quickquestion

Why do you think that?

I used to be a total health nut and took a lot of anti-oxidants. I was mostly filled with rage and misery most of the time.

Depression is known to be related to oxidative stress:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22681168

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4596519/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964745/

"Oxidative stress is an imbalance between cellular production of reactive oxygen species and the counteracting antioxidant mechanisms. The brain with its high oxygen consumption and a lipid-rich environment is considered highly susceptible to oxidative stress or redox imbalances. Therefore, the fact that oxidative stress is implicated in several mental disorders including depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is not surprising. "

 

"Oxidative phosphorylation takes place in the mitochondria and is a major source of ATP in aerobic organisms. As a by-product, it produces free radicals, including reactive oxygen species [ROS], reactive nitrogen species [RNS], carbon-centered and sulfur-centered radicals [7]. Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms with an unpaired number of electrons, which are highly reactive substances that can result in chain reactions, with each step forming a free radical [8]."

 

There is a lot damage caused by oxidative stress/free radicals...chemotherapy does most of its damage via free radicals, peripheral neuropathy in Diabetes is caused by oxidative stress, many symptoms from elderly are caused by oxidative stress...

 

These papers concern the use of anti oxidant activity to treat depression.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573577/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832433

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18611150

Interesting, because I myself consider myself a Free Radical.

I also have Neuropathy.

However, anti-oxidants don't help my depression at all.

qq there is always hope. It's just around the corner my friend. I am personally impacted by depression. Start an intense exercise as your feelings come round to visit. Read Tony Robbins or watch his youtube channel. You are a person of value to the Universe. I don't know you but I love you. Be well my friend.

Hmm, you seem to know Tony Robbins. May I ask, have you heard of Higher Balance Institute, and if so, know if it is real? They say they teach Enlightenment for 5 dollars, but I am hesistant to buy.

There is a game called Think Smart Family, supposedly it strengthens and exercises your brain. But I am wondering if there are any studies that actually prove such games actually increase intelligence of the brain.

The game consists of various puzzles such as Tower of Hanoi. In some puzzles, some of the instructions and goal of the puzzle is unclear, such as a match stick puzzle that says "Move the 3 matches and make the top shape the same." Further impairments may occur due to fuzzy text on certain CRT monitors, as well as a repetitive music loop that drones on throughout the test. Additionally, the wii mote will shake around and you will accidentally hit the wrong answer.

But I am wondering if this game has any discernible increase in intelligence for people after playing it. Furthermore I am wondering if playing very abstract logic puzzles, which are very disconnected from real world application, such as Tower of Hanoi, would actually increase logic in real world STEM applications, programming, or philosophy. Furthermore I would ask whether or not this game would increase intelligence more than playing a very cerebral-intensive puzzle game such as Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, or Metroid Prime 1, for example.

I am very unbiased. I am not afraid to admit that my parents are biased bigots.

Now if 97% of the folks in Facebook are rude to me and disrespect me continuously, and I say, modern society sucks, somebody will call that a fallacy because they know a small portion of people in modern society are ok.

It's like all I am doing is pointing out trends...if I point out a trend that rap music is associated with urban culture, that isn't a fallacy, and it doesn't make it a fallacy just because a couple of people in the ghetto listen to Classical.

Have you ever actually met any?

I've met plenty of people who avoid responsibility.

For example, people who believe in the legal system, and religious, for example.

Religious folk love to avoid responsibility for a human world.

People who believe in the legal system also love avoiding responsibility. Let me give you an example.

Lets say I am talking to some guy who believes in the legal system. And I say..."If someone killed your best friend, would you bash him on the head with a rock, or press charges on him?"

They always say "I'd press charges. It's wrong to hit him on the head with a rock."

"Why is it wrong?"

"Because he needs to get the help that he needs."

"How is locking someone in a cage for 100 years helping them?"

"It's not my choice. He made that choice by breaking the laws."

"But you made the choice to press charges."

"No, he made that choice by breaking the laws".

"Ok. So you hired a cop by proxy, to arrest him. Then you pressed charges to be read by a proxy, to convict him. Then you used a judge and jury, as a third proxy, to convict him. Then you got a lawyer as fourth proxy. And then you stand on the witness stand to accuse and convict him. Finally, a fifth cop, as your fifth proxy, locks him away. And you tell me you were not responsible for him going to jail?? Ok.

