• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Strictlylogical

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Iam Whoiam
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

395 profile views
  1. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  2. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  3. When looked at in terms of progress, and how USA is doing well for itself, the stats could be useful and informative. BUT the funny thing is, if it's deaths/case then the stats mean little to nothing AS a comparison to totally different countries. Comorbidity includes things which factor hugely into the risk of death per case, e.g. heart conditions, diabetes, high blood pressure, and others which are causatively linked with obesity. Obesity is linked with, to put it colorfully, a population possessing an abundance of means accompanied by a dearth of self-discipline... so a large
  4. This went right over my head... can you let me in on the joke?
  5. Social media, mainstream media, and the concentration of power in big data are creating a crazy left-wing suppression of anything ... well sane. "Aunt Jemima" is no more. The syrup itself will not change and will be just as delicious, but it will be sold under a new logo and name. (By the way, if sales TANK, this might turn out to be a perfect example of how brand name recognition actually... duh... IS important) Now buying Aunt Jemima in the past never meant I endorsed the so-called racial stereo type... if anything I liked the idea of a friendly smiling person provi
  6. I have been having an ongoing "disagreement" with a friend of mine, quite well read in Objectivism. He is of the view that it is "incomplete". Like myself, he also has recently become interested in psychology and the subconscious, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell (and Jordan Peterson) and their ideas, and what insights about the human condition they might have. But he has begun to view Objectivism with some distain, because of it's incompleteness and "arrogance". I note its flaws, but point out that Objectivism is NOT a theory of everything. It is philosophy, not a special science, such as
  7. Thank you Michael, and perhaps I am getting too tangled up in terminology, particularly what we mean by "knowledge" and "to know". Certainly, human mind/brains at birth are not empty of everything... I'm wondering if there is more validity in restricting the definitions of "knowledge" and "to know" to explicit consciously held ideas or if there is more validity in expanding the concept to include the other psychological... I don't know... "contents" I listed above (urges, wills, subconscious stuff). IF the latter is more accurate, how important then is it to hold the distin
  8. I have not studied this in detail, but I would assume that Rand would have known enough basic psychology to know that certain urges and capacities are "nature" rather than nurture. I am hesitant to get into what she thought when she used the term "tabula rasa" as it pertains to knowledge, but for our thinking today in view of what we know about psychology: Is it safe to say at least that explicit knowledge, i.e. consciously held ideas, originate from experience and hence at birth, a human is a "tabula rasa" of ideas and knowledge? [This is not to say there are not innate urges, autonomo
  9. How is implying something false about other people... sardonic?
  10. Going to call strawman... The genuine first person experience aspect of consciousness cannot be proved by third person perception but that is not problematic. We being humans introspectively know that first person experience. In fact it is no more a philosophical conundrum that we, as humans, can never really know “what it is like to be a bat“. What the experience of being a bat is, IS wholly out of reach of our perception and hence knowledge... but no sane philosopher would conclude that because we cannot prove it by third person perception and science, nor measure it, that “what
  11. Why characterize consciousness as “emergent” at all? What beyond “attribute” “property” or “action” does the concept “emergence” bring to the table? What metaphysically does it identify?
  12. Once it has done so, is it independent from or untethered from what the brain does? Does it “function” (complex chain of causality) absent any structure whatever? Are you advocating strong or weak emergence?
  13. I find substance dualism and/or strong emergence as weird and spooky... and not consistent with my metaphysics. Much interesting science is interpreted using as a basis, metaphysics which is different from mine... which does not invalidate for me properly conducted science... only some of the interpretive conclusions therefrom. “Reductionism“ has always come across to me as a vague anti concept posing as a strawman. Dualism for me has always been mystical in one way or another, a ghost always pops up here or there, or the non-interacting interacts... or causeless causation is cause
  14. You guys should be more explicit and specific about your actual disagreement so that bystanders can gain something from it ...
  15. Agreed. Like almost everything spiritual: nature, nurture, and possibility of manipulation all factor in. I wonder if empathy is more complex than what most people casually think of it... in an analogy to the same way sensation - perception - cognition - evaluation - emotion works is complex. Since empathy is not supernatural revelation of another, it must start with sensation. Something parallel to perception is involved and then instead of conscious identification and conscious evaluation there a kind of subconscious “recognition” and “assessment” which leads to an emotion. T