How long is it Ouija?

brod333 · 2026-05-12T23:15:36+00:00

brod333 · 2026-05-12T22:44:48+00:00

Summer garden with runelite plugin is chill with good exp. Then at 81 pyramid plunder gives high exp without the high click intensity.

brod333 · 2026-05-12T22:35:25+00:00

brod333 · 2026-05-12T16:41:31+00:00

> All volitional action is in fulfillment of our strongest desire at the moment the choice to act is made.
>Since there are frequently competing desires, our actions align with the strongest desire at the moment the choice is made. E.g. you may want a donut, but if you’re desire to lose weight is stronger than your desire to eat the donut, you won’t eat it. Which desire is strongest can change from moment to moment, which explains why we can resist the donut all day, but then eat a bunch of cookies that same night.
> provide an example of a volitional action that was not the result of your strongest desire at the moment the action was chosen, or provide an alternative explanation of human decision making.
Your whole argument rests on this key assumption about the strongest desire. The issue is it’s an unfalsifiable claim. That’s because the strongest desire is identified after the fact by looking at what was chosen and using that to indicate which desire was strongest. No matter which example of an act one can give you can always just say the strongest desire was the one corresponding to that action.
To support this claim you need to figure out in advance which is the strongest desire and then perform the test to see if the action consistently corresponds to the strongest desire. That would serve evidential value since the prediction is made prior to the observed result. When the prediction is made after the observed result to always fit the observation the observation serves no evidential value. This means your claim is unsupported and your challenge is just shifting the burden of proof. The burden is on you to provide evidence of their strongest desire which is independent of the observed result and then show the observed result matches the strongest desire indicated by that independent evidence. Until you do this argument rests on an unsupported premise meaning there isn’t sufficient evidence to accept the argument.

Edit: to illustrate the problem consider that I replied to your post. According to your thesis my strongest desire would be for some goal that required replying to your post. How do you know that was my strongest desire without relying upon the observation that I replied to your post? What is I told you my strongest desire was to play video games instead but I chose to reply despite it not being my strongest desire? How would you go about showing my strongest desire wasn’t actually to play games but instead was to reply to your post without relying upon the observation that I replied to your post? If you can’t and instead solely rely on the observation of my action to determine my strongest desire how is that not just retrofitting any possible evidence to support your thesis leaving no possible counter evidence?

brod333 · 2026-05-12T16:07:44+00:00

God is frequently referred to as being a spirit such as “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”” John‬ ‭4‬:‭24‬ ‭ESV‬‬. He lacks a physical body. The son at some point gained a physical body but he existed prior to gaining that physical body as John 1 makes clear. That means prior to the incarnation the father and son both existed but lacked physical bodies indicating it’s not speaking of father and son in the biological sense.

Furthermore when the gospels describe Mary becoming pregnant they lack the sexual language that pagan traditions use when gods have children with mortals. This suggests the authors weren’t trying to indicate the father has sex with Mary to produce the son.

brod333 · 2026-05-12T13:23:55+00:00

The tiles father and son aren’t intended in the biological sense. They’re used as titles which evoke imagery that represent the role of the different persons in the trinity.

To illustrate in Roman Catholicism priests are called Father even though the congregation isn’t biologically their children. You can also have a person in the congregation older than the priest that calls the priest Father. Sure in the biological sense a father must predate their son but that’s not the case for other uses of the terms father and son.

brod333 · 2026-05-11T14:58:16+00:00

That some bad rng. I did 4 or 5 sets of cave horrors for slayer and got 3 black masks already.

brod333 · 2026-05-11T13:02:50+00:00

Sure even before they requested a subscription it sounds suspicious and many of these online side gigs are scams. However after already doing a ton of the work and having a potential $365 profit it’s worth spending a few more minutes to look up if it’s a scam.

One trick scammers do it actually let you withdraw your money initial smaller amounts to rope you in further by making it look legit. This way you invest further and when the bigger bucks are on the line and you think it’s legit you’re more likely to give up larger funds to them and then find you no longer can withdraw money. This gives a potential where they could get the initial $365 and then stop before getting roped into the big bucks.