It would be like, imagine a world with no rules. People wouldn't hurt me because they knew I'd mean business. So if someone seriously hurts me, and then I chop their head off with a chainsaw, and I say "Oh, I didn't chop their head off with a chainsaw, because I didn't build the chainsaw, someone else built it, the gasoline in the motor actually chopped off their head, I didn't invent gasoline or the chainsaw system, I had no responsibility because they made the choice to hurt me and already knew of the possible consequences..." It would be totally ridiculous.

 

I apologize for my rudeness, but your arguments are so specious and firmly rooted in emotion that you ignore any critical reasoning, and thus I find my interest in this discussion has fled. Good luck, or whatever helps.

If you want to talk about critical reasoning, you should examine the fact that I took the time to write several paragraphs of response to you, and all you can close it with is a pithy remark filled with irrelevance.

 

What about the mirror test of sentience?

It only heightens assumptions, proves nothing. A clone is no guarantee of sentience, nor a gauranteed path of reincarnation.

Your computer posted this message of yours for you without personal gain. It even presented you the information in the best way it can, all for your convenience. Nearly all computers and robots only serve others, and not themselves.

 

I didn't know about the selfless psychopaths. My argument obviously doesn't hold for those, but neither do they pose a disadvantage for social groups or do they have an advantage due to selfish behaviour, which is what I reacted to.

By computers I thought you meant AI. You are ascribing personality qualities to tools and objects, which is ridiculous. Saying a computer is selfless is like saying a hammer is noble. Totally ridiculous.

 

Duh, of course they are .

 

 

FTFY, BTW what makes you think a psychopath has no emotion?

First of all, the term psychopath and sociopath imply a kind of Hollywood hysteria like you would see on National Enquirer type magazines. The terms kind of blur into each other.

My definition of psychopath is that someone who has low or very little compassion emotions.

Doesn't mean they have no empathy, because they could have other emotions besides compassions. They could also have hunter's empathy which allows them to think and put themselves inside of someone's elses shoes.

A compassionate person could have very little empathy, for example someone who circumcizes a baby could feel compassion after doing it, but have very low empathy for what the baby wants, or very low consciousness of what circumcision victims want for themselves and their needs. Kind of like a religious person who feels compassion while sending gays to conversion therapy because they want to save them from hell.

Similarly, a nice person could grow up to be a psychopath because they have no compassion for a sick and sad world full of injustice and garbage people.

There could be heroic psychopaths who want to help the world despite how evil it is.

Or heroic psychopaths who are ignorant of Earth's evils, and just want to help Earth. Or psychopaths such as Spock and Vulcans, who are psychopaths who try to do good.

Thus psychopaths tend to be more effective at saving people in the Train Experiment because normal people are limited by their emotions, and would rather feel good about themselves than actually save anyone.

Nope. New words are constantly evolving. No one today uses thee, thou, thy, etc. Back in the early 20th century, no one used the word selfie. But see today, it's so popular. Isn't it?

I still use such words such as thou and thy.

And also, outdated STEM words and terminologies which have double meanings and unintuitive meanings, are being forced onto students as the "ipso factor" standards to be enforced for the rest of time. I can't think of any offhand, but there are several.

 

Why not?

Because its fundamentally impossible at this current stage of technology and I doubt it ever will be possible even after an extreme advance in technology.

 

Deflection is also a fallacy; I have addressed your arguments, in full, now you try.

This whole page is nothing but your logical incoherence, for instance using terrorists as an example of people who use passivity.

I wrote nearly a paragraph addressing you but you instead don't respond then falsely accuse me of name calling and ask for my age. Then you say you address me in full but while only using petty one liners low in debate content.

Are you a troll?

 

No I'm not, your entire argument ignores the fact that you can't possible know the animals perspective (unless some shoots you), so it remains an excuse for you to indulge yourself.

 

 

This has nothing to do with me because I have my reason; and everything to do with you, because you don't have your excuse.

Ok...this is fading into ridiculousness as I expected.

Let me bring you the current facts.

You can't verify sentience or consciousness in ANYONE but yourself.

Morality is based on 2. ASSUMED assumptions, 1. that people are not pzombies, and 2. They have feeling responses similar to yours.

Thus, stabbing people is immoral, because it is assumed 1. their family is not pzombies, and 2. the person feels the pain of injury

thus ANIMAL MORALITY is also based on the assumption that 1. animals are not pzombies, and have some form of awareness 2. They have feeling responses similar to humans.

