Tampitump

I think it depends on the moral code of a given society if it's ethical or not. I think it is too simplistic to judge from one culture's moral code upon anothers; the general consensus/consent of a participating society's population matters.

Could not possibly disagree with this more vehemently or passionately if I tried. Morality is NOT relative, especially when it comes to life/death. You cannot even get a moral code up and running without this basic, fundamental understanding that things like reciprocity and concern for fellow man leads to propagation of the species, and a better experience doing so, and that killing (even for retribution) does not benefit this, but damages it. By your position, the governments of medieval Europe "had their own morality," so they were okay. I guess North Korea is also okay in the way they treat their people? And the various theocracies of the middle east. They've got their own morality, who are we to judge? I cannot understand this way of thinking. No, morality is not relative. Even if people can form their own opinions on what's moral and what's not, morality still isn't relative. Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi definitely thinks what he's doing is moral, but he's objectively wrong. What he does leads to suffering, pain, death, and detriment to human life, and a threat to the human species, as do the others mentioned above and others like them.

Except, of course, when it isn't.

A case which never occurs because EVERYTHING is determined by prior causes that you don't choose. It's not like the brain has a "channel surfing" feature wherein it can scan every thought there is to think before you think it and say "ah yes, I think I'll think this thought right now." You cannot think a thought before you think it. You do not choose, author, or originate the thoughts you think. Your thoughts simply arise into your mind based on prior, external influences, and the neurophysiology of how your brain responds to it. You have never, and will never author a thought in your life. Thoughts will simply arise in your mind when it is influenced to do so.

 

And quantum indeterminism does not negate determinism.

Personally, I think the whole dichotomy between free will and determinism is a bit silly and mostly comes down to poorly defined terms. I can't think of a good definition of free will that doesn't have some degree of determinism baked in as a prerequisite.

What are the terms that are "poorly defined"? And name me a way in which you can actually author a thought. You can't. You cannot consciously author a thought. A thought just has to come to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of who is right or wrong. My question is how to explain this to laypeople who have a hard time grasping what I'm talking about.

I recently posted a discussion in one of my online college courses wherein I laid out a case for determinism. Explaining that free will is actually an illusion, that everything is predicated on prior causes, whether they be environmental, situational, biological, neurological, etc. Pretty much all of my classmates rejected my case, each of them citing various ways in which they have free will (beginner/newb arguments, all of them). One girl said that she had a best friend who got murdered by her boyfriend who wrote a facebook post prior to committing the murder, which showed premeditation, and showed that he had a choice whether to commit the crime or not. I tried to explain to her that he still did not have the free will for that regardless if you gave him multiple choices and all the time in the world to decide, but still no meeting of the minds. A different girl's argument was that she could have chosen not to reply to my thread, which meant to her that she had free will. Again, I tried to explain to her that even if she took ten years to decide whether or not she was going to reply to the thread, she still didn't have free will. I found myself not being able to explain it to them in ways in which they could understand.

 

How can this be more easily explained to someone.

Yes, you should definitely propose now. Don't wait. Do it this very minute.

lol

I'm not convinced an answer exists, and I'mm nearly convinced an answer doesn't exist.

This is why I so firmly believe that any man can do it.

Not me. I'm the exception. Understanding why this is so would require meeting me.

 

 

There is so much to do with body language, confidence, flirting, and generally the entire interaction that comes from already having some experience with women on a physical level.

Tried it. There is not much one can do when they are so subversive of anything that could even remotely be considered pleasant to look at or be around.

 

 

One possible solution for you, and I am not joking here: see a high quality escort

You can't imagine how many times, and how often I still think about doing this. Of course, such a thing does not exist around here. I would have to go somewhere like Vegas or something. Money ends that dream. I have $0.00 to my name, literally.

 

Getting a hooker solves nothing. It does not solve my issues with normal girls, and it would probably only have me feinding for sex without the ability to get my fix.

 

Also, I doubt even a hooker would take me on. There have to limits to what they are willing to do.

