M.C. Visser

Why downloading #consciousness will never happen link.medium.com/XwmbPPVFC6

@Kassandra_Zerb @LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling His paper is not clear enough on this matter. He hints at the idea sexless people are still either male or female. Hermafrodism is also not mentioned (or chimerism). Also,the uterus IMHO is socially much more important than the gamete type (see seahorses).

@RuntimeTraveler @LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling There sure is. Our sex is determined genetically by sex chromosomes. We all have them. Colin believes people with Swyer's are sexless bc no gonads. He doesn't think it contradicts "only 2 sexes" because sexless is not a sex.

Being biologically female means having a body that is observably organised to produce large gametes (eggs), as opposed to a body organised to produce small gametes (sperm). A woman is female whether her eggs have been fertilised or not. A man can never be female.

@Kassandra_Zerb @LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling Where does Colin say that? That would counter his own argument. Your last sentence doesn't mean anything scientifically unless you define the classification method. There isn't one.

@RuntimeTraveler @LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling You have a point about "function" wrt defining sex at individual level. Also, Colin erroneously believes that some people are sexless... However, all sexually reproducing organisms can be classified as ova or sperm producers, including sterile ones.

@JoelMCurzon Science will tell you the world in complex, i.e. it is impossible to understand the present and to predict/calculate the future in any meaningful sense. The only thing we can do is be very conservative and make small blind modifications. But we need to make those together.

Christianity frames morality either as divine command theory or in terms of consequences that don’t actually exist (Heaven, Hell, etc.). With respect to real consequences in the real world, especially in the long run, Christianity is willfully blind. 1/n

@Aarvoll_ But at least this set of principles would be knowable. Beyond that everything is unknowable.

@RuntimeTraveler When you have a handful of mechanical first principles, though, you'll ex hypothesi have no way to explain why that handful is the one we have not some other one. So it's still epistemologically unsatisfying.

A disjunctive syllogism for supposing God's existence from epistemology: -A complex reality requires an explanation -Explanation must be in terms of causes -An infinite chain of causes is not an explanation -The causal chain must terminate in either a simple or complex first cause -A complex first cause, per premise 1, requires further explanation, but being supposed first can't offer one ∴A simple first cause is the only epistemologically satisfying one But a simple first cause containing the principles of all complex reality is the classical notion of God, so that notion of God is the only epistemologically satisfying explanation of reality.

@Kassandra_Zerb @LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling You can check this thread. I show that Colin's main argument cannot be falsified, and therefore isn't scientific. x.com/i/status/20424…

@LondoSpark @SwipeWright @jk_rowling Someone discovered third reproductive role?? Please, share.

@arvaigabor_ @Sheehuurthey @SwipeWright I would use a weighted sum of different sexual properties (using numerical sign to indicate male/female). Most people would score near max negative of max positive, but definitely not all.

@Sheehuurthey @SwipeWright Define your version of sex!

Hasan Piker's subreddit moderators are removing posts that link to my scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" in threads discussing whether trans people can actually change their sex. I know the deleted post contained a link to my article because Altmetric had already catalogued it, and the link takes me to the deleted comment.

@AlfredRotors @SwipeWright Which is stupid, because there are clear loopholes in Colin's argument.

@SwipeWright It’s so funny when they resort to censorship; they’re admitting they can’t win the argument.

@sowelleconomics Don't post this crap. The number of legs is definitely a (multivariate) spectrum. And no species is cleanly separate from other species (in space or time). Learn basic evolutionary theory. Even popes recognize evolution.

"Some women can't get pregnant, how are they still women?" Matt Walsh responds.

@Plinz @norabelrose What is the difference between a collectively enacted agency and a consensus on heuristics for the utility function? Or we should admit that the Holy Spirit acts on higher knowledge.

@norabelrose Pleasure has always been irrelevant, and utilitarianism is a failed attempt to reconstruct the ethics of divine will: what does God want me to do? Where God is the best possible collectively enacted agency.

