Sebastian

@aristomarinetti Great read

The first thing I’ll do when I get married is read Schopenhauer’s essay on women to my wife.

@CREID2852 @drantbradley Even in high income economies like Japan, Korea the Scandinavians the TFR is down. It’s a bunch of factors that together creates a catastrophe. I am not saying that economic reasons don’t contribute

@drantbradley The opportunity cost of babies is high. A young couple can choose to have 4 kids and live poorly or 1 kid and live middle class.

Wow! Has the world has given up on kids? Why? How would you explain this trend?

@drantbradley It’s the perfect shit storm.

@elonmusk It’s the freaking liquid modernity. Everything is disposable.

This collective suicide of humanity needs to turn around!

@El0dyAntitheist @allegiantfaith By evolving morality you mean…. Absolutely nothing

@allegiantfaith Tu oublies que dans ta morale absolue divine et stable on ne conteste pas l’esclavage, les châtiments corporels, la peine de mort ou encore le viol. Donc oui. Je préfère ma morale évolutive.

Relativism at its finest. According to this person, we just make morality up as we go. It’s an illusion. And everyone should do whatever they want. That’s the implication. An implication that is supposedly “better” than absolute morality. But how exactly is an ethical free-for-all “better” than an absolute, stable morality? And how do we determine what “better” is if morality is whatever feels “right” or “good,” whatever those mean?

@allegiantfaith I don’t know how relativism became so popular. Even worse how they cannot see that it leads to an incoherent mess.

@AntiCommieBecca Character is built by participating in the virtues. It’s a habit, so it must be coherent. So telling the truth is part of the habit of a virtuous person.

I’m not a particularly religious person so I’m asking this question genuinely. 🙏 From a biblical perspective, if the devil comes to you, as he did in the garden of Eden, & “makes good points” is it OK to listen to and agree with his points? Is the character of a person really irrelevant? I ask because I’m seeing a number of “Christians” who say the character of an individual is irrelevant. All that matters is what they say. And even if they’re evil people if they make “good points” we should listen to them and abide by them. Regardless of whether or not the person is evil. Is this really biblical? Shouldn’t the character of the person matter? Genuinely asking for anybody who knows!

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez How is it unsupported have you ever feel something phenomenological just by having a physical description. It is pretty obvious. Well I am gonna end this here please do not tell this to a philosophy professor he is going to laugh to your face

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez Well it’s an unsupported premise what can I do but disagree?

how do people actually believe in a literal resurrection without lobotomizing themselves? like the universe is causally closed and follows the laws of physics always except for that one time with very poor documentation and all the incentive in the world to fabricate?

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez You are just dense. You know absolutely nada about this. You can’t even comprehend where the problem lies

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez You’re just spamming intuition pumps and getting angry when I deny the pump

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez How in the hell can you know that the firing of certain neurons means something. That’s the gap problem. It’s like saying the meaning of written words are embedded in the chemistry of the ink and paper. It’s not. That’s why you need a decoder

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez And no it isn’t! The subjects whose mental experience was extracted from physical states did not consciously explain anything. You’re knowing engaging with a strawman or you’re illiterate. Your choice!

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez Cool nice refutation.

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez I don’t agree!

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez So physical is not the same as phenomenological. There are tons of arguments like this. But you are close minded and keeps yapping about that scientific experiment that proofs nothing.

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez Quick Nagel actual argument. Let’s say you are an expert on bats, you know all of its neurology. By a complete physical description of all the brain works of the bat you’ll never know what echolocation feels like. So physical description are not in the same category of qualia

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez Deny is not the same as solved. Some minority believes there is no problem and explains away. The ones who accepts it and it is the majority says there is no solution. D Chalmers proposal is to posit consciousness as fundamental, not reducible of physical states

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez So you agree this statement is false

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez So you understand the category error you are making. How a physical description is going to produce a phenomenological experience in yourself ??

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez I’m not sure! But given we’ve been able to look at neurons to tell what a person is picturing in their mind I’m confident we’ll get there. Taste doesn’t seem anymore private than that

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez Wow sure you believe in bigger miracles than theists. How the hell you can know what coffee taste likes by looking neurons. This is beyond stupid.

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez Yes I do! I’ve seen him do it haha

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez That’s the minority for sure. The majority believe in the problem so your statement is false

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez Please excuse me if I don’t take your characterizations of fields of work seriously given our convo on causation There are as many people who take a deflationary or illusory view of the hard problem as there are people like you

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez Appeal to authority is not always fallacious that’s why it is and informal fallacy but of course you wouldn’t know that

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez You’re really terrible at arguing. Appealing to another authority rather than making an argument

@GuyWithCoolHat @cxgonzalez No because seeing neurons firing will never feel like coffee. Do you even know how an argument works ? Do you believe someone like Nagel commits a stupid mistake like that??

@SebastianDelga8 @cxgonzalez Well you’ve just stated your conclusion as a premise. I think that a scientist would eventually be able to know that you’re drinking coffee and could probably make good conclusions about what it tastes like given sufficient understanding of the brain