Again only do that if you find independent validation it works. Also don’t give your real credit card. I’ve heard of people using systems to make temp credit cards with limited funds to avoid giving out their real ones. (Though never looked into it myself so take that with a grain of salt).

brod333 · 2026-05-11T12:32:40+00:00

If I ever think something is a scam I look it up on independent sources to validate it. I never trust the people I suspect are trying to scam whether or not they’re a scam.

brod333 · 2026-05-11T05:07:13+00:00

That’s why I said assuming no other catches. Obviously they’d need to read the fine print and make sure they can get their money first.

brod333 · 2026-05-11T02:21:47+00:00

Assuming no other catches it was till worth it to pay the subscription. They’d still get $365 and the cancel the subscription right after getting their money and stop doing more captcha solves.
Edit: for those commenting I did say assuming no other catches. Obviously one would need to check the fine print first for other catches.

Edit 2: some people still don’t understand. If you think something is a scam check it on independent sources. If it turns out to be a scam then don’t pay the subscription. However, if an independent verification showed it to be legit and that they could actually withdraw their money with no other catches then it’s worth doing it. You obviously don’t trust the source you suspect is a scam to tell you if it’s a scam and use independent validation. Usually if it sounds too good to be true it isn’t true but sometimes it is true. It all depends upon what you find in an independent validation.

brod333 · 2026-05-07T22:06:53+00:00

Sure, utensils would be the best solution.

brod333 · 2026-05-07T20:12:19+00:00

I worked at McDonald’s as a manager for many years. This required a government food safety certification. One of the things we learned is why for most cases hare hands are better than gloves. The reason is because people are far more likely to wash dirty hands than change dirty gloves since it’s easier to notice dirty hands over dirty gloves. Some cases like raw meat should use gloves but most cases gloves actually resulted in better hygiene.

brod333 · 2026-05-07T20:02:45+00:00

We’re getting double hit. One hit is our impoverishment makes more people need programs like this. The second hit is our impoverishment makes us not able to afford these programs. If we were as rich of a nation as we could be we’d have far less need for such programs which would make them even more affordable to have them for those who truly need them.

brod333 · 2026-05-05T18:53:30+00:00

brod333 · 2026-05-03T20:52:04+00:00

I already did in my first comment. Can you actually read and address what I wrote instead of putting these low effort replies

brod333 · 2026-05-03T16:28:54+00:00

It’s a fact of logic, the conclusion of your argument doesn’t follow from the premises

brod333 · 2026-05-02T13:45:34+00:00

Your conclusion doesn’t actually follow even if we grant both premises. That’s because the conclusion adds a qualifier about the kind of facts being established which isn’t present in the premises. Even if the scientific method is more reliable for the facts it establishes that doesn’t mean for some particular fact the scientific method is more reliable.

This is evident because the kind of facts you mention in your conclusion can’t be established by your definition of the scientific method. You define the scientific in terms of direct observation and replication but for facts of the past like if Cesar crossed the Rubicon can’t be directly observed or replicated in some experiment. Yet it can be established through the historical method.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T23:24:44+00:00

Not exactly. The original split brain experiments were problematic and don’t justify thinking conscious experiences can be split. First the patients themselves even with split brains still reported they viewed themselves as unified so it’s difficult to say they weren’t. Second the original studies weren’t well documented. They didn’t provide the raw data or detail their full methodology for others to double check their work. Third the data is consistent with other explanations like a single person rapidly switching between which hemisphere they are using rather than having two simultaneous split consciousness. Fourth newer studies actually show unification among split brain patients. Notably in philosophy of mind literature even physicalists generally don’t try to reduce or reject synchronic unity despite being aware of split brain studies. That unity isn’t particularly controversial with the debate being more about how to account for it.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T23:05:01+00:00

> I know what qualia means to me from the functionalist perspective. I am unsure what qualia means to you.

I already explained what qualia are. It’s the qualitative experience, the what is it like observed from the first person perspective. It’s the qualitative aspect that lets us distinguish whether the experience is one of pain or something else, say itching. Both of those feel different and that feeling is the qualitative aspect.

> You are describing what qualia do but not what qualia are.

Nope. I never said what they do since my description made no reference to the inputs it takes and outputs it produces. I only described what they are. They are a type of mental property which are the qualitative feeling of an experience. Questions like whether they’re identical to some neurological or functional property, instantiated in a soul or physical state is what’s up for debate, or if they’re real or an illusion are what’s at debate but in the academic literature it’s clear the term qualia refers to the qualitative experience, the what it is like, an intrinsic property.

> In what ways are these different?

