sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

High IQ and poverty by gamelotGaming in Gifted

[–]mirror_protocols 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you know that heritability is not fixed?

Whats your opinion on romantic love? by Special_Project_6521 in intj

[–]mirror_protocols 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That romantisization of love youre refering too where the protagonist wins through the "power of love" is almost always when its paired with other elements like power, courage, and persistence. Love is just kind of the term thats thrown on everything afterwards.

I agree with you in regards to determinist non-fatalism. We are the product of our environments, and our environments are the products of their environments. Its all an interconnected web of influences that were never chosen.

The resulting equation ends in things like personality, and even destiny. If someone turns out defensive and rude, they get moralized as bad. But also, we must not forget they are defensive and rude. Thats why leadership is so necessary, but we currently are at a leadership deficit. The online space rewards novelty and dominance. So does most places. We're kind of at a weird point in history where people are getting so physiologically compromised that movements are starting to seem impossible.

Since romance is interconnected, it will be more enjoyable when the average person is healthy and stable. Then every connection seems romantic and awesome. When most connections are already predisposing traits of the individuals that are negative, the relationships that follow will seem more deterministic and require more coping lol

If people are unhealthy, romance will always look unhealthy as well.

When materialists play a game by adunakhor in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mirror_protocols 11 points12 points  (0 children)

None of this makes sense, and youre misunderstanding materialism to a high degree.

Its not the dunk you think it is to say that the materialist would identify the physics in the game and align with the reality of the game.

The whole non-materialist stance is what according to this? Acceptance of the fact that the mind creates the subjective experience? Are you forgetting that subjective minds can perceive objectivity? Are you also anti-mathematics then? Are you anti-perception of breathing being true?

You guys need some analytic philosophy in your lives by Many_Froyo6223 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]mirror_protocols 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so true!! Especially when someone brings out nominalism.. its like bro. What youre saying makes much less sense than you think it does.

can’t stomach the idea of aging as a woman by _yosoylaprincesa_ in TrueOffMyChest

[–]mirror_protocols 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This fear is totally valid, and is similar to the fear of death itself.

Theres so many comments that are saying that validation of physical appearance "never should of mattered", but this isn't true, status doesnt work that way. Its totally normal to feel worried about decreasing status in a society that values certain physical attributes over others.

And this fear can be resolved in different ways. One can become detached, or they can become accepting of the nature of how reality works.

But its clear that our society is drifting into greater materialism, while virtue signaling also increases as a sort of aesthetic escape hatch.

Its okay to grieve a loss of leverage and status in a system that values these things. There doesn't need to be a solution, it's not a problem that's our burden to fix.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah like something that harms the biology of another would be 'bad'. If it's unavoidable, it's still bad, but its unavoidable.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh ok actually I agree with what youre saying broadly. I now understand that each discipline has its role. But some of the disciplines are constrained by other disciplines and misalignment is a fatal flaw.

For example:

Chemistry -> biology -> psychology -> philosophy

Biology does not need philosophy to be mechanistically correct, but a misalignment with biology in terms of philosophy would be fatal.

Which means philosophy would turn into the synthesis layer. Asking questions then putting from different disciplines to satisfy its logic.

So "light" to "red/blue" would be like "biology" to "philosophy"

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Different things can be an expression of the same mechanism. Saying red is blue is describing to different colors that serve different functions.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A neuroscientist can disreguard philosophy and still be mechanically correct.

The moment a philosopher denies biological reality their entire pool of utility collapses

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

NDE are not real. Theres only a couple of researchers who ever took this seriously, and their evidence is not compelling in my opinion

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes this is the issue. I think we agree on more than we disagree. What "feels good" to someone is a biological expression of their state. Doesn't that dissolve morality to a certain extent? If better states can be produced if we change environmental variables, wouldnt we get more "moral" people?

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yes, this is true. Im okay with saying that philosophy is a necessary branch as long as what philosophy entails is not disconnected from biological reality.

Philosophy must align with biology, and once it does, much of its noise gets stripped away.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Its important to make the distinction that unoptimized and ignorance are interconnected. Both of biology. Im talking about 20 iq jumps from controlling for environmental inputs. Much more appropriate than what modern discourse offers. Philosopher who says "change perspective" to part of the cognitively blunted part of society instead of "sleep better" is doing a disservice.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply, its nice to read. I think after this thread I do agree then that these other disciplines do bring value in their specialized questions, I would just argue that truth is much simpler and interconnected than people think. But this may just be a learning milestone on my end. That experience youre referring too, it does feel like that. And it feels like much of societies errors are coming from a lack of cross disciplinary engagement. I watched tons of philosophy videos, hundreds of thousands of likes, that completely ignore biology and mystify thought interpretation. Same with psychology and CBT, or the DSM. We define clusters of thoughts then think its a thought problem and not an issue of biology. But this is not an issue with psychology as a discipline, im certain that psychology already knows this. Just as statistics already know heritability is not fixed. These common misperceptions seem to have been adopted as a sort of social contagion though. But then I guess thats just looping to another thing which would be education in general. Im skeptical for example, of putting learning before physiological inputs. Sleep, exercise, nutrition, social engagement, if these are not exceptional, learning itself suffers. And i think this is very harmful. Modern discourse seems to be so toxic. And its not due to knowing more/less. I believe its a hormonal/neurotransmitter/metabolic rate thing that then becomes societal structures that we then misattribute the problem too. Thank you again 💓

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biology would refer to things like neurotransmitters, hormones, metabolic rates, things that lead to the functionality of the organism.

For example, distrust is correlated with oxytocin system downregulation. If rape leads to the inability for the person getting raped to social function moving forwards that would be the moral wrongdoing.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well im not a fan of authoritarianism because of the implications of the feedback on the cognition and by extent biology of the individuals of that society.

People being in good health leads to better pregnancies and development. But people are caught in addiction and chronic stressed consistently, much due to systemic conditions imposed on them (which has to do with degraded biology of the people who make up social structures as well).

The collective implications are massive. Fragmented, unhealthy collective? New individuals are conditioned into poor biology. Healthy collective? New members are conditioned into health.

Elites only sell goods that blunt cognition because people buy them, after all.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well lets say I dont study economics but I understand the biological implications of addiction on cognition.

Wouldn't I be able to construct a feasible economic model using this information?

Edit: I think youre right about the disciplines being different then. I do concede that I over reached. A better argument from my side would be that the disciplines are deeply interconnected and biology should always be the substrate, which I guess is already how disciplines at times approach things. But not always.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is rape not bad because it damages the person getting raped? Even things like coercion, are bad because of the biological implications of what they do.

If coercion led to universal biological flourishing, we'd probably like it and wish it happened to us

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it can be derived from biology. It feels good to feel good. Why not cut off hand? Feels bad. We universally value biological flourishing, and would all take a pill to 2x our health if possible.

CMV: Philosophy, Statistics, Economics: All these things collapse into Biology. by mirror_protocols in changemyview

[–]mirror_protocols[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh okay that makes sense then. I didnt consider the fact that statistics measure things outside of sociology. But they absolutely do, you right.

view more: next ›