NEITHER can be proven...it can NOT be proven that Joe is not a pzombie, it can NOT be proven that Joe feels the pain of injury. Neither can it be proven that animals are not pzombies or feel the pain of injury.

So we err on the safe side, assuming that humans and animals are probably not pzombies, so we should err on the side of caution in dealing with them, and thus the foundations of moral logic begin.

Thus, whether or not something is right or wrong depends on whether or not the victim and their familys would incur damages. Right and wrong is NOT determined by whether or not the perpetrator feels good about themselves afterwards.

If someone butchers 10 people for no reason, just to make themselves feel good, their feeling is irrelevant because we assume the damages to the victim outweight the feeling good of the butcher.

Just like if someone has a choice to shoot a cow for no reason, but keeps 10 cows in cages for food, we ask the VICTIM which would they rather...NOT the perpetrator...We say...hmm, which made the cow worse off, being in a cage or killed quickly, the perpetrators perspective is irrelevant.

Thus if a Serial Killer goes around killing humans for sport, and he shoots his victims in the head, but Cannibal starves his victims for years in terrible conditions before killing them and eating them, we say Serial Killer is less evil than Cannibal.

 

No need to shout, I didn't say you called me a name but your rebuttal depended on the names you called others.

 

 

Wow, touchy, did I hit a nerve? I didn't BTW I just asked your age.

 

 

FFS, I forgot to turn off my irony meter.

And here you go, on some personal tangent instead of addressing the points I made about hatred.

 

I was not implying that having difficulties in social communication gives you a pass for becoming rich.

 

I was saying that it should not restrain you from pursuing your dreams.

I am trying to pursue my dreams, by mastering car physics and create a game empire, but I can't find the specific diagrams I need so I am at a stand still of progress.

 

I'm sure "The Theory of Everything" (that movie, yes) has its flaws and inaccuracies, but I'm sure Stephen Hawking wasn't much of a socialiser himself at the time, truth be told.

Stephen has a net worth of 20 million. He is a millionairre.

Part of the Disease of America is that everyone hold's on to the delusion that they will someday be rich. Thus, as a group, they make very little efforts to fix group poverty, because they believe that their poverty is only a temporary condition.

Thus, mentioning Stephen is irrelevant, because it implies a hypothetical scenario that someday I will be rich too, like him. The fact is, I am not rich like Stephen, thus mentioning him is totally irrelevant to me, because it assumes a hypothetical future that I will someday be rich like him, which is a low probability and not the current actual fact.

It's irrelevant but, I had a friend who was very close to Stephen.

 

Forgive us for being human.

 

I'm not convinced a lion thinks about those poor human beings when he tears one apart.

 

I'm sick of this "humans are not natural" nonsense. Of course we are natural. We are as natural as any other living animal.

 

I hope if I get shot and get to die from that shot, I won't think anything anymore.

When did I say humans are not natural? My whole point is that humans are nothing but savage primate animals with very little of any genuine logical morality.

Yeah the bird dies instantly and won't be thinking anymore. That is also my whole point. Shooting a bird (for fun) that dies instantly is much less evil than locking it in a cage for food.

 

And you've yet to address that point, other than name calling; how old are you?

I HAVEN'T NAME CALLED YOU A SINGLE TIME YET.

AND HERE YOU GO MAKING AN INSULT ABOUT MY AGE.

CAN YOU GO 5 MINUTES WITHOUT MAKING AN ANNOYING FALLACY.

I HAVE ALSO, ALREADY ADDRESSED YOUR POINT.

All of them.

Because they contradict modern psychology is so many ways.

That in of itself is a logical fallacy, since you are using a "argument ad authority" fallacy.

Modern psychology is the authority you use to assess my claims.

It's like saying I'm wrong because a corrupt politician says so.

You are litterally saying I'm wrong because I don't agree with the resident crackpot who happens to be in authority.

Wasn't it 10 years ago that your beloved modern psychology was giving electro-shock therapy to transsexuals?

In the DSM 5 they say coffee intoxication is a mental illness.

There is so much wrong with modern psychology I don't even know where to begin.

So let me clue you in...it's a political agenda to breed a docile population.

If you are an angry person who breaks walls, they call you "mentally ill."

They even made up an illness saying people who resist authority are "mentally ill".

 

 

They all fought and won whilst being passive, but don't forget that you Americans were terrorists once.

 

 

Then all that power is impotent.