The other problem is that it just doesn't feel right for me. Regardless of how bad being a virgin at this age makes me feel, or how bad I want to experience sex, I just don't feel that I should do it. I don't feel like I'm the type who SHOULD have sex. Kind of like how jellyfish are not the type of fish that should be eaten. It would be a disservice to whoever the girl is who gets coaxed, coerced, bribed, or paid into being with me. I'm just not someone who should be having sex. Not only do I think this is the case, but I just would never feel right doing it. To have sex, you kind of have to feel sexy, or at least feel some sort of sex appeal in yourself. I am entirely barren of these feelings. I feel like a puddle of very gross and toxic waste that no one wants to see. It's almost as if people want to come throw kitty litter or some kind of powder on top of me so they can scoop me up and throw me away. Put that together with my shit personality and you have one entire undesirable person to the core.

I really wish more people would read threads before participating... you know, or AT LEAST page 1... or maybe even just the OP... hell, I'd settle for reading just the very first sentence of the first post at this point.

 

He's literally already provided this information five different times already:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96890-scientific-reasons-for-me-not-having-a-girlfriend/#entry934618

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96890-scientific-reasons-for-me-not-having-a-girlfriend/#entry935015

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96890-scientific-reasons-for-me-not-having-a-girlfriend/page-2#entry935083

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96890-scientific-reasons-for-me-not-having-a-girlfriend/page-4#entry935590

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96890-scientific-reasons-for-me-not-having-a-girlfriend/page-6#entry939383

He didn't know man. Not everybody can be a super resourceful genius. I've never spoken this member before, so it's understandable he didn't know my age.

No, I used to not let the ostracism get to me. I was convinced things would change with age and maturity, and in growing up and moving beyond my local, small town environment and meeting new people. I find the ostracism continues regardless of whether I feel confident, good-looking, or not. It didn't mean to say that I "gave it try", which is to say that I went from my current perspective to one of tentative confidence, then back again once my confirmation bias was met. Rather, I learned over time that that ostracism is a constant in my life, and doesn't require the ether of my low self-confidence to propagate.

 

If you truly believe this, then this is the reason you are not doing well with women. This attitude that you are a shitty person will contaminate all of your interactions with women. If, on the other hand, you believe that you are a worthwhile, decent guy with something to offer, then that belief will begin to positively affect your behavior and thus the results you are getting.

 

Feelings influence thoughts, thoughts influence behavior, and behavior influences outcomes. Changing your negative feelings about yourself is the first step on your way to success.

Used to think this way man. I really did. Gave loving myself a try. Still got made fun of and ostracized. I'm a true case of "made to be this way".

Some of my thoughts are quality. Some aren't.

Probably you are stuck behind a computer screen too much. This is the reason I think many Japanese men show no interest in sex, according to studies. They are too engrossed in computer games, their phones, etc.

 

Meeting women requires that you go out into the real world and introduce yourself, talk, flirt, etc. It requires that you get out of the safe space of sitting behind a computer.

I definitely think this is part of the overall problem, but not the sole problem. I think it is a combination of looks, personality, inexperience, introvertedness, and low self-esteem. No matter what I do, I can't attract even momentary attention from women, and the attention I do get is repudiation. Its a combination of bad and undesirable aesthetic and personality traits, and a low self-opinion and self-image. My whole-person evaluation is not very good. I'm just an overall shitty person, and I think thats what it boils down to.

Please, criticism is inappropriate and divisive at this point.

What criticism?

 

I also want to plant this flag right now. If an argument gets started on this thread, then you just started it with this post right here. There was no reason at all for you to accuse me of "divisive criticism". Not even the tiniest, smallest, modicum of a reason. You had no reason to read any such intent or message into my post, but you did, and you couldn't help but say it. So if an argument gets started, this little post that you just posted right here is what started it.

 

Also, you could've just responded to my initial question, but instead you waited until I commented on the lack of responses. THEN, at that point it was apparently worth your time to comment on my thread, to tell me how divisive I'm being. Answering my legitimate initial question would've been a much better reason for you to reply to this thread. Guess my initial post didn't portray me in a bad enough light to where you could come on here and tell me I'm being "divisive", so it wasn't worth your time to respond.