Hedonistic utilitarianism implies that we should tile the universe with "hedonium" Basically computers running the same simulation of heroin ecstasy over and over again This is incoherent, there is no such thing as the "number of copies" of a computer program

@johannesmkx Genesis says humans were created after land mammals.

Ancient Greek philosophers believed the apes descended from man: namely, men who had failed in life reincarnated as lesser beings. Christianity also believes this: We come from God, not from animals. It's wasn't until the Marxists came along in the West that we turned it around, saying we came from apes. (I don't believe this anymore, but I was raised to believe it.)

@JohnathanBi The most plausable cause of paranormality is not mentioned: Paranormal actions are created by Higher intelligences, with meaningful intent. This explains why it cannot be controlled. They hide it outside our short temporal horizon of causality. (See complexity science).

Join my newsletter if you want my long-form interviews delivered in your inbox + invites to my IRL/online events: greatbooks.io

Two years ago, I witnessed a Christian miracle, but I did not convert. Not because I thought the miracle was fraudulent — I think it was genuine — but because of the existence of other genuine miracles in competing religious traditions. Even more frustrating, these traditions give the same unconvincing explanations of the others’ miracles: demons, fraud or, at best, lesser revelations. Christian holy men tell me Buddhism has been hijacked by Satan. Buddhist monastics tell me Christ is a Bodhisattva for a lesser civilization not ready for the ultimate truth. I don’t find any of these answers compelling. So how is one to decide between competing religious claims? This is the burning question that has motivated my seeker’s journey for the past few years and my guest Rice University’s Jeff Kripal has given me the most compelling response yet. After two years of talking with every religious scholar/practitioner/monastic I could find, it is this interview that I find most convincing by far. He figured it out. Now let me be clear, what I find so compelling is less so Jeff’s answer, and more his method. Jeff takes seriously 1. the miraculous claims of all orthodox religions, but also 2. the modern critiques of those religions: biblical criticism, science, Freud, Feuerbach. And last but not least he also integrates 3. the contemporary supernatural: near death experiences, remote viewing, UAPs, telepathy, reincarnation research. Jeff is the only religious scholar I know who not only takes these three seemingly incompatible spheres seriously but has integrated them into a unifying theory. And if you are at all curious about the religious question I cannot recommend Jeff’s work enough for both scholars and seekers. Timestamps: 4:07 Against Western Monotheism 33:58 Against Eastern Religion 52:50 Against Materialism 1:23:11 Fraudulent Miracles? 1:31:52 Dual Aspect Monism 1:49:47 The Historicity of Miracles 1:55:39 The Ethics of Mysticism

@Plinz @VanceCrowe @kanair Isn't that identical (in practice) to saying an idea is too complex.

@kanair We have a strong cognitive bias to dismiss ideas that make no sense to us

There seems to be a strong cognitive bias that makes us believe everyone else is wrong about consciousness.

@cosmicfibretion Resource efficiency is a simplicity requirement (Occam's razor). The multiverse fails this, unless there is some kind of lazy evaluation combined with resource symmetry (data compression).

There are two kinds of physicists in the world: Creationists and those who understand that quantum mechanics predicts a multiverse (albeit incompletely as we do not (yet) understand the quantum nature of spacetime).

It may be unrealistic to expect the world to become vegetarian (at least not until synthetic meat is produced at scale), but that doesn't mean we must treat farm animals with vicious cruelty. Small protections can reduce massive harm at tolerable costs. Tell your senator to vote NO on the Farm Bill if it includes the "#SaveOurBacon Act."

@_OKJ__ Are you suggesting people are born as blank slates and everything they do is to their own merit? There is nothing more absurd than that. The bible acknowledges the fundamental unknowability of free will: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

This is why Christianity makes zero sense by the way.

@algekalipso @Plinz @vidhvatm Bhuddists place themselves outside the game. Christianity inverts the game. Besides, neglecting the physical form leads to suffering, which Buddhists claim will diminish.

@Plinz @vidhvatm Any chance we will discover Buddhism is more literally true than current science assumes? If so, perhaps we should focus on scientifically demonstrating it (or refuting it)

I think it was a mistake for our culture to dismiss religion, instead of understanding and redesigning it with rational epistemology. Religion defines the intentionality and structure of the superorganism. Without seeing the shape of the superstructure, we cannot derive ethics.