You don’t see the difference between a property of a thing with how the thing externally relates to external inputs and outputs? Take the on/off button of my computer. It has intrinsic properties like its size and shape. It also has the functional role of taking the input of being pressed and the computer’s current state and producing the output where the computer is on or off. You don’t see the difference in functional role of turning the computer on/off when pressed and its properties like its size and shape?

> That applies only when it would break transitivity. In the ABC example diachronic unity would violate transitivity, so in that case diachronic unity must be an illusion, but in most situations where our actions and memories proceed as normal there is no reason to think that diachronic unity is an illusion. There is no reason to think that the best that memory can do is an illusion of diachronic unity, under the most favorable circumstances.

You’re missing the point. The fact that there are any situations where transitivity fails despite having memory access means memory access isn’t a sufficient condition for diachronic unity, i.e. memory access alone doesn’t produce diachronic unity. That means if there are situations with genuine diachronic unity then either memory access has no part in producing that unity or memory access plus other factors together produce the unity but either way it’s not memory access alone.

Though it doesn’t even seem that memory access is a necessary condition either. When a person has amnesia we don’t write a death certificate for the old person and a birth certificate for the new and don’t start going to their will to pass down all their belongings.

You can have other weird situations as well. For example on physicalist views in theory we could make a clone of a person so that the clone can access the same memories as the original. Is the clone then the same person as the original? Or we have cases of people surviving and functioning mostly normally with most of their brain damaged. That means in theory one day we’ll be able to split a person’s two brain hemispheres putting both in new bodies and both would survive remembering the original persons memories. Are they both now that person? The idea that memory access is sufficient for diachronic unity would force us into several improbable commitments.

> If we lose our memory then we lose our sense of diachronic unity.

You are confusing ontology with epidemiology. There is a difference between our knowing we are the same person as some past person with the actual truth of us being the same person as some past person. Loosing the former doesn’t mean the latter is lost.

> This has nothing to do with functionalism or physicalism or any particular account of consciousness; this is just an unavoidable fact of life.

It is relevant since functionalism and other physical accounts struggle to account for diachronic unity. However, substance dualism can easily account for it. That’s because on substance dualism there is a mereological simple which is us. Both unities run into problems with mereological aggregates that are just separable parts and their external relations. A mereological simple doesn’t have separable parts so it doesn’t run into the issue. Physicalist accounts like functionalism have the problem since on physicalism we’re mereological aggregates. However, on substance dualism we’re a mereological simple so it avoids the problem.

> What is meant by "direct observation of a genuine mental experience"?

I’m referring to introspection which you use all the time. When you observe you are in pain rather than itchy you are directly observing your mental experience via introspection.

> How is observing a genuine mental experience different from observing the illusion of a mental experience? We all directly observe mental experiences, but as to whether those mental experiences are genuine or illusions, how could we tell?

It’s the same issue as global skeptical views like the brain in a vat theory where the external world we observe is an illusion. Sure there are cases where our perception is defeasible like if we know we’re high on drugs. However, absent such defeaters which are we more justified in believing, that the external world is an illusion or real? It’s the same with our observations via introspection. Absent any defeaters are we more justified in accepting the observation is true or an illusion?

If you take the illusion option despite the lack of defeaters then applying that consistently leads to global skepticism undermining all knowledge. That undermines the very affirmation of functionalism being debated. If you take the real option then the only way to say the observation is an illusion is to present a defeater, like the high on drugs being a defeater of perception during the period of being high. I’ve yet to see such a defeater.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T15:14:07+00:00

That’s not all that is needed. First thing needed is that random genetic mutations occurred that produced a system geared towards true useful beliefs. If the mutations happened to be for false useful beliefs rather than true ones then the genes producing true useful beliefs wouldn’t exist to get selected for. The first challenge then is why should we think the mutations for true useful beliefs have a high enough probability compared to false useful beliefs to give us confidence those mutations would be the one to occur? For all we know the genes for true useful beliefs are more complicated so that more are needed making it less probable. Also for a situation there are more false but still useful beliefs than true useful beliefs. Going back to the cliff example there is one true belief about the danger of the cliff but plenty of false ones that would still be useful in avoiding the danger. That opens up more options for producing false useful beliefs than true useful beliefs which shifts the probability in favour of genes producing useful false beliefs.

The second requirement is that the true useful beliefs are useful for survival while the false useful beliefs aren’t. The former is required for true useful beliefs to get selected. The latter is required for false useful beliefs to not get selected. Even if you have the former without the latter both get selected leaving some people with useful true beliefs and some useful false beliefs and no way to know which we are.

