And what we’re doing right now is good science. We’re operationalising our variables and making testable predictions, deciding what the possible results could mean before we conduct the experiment and see them.

Saying “Neuron activity before a decision is made disproves free will” is bad science, because “free will” is being implicitly operationalised in a very opinionated way, and it’s not exactly clear what the experimenter thinks a null hypothesis result would look like.

I don’t think neuroscience can tell us whether free will exists, because “free will” is too difficult to operationalise in a way everyone would agree with. For example, many people think if our actions are predetermined based on our environment, it means no free will. But I think if our actions are random, that’s not free will, and predetermined actions would make Me feel much freer. I want to know that My mind behaves consistently, that makes Me feel in control. Many disagree. This disagreement can’t be resolved with science.

Now what I want to see is if M1 neurons begin to show increased activity before someone thinks about getting up to go pee, but decides to hold it in. Because if so, it’s pretty clear that the decision making process simply involves motor neurons readying themselves in case they’re needed. But if they don’t, then it means the motor cortex is contributing to the decision making process, and that’s an actually informative result.

I’m convinced the methodology on that decision study is flawed. Decision making isn’t an instantaneous process, it takes time for the mind to settle on an option. That neurological ramping up is the decision making.

Lemmy doesn’t have emoji reactions, you need to be on a piefed instance to do that

L meme

Isn’t Brooklyn in