Being a terrorist is NOT being passive. Your whole argument was that being passive is powerful.

America did NOT win by being passive.

I wish I had more power, but the sad thing is I don't.

In this era money and social ability is power.

And the kings of olde gained power through war. After they killed 1000 people they became a bit more philosophical and conscious of life and death and philosophy.

Nowadays, we get these people born into wealth who have no depth of character or anything. Character no longer matters, literally the only thing that matters nowadays is your bank account and how well you obey the social norms.

 

 

When I was a child I took pot shots at the starlings nesting in our eve's with an air-pistol and missed, so I decided to shoot into the hole and out fell a chick, it was a head-shot so it didn't suffer but I did, because I knew my motives were selfish (I was 10); but when it came to daisey, I was sad but I knew I'd given her the best life I could, she didn't suffer and neither did I.

 

That's why your argument is an excuse to indulge yourself, rather than a reason to kill.

Dude...you are MISSING the entire point I am making.

You keep making comments about Me and You...This has NOTHING to do with me or you...

It's about THE ANIMAL. How does the ANIMAL feel about getting killed...The animal does not give a care if you killed him for fun or food...the animal will despise it regardless...

Your whole argument about the chick thing is ABOUT YOURSELF and how YOU feel about the killings...If you shot the bird for fun or for food the bird will hate you the same either way...

Animals farmed for meat like chickens and cows wouldn't be alive at all if we didn't practice the husbandry we do. How long would a cow live in the wild? And really, how cruel would it be to turn a domesticated animal over to predators he's been bred without exposure to? This argument always ignores ongoing efforts to remove cruelty, and also ignores what we would do with all the animals in captivity. It also assumes "low quality of life" on every farm, and a corresponding high quality of life in the wild.

 

This sounds like someone who's been programmed to "know" what a liberal is. You rail against caricatures of what you think things are all about.

 

I saw Bill Nye at an astronautics conference last year. He looks damn good for his age, so bicycling may hold the key.

 

As for your utopia, Bernie Sanders healthcare policies (I don't know why we're talking about this in a thread about hunting) might have led to socialized medicine, which could very well have included massage therapy care like they have in Germany, as part of your national system. Well-being is part of good health (gasp, a liberal stance!), and I for one wouldn't mind paying into a system where you could walk in anytime you needed a massage, a therapy that kept folks like you from getting so tightly wound up and defensive about life.

You seemed like the one programmed not me.

You seem to think that keeping someone alive is inherently good for some reason. Why is keeping someone alive inherently good? If I am starving someone in my basement, and they are saying "Kill me, kill me", how does that make it good if I keep them alive.

Just like how does it make it good to keep millions of cows in cages against their will and breed them into miserable low quality lives.

Also, the majority of animals in meat are not raised in humane farms, most are factory farms and the amount of pleasant lives are very few.

Also, I am not "programmed" to feel a certain way about liberals...I had to live with liberals and live in a town with liberals deal with their crap on a daily basis. I would not want to live in a society ran by liberals, Bernie Sanders or any other politician...I am a free-spirit and modern liberals tend to be authoritarian and totalitarian...Sanders is more democrat than liberal anyway.

Now, the actual practical interpretation of liberal is not what modern liberals are...an actual dictionary definition of a liberal is just someone who is open minded, deep thinkers to change traditional values....Modern liberals want to be thought and word police, tend to be closeminded and shallow philosophers with generic status-quo morality and wish to regulate and punish everything. Same with modern fake-anarchists like on Anarchist memes. Modern liberals are basically fake liberals.

+1

Can't believe you actually plussed one that.

It's an emotional rant and completely logically hysterical. It's the equivalent of saying "Daddy I want a pony."

It's not interesting, it's obvious, it's the only perspective we have available.

 

No it is interesting, how you still go on immune to the point i have made.

The animal does not give an S whether or not you killed it for fun or killed it for food. The animal does not say "Oh you killed me for food? Ok, I'm cool with that. But if you killed me for fun, you are an evil person."

That is a human perspective, so a human can feel good about the dirty deed and said "Oh i just hurt an animal for food, I am a good person now, if someone kills it for fun they are more evil than me."

I told you the ONLY way to determine ACTUAL good or evil is whether or not the animal is trapped in a cage. Killing an animal for no reason is less evil than raising an animal in a cage and killing it for food.

 

What have you actually done about injustice, with all that power.

 

Passive people tend to be the ones that win the fight against injustice, Gandhi and Mandela for example.