I meant.....did everyone on this forum die? Why 61 views and 0 responses?

Did everyone die?

If I minor in neuroscience, will it make me more a candidate for a phd in the field?

I want to donate some money to help out with the damage caused by Matthew. Does anyone have any recommendations for good secular charities I should donate to that will go to helping the cause? I can't physically go volunteer to help, but I'd like to contribute some way.

 

Thanks.

I appreciate all the answers. I haven't read them all yet, but I will soon.

 

I printed the midterm review and tallied all of the various types of problems that occur on there. I will post these, as well as some of the problems. Perhaps the smart people here can help me work through them.

I'm halfway through Calculus 1 and I've learned nothing. I've had some serious problems with motivation and energy this semester and have literally put ZERO time into studying. It's starting to worry me because I'm afraid I can't play catch up now. But I thought starting was better than not starting. So I would like it if someone could please get me on the right track to understanding what I'm doing.

 

What is the point of calculus? (I understand it to be the mathematical study of change)

 

What is a limit?

 

What is a derivative?

 

What does it mean to differentiate?

 

What is an integral?

 

What way of thinking will help me understand calculus better?

 

Perhaps I can post some problems further on into this thread and get some help.

 

Thanks!

Nobody ever wants to go to the doctor. It's still important to do so.

I know. This is always an issue I don't want to go for. Its time I did though.

The words you have used are words that I have used and I was on antidepressants for two years until not too long ago. It is probably worth having a chat with your doctor. ADs can give you the mental space to help you look at your life and predicament a bit more objectively and detached from them without the weight of them pulling you down into a state of apathy and inaction, which is where you seem to be at at this point in time.

 

If anyone says "Pull yourself together" tell them to go and F*** themselves... it's not a nice place to be.

Every time I think I've had enough and want to go to the doctor, I always just say fuck it. I don't really have the money to go to the doctor. I just never really want to either. I'm sure some day I'll make it to the doc. I know I should go, but I can always find every reason not to go.

 

I can't bring myself to look at my life objectively. Its damn near impossible when you are the self who is experiencing the life. You have access to unique feelings and emotions in relation to your life that others don't. I can look at the staggering amount of other people who are younger than me who are way smarter and have a much better grip on things than I did at their age, and even better than I do now. I find myself being irrelevant in everyone's life and having seemingly no way make things better. I'm a slow learner and terrible at math. My problem-solving skills suck. etc. I find myself being alone in everything I do and everything I am. Everyone else gets along fine, learns with much greater ease, and operates just fine without me in their life. Everyone treats me with very low importance in their lives and my not being around ispreferable to my being around.

 

Its mostly my personality I think. It sucks. I run people off.

I.m.o. there exist sufficient circumstantial evidence to maintain the status quo (or null hypothesis) that an historical Jesus figure PROBABLY did exist and that the life and times of said historical Jesus had SOME resemblance to what is being portrayed in parts of the synoptic gospels. There seems little to no credible evidence to support the non-existence of-, or to point to some sort of fictional/fabricated Jesus. All these arguments have already been presented and there seem to be little new information that could shed some light on it. No need to argue about it in circles any longer. If the OP, or any reader comes to a different conclusion or is happy with WE DON'T KNOW, so be it.

This is pretty much my position stated better than I could have stated it. No certainty exists within me. It just seems more likely than not. If he really was poor in iron age judea, then its likely there was never any good evidence preserved for him. But I'm just speculating.

There's no telling what you guys think of me at this point. I admit that I've been rather annoying, and perhaps a little boorish since I've been a member here.

I certainly don't care either-way.

oh ok, I'll be sure never to post any of the stuff again. Thanks.

 

 

I don't know, you tell me...

I have severe MDD probably. Can't be sure because I've never been diagnosed.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "be honest". I've said entirely what I mean with no dishonest intentions at all this whole time.

 

 

It's not, just be honest about it...

Ok, well give me a few hours to think this one over. I'll have to spend some time figuring out where I've been dishonest. Its not coming to me right away.

 

I guess to you, me being honest would be saying that I really have no depression, that I'm just a narcissist and a whiner.