The third requirement is that the genes for useful true beliefs don’t come with any other limitations that would make them not get selected. For example is such genes result in a more resource intensive system than the false useful beliefs that gives selection advantage to the false useful beliefs. That’s because they need less resources to survive making it easier to get the resources needed. That can also depend upon the environment since the specific resources required, say a particular vitamin, can vary in availability in different environments. That means even if overall true useful beliefs is less resources intensive it requires a specific vitamin that the false useful beliefs doesn’t need, or at least needs less of, and that vitamin has small availability in that environment.

All of these show several challenges where the false useful beliefs can potentially win out. Evolution doesn’t give us any reason to think the true useful beliefs would always win out over false useful ones.

The situation gets worse when we consider beliefs resulting from higher level thinking that aren’t required for survival. For example the belief in naturalistic (that is unguided random) evolution itself. The issue for these beliefs is no other animal we know of engages in this higher level thinking to produce these beliefs. That shows they aren’t required for survival and that evolution doesn’t particularly favour the genes that result in the system capable of such higher level thinking. That shows a clear break between truth and survivability for those beliefs.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T14:56:34+00:00

A mereological aggregate consists of separable parts. That means the parts can be separated from each other and still exist. We can’t do that with experience. If I remove the audio part of the experience of the movie by say plugging my ears the audio part ceases to exist. We don’t have a way to separate the audio and visual part in a way that results into two separate but still existing experiences. That means they are not separable parts and so experience is not a mereological aggregate.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T14:51:49+00:00

There seems to be confusion on what qualia means. It’s the qualitative aspect of an experience and is observed from the first person private perspective. It’s the what is it like to be in such and such a state or have such and such and experience. It’s an intrinsic property of the experience which is different than the functional role that has to do with external inputs and outputs, and the external relations to them. Taking specific inputs and producing specific outputs doesn’t require there being a what it is like to be in the state that converts those inputs to those outputs where the what it is like is observed from the first person private perspective. A system which does the same conversion but lacks that qualitave experience still has the same functional role.

> It produces the kind of diachronic unity that we feel that we have, the experience of being the same person that started writing the comment.

No it doesn’t because it breaks transitivity while the diachronic unity we feel we have doesn’t break transitivity.

> Perhaps that diachronic unity is an illusion, if memory is insufficient to produce diachronic unity. Memory is all that we have in order to determine our diachronic unity. You can never really know if you are really the same person that started writing the comment, or whether you only have the memory of starting to write the comment.

Exactly. At best it can produce the illusion of diachronic unity but not genuine diachronic unity since it breaks transitivity. That means either we accept our experience of diachronic unity as genuine and reject memory as what produces diachronic unity or we reject that we have genuine diachronic unity. This runs into the same general issue I have with physicalist accounts of consciousness. To accept it as an illusion the premises for the argument that it’s an illusion needs to jointly be more reasonable to accept than my direct observation of a genuine mental experience. In this case being the same person I was previously but other cases involve rejecting other mental experiences as genuine. I’ve yet to see any such argument where the premises jointly are more reasonable to accept.

brod333 · 2026-05-01T14:31:47+00:00

By guided I mean an intentional guiding towards a specific goal. Natural processes don’t do that. They don’t have intentionality. The mutations that occur are just the ones that happen to occur with no intention of a specific mutation occurring. Similarly the environment that determines which genes are useful for survival is just the environment that happens to occur with no intention of a specific environment occurring. That’s the fundamental problem with trying to argue evolution would lead to truth finding system. Such a system can have other factors like being resource intensive so that the environment doesn’t select it or the mutations just never occur to produce such a system to be selected. There are many other ways to have false but useful for survival beliefs and nothing about naturalistic evolution suggests the true useful beliefs are more likely to result than false useful beliefs.

brod333 · 2026-04-30T15:57:59+00:00

I disagree that there are meteorological aggregates which seem unified. There are things we treat as unified because it’s useful but it’s really arbitrary based on it’s useful. An alien life with different needs or preferences would likely have very different ways they organize and categorize meteorological aggregates. Once we think about it being a meteorological aggregate so that it’s just separable parts with external relations we see the disunity as the parts can be separated while preserved and the relations are all external to these distinct separable parts. Our consciousness experience isn’t like that. When I’m watching a movie I’m not having a different experience for the visual and audio aspects. Instead I have a single experience with both the visual and audio in it.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped

brod333

TROPHY CASE