Ghandi was an extreme racist and I'm not going to rot in jail for 90 years just to hope eventually I'll make a point. Not to mention, Mandela was a terrorist and not even slightly passive.

Jesus wasn't actually passive, he went around flipping tables and upsetting the established order. He violated lots of rules and started an underground counter-culture.

 

Wow, what a complete load of bollox; killing for fun usually means a dickhead wannabe who wants to control the world, with a very limp dick; killing for food is a person trying to live.

Talking about penis size will usually not help bring credibility to your argument in a scientific discussion.

Also, I want to point out something interesting...Most of these arguments are focused on the human's perspective - whether the human is right or wrong. This reflects the inherent self-centeredd nature of the human species.

My argument is from the animal's perspective - whether or not killing them is right or wrong for the animal. An animal does not care if you shoot him or for fun or shoot him for food....he despises you regardless.

Thus the method of killing is all that matters. Animals who are farmed for meat are kept as slaved and have a very low quality of life. If you want to keep your delusional fantasy of how trophy hunters are evil, bad people and how people who eat fast food are saints, I don't know what to tell you.

If someone shoots a deer in the head and gives it a quick death, they are less evil than some person who eats a hamburger, fast food, because the fast food factory kept the cow in a cage and gave more suffering to the cow than the bullet did.

Are you fine with eating animals if there is no evidence of torture or torment?

If I'm in a bad mood, and I want to vent my aggressions, and I shoot a deer with an M4, of course I will eat it. But normally I'm a vegetarian...if my life is good why should I make an animal's worse.

Exactly what part of America do you live in? I can get a massage at work or even at the shopping mall. And I live in the very conservative Midwest.

I live in the Liberal Midwest. I can pay money to get a massage at the shopping mall, but that's just it...it costs money. It's like I have to pay money for friends, love, romance, sex, massages, everything. None of it feels genuine or real, it all feels corporate and hollow.

I'm not a big fan of liberals or Bill Nye bicycle utopia...My idea of a utopia is not having to pay 70 bux for someone to care about me. And that's the vibe I get from Bill Nye's idea of the future is how he wants everyone to run around on bicycles like a liberal utopia, where everyone is turned into hipsters and liberal yuppies......Boooring.

That being said, I'm not a fan of Conservatives either. If the Conservatives and Liberals would just attack each other out the world would probably be a better place.

Hate is of absolutely no help when denied justice. If anything, it will only make the situation worse by inspiring impulsive reactions.

Hate is a fuel. Fuels can be volatile. But people who don't hate tend to be more passive and accepting of injustice. Hate can make you powerful.

 

No; the point is that just responding to some stimuli is not proof of an inner experience; otherwise the problem would be vastly simpler than it is.

We know this because:

1. Not all stimuli humans react to include inner experience (for example our reflexes) and

2. We can make very simple machines that respond to stimuli of various kinds e.g. light-sensitive diodes. If they have inner experience, then everything has.

 

And leading on from observation 1, a common idea now among cognitive- and neuro- scientists is that subjective perception is likely linked to choice. Knee-jerk responses don't need (and therefore likely don't have) inner subjective experiences. But where we need to make unique plans (for some common stimulus...obviously we can't evolve inner experiences for everything) it makes sense to have subjective phenomena as inputs.

 

If that's the case, then we'd likely be happy to say most mammals have subjective experience of, say, color, and happy to say very simple lifeforms are like our light-sensitive diode. Inbetween, who knows? It's among the things we're trying to figure out.

 

When it comes to pzombie discussions (I use the word pzombie because Consciousness has multiple definitions and people seem to never get the one I am meaning)...You can never be fore sure if solipism is real or not.

What you can do is this.

A. If solipisim is not real, then animals are probably not pzombies, since they exhibit behavior and feel similar to humans.

B. If solipism is real, then both animals and humans are pzombies, and thus there is no reason to have laws and rules protecting human or animals at all.

Given the assumption that A. Solipism is fake, we can deduce that animals probably are not pzombies, based on their behavoir. Some of their behavoir includes hunting and planning, as well as jealousy and boredom.

With babies their whining seems to be a simple reaction to lack of stimulus, but with dogs it seems to be a carefully planned and pent up jealousy of not getting attention, and when they try to communicate with their owners it seems like a response that is emotionally stacked over time, and deliberate and manipulative, and not a simple immediate response to a condition.