@jim_rutt @Liv_Boeree You keep running into those pesky paranormal Idealists, Jim. I think the universe is trying to tell you something 🤣

Everyone's talking about Moloch. @Liv_Boeree argues we should be just as concerned about Norma.

@RealChrisLangan @SimonJRBosworth It sounds incompatible with "No one comes to the Father except through me". Not intellect, but full humility and faith are the path.

Not true. Proof in the empirical sciences is limited to direct replicated perception plus strict logical inference using well-defined terminology, a constraint satisfied by virtually nothing in the empirical sciences. Mathematical proof relies on the axiomatic method, but there's no way to prove the validity of a set of axioms for any universe not restrictively defined to conform to them. The CTMU takes the proof concept to the absolute limit, where it is based on the manifest intelligibility of observable reality. There's no getting around it.

Comment (Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture): “The Story of Everything is not rhetorical ambition. It is a direct challenge to the materialist story that has dominated intellectual life since the 19th century.” Response: Thank you for the information. Apparently, this refers to a documentary to be released in theaters on April 30. AI: “The Story of Everything is a documentary that explores the cosmos and the concept of intelligent design. This film delves into significant scientific breakthroughs and presents evidence suggesting that the universe, including humanity, may not be a product of random chance. It is based on Stephen Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis, and aims to reignite discussions about the origins of life and the existence of a higher power.” (I won’t be watching it, as I don’t live near a movie theater.) I will say, however, that the Discovery Institute is not actually on the cutting edge regarding the “Intelligent Design” hypothesis. Mainstream intelligent design relies on probabilistic calculations which, while revealing, lack a coherent theoretical framework supporting evolution and describing how it actually works. Without such a framework, ID theory boils down to “God did it”. Although that’s a fact, the ID community has not expressed it in sufficient detail to actually explain anything. This points to something that Christians probably don’t want to hear, but need to hear anyway. Christianity has become a loosely amalgamated for-profit enterprise which generates vast sums using various interpretations of Christian scripture, leading to a surfeit of CZ pastors flying around on private jets to preach abundance theology and the prosperity gospel. Unfortunately, such interpretations are subject to mutual inconsistency due to the desire of their major proponents to establish unique, financially secure economic niches for themselves, which virtually obligates them to make liars of each other. Most of them are quite jealous and wouldn’t dream of “risking their reputations” by siding with an ex-bar bouncer who had been photographed riding around on a Harley Davidson. The CTMU is the only theory able to fill the bill. Unfortunately, the Discover Institute and other ID-oriented people have been wrinkling their noses at it for going on three decades now, starting many years ago when the owner of a major ID website decided to humbly demonstrate his “good faith” to the “New Atheists” he was courting for dialogue by excommunicating my wife and me as we were being insulted on that very website (and others) by said atheists. Evidently, he wasn’t impressed with me or the CTMU. Believing as I do in reciprocity, I quickly decided that I wasn’t impressed with him, his website, or his opinions either. I was disappointed with what seemed to be a smug, self-righteous refusal to cooperate in what had seemingly been proposed as a joint mission. By all means, I encourage people to watch the show if they find the topic appealing. But do not under any circumstances swallow any statement to the effect that it represents the theological state-of-the-art on the intelligently designed aspects of reality. That belongs to me and the CTMU alone, and this has been the case for nearly 30 years. Thanks for your attention.

Murray makes both cultural arguments for failures of the lower class, as well as genetic arguments. Somehow both are wrong??? Needless to say: neither good faith nor convincing. They don't seem to know the topics and only give moralistic arguments. 3/3

So I chose the episode about a book by Charles Murray on the suffering of the white underclass. In short: it takes ample time for condescending ad hominems. It accuses Murray of being moralistic, and the same time shunning the whole IQ argument for moralistic reasons. 2/

@KnowYrEnemyPod ChatGPT gave this podcast the top recommendation for good faith criticism of the conservative right. (After telling me there aren't many) 1/