanoomba? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word ("cheese", "eyebrows", "pants") used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (what you wear, what you buy, what you wash, what you coordinate with your shirt) is taken as real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give descriptions of things being worn in the real world. You cannot do this if you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: "These pants are really comfortable." No. No! Bad boy. Bad! That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to express a concrete level of comfort experienced in the real world. The fabric and how it's stitched may sometimes be referred to as "comfortable", but you can't cite "pants" as the reason that you are experiencing comfort in reality. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of cheese that my uncle's arteries are clogged.' The term "cheese" is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe what we wear. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.

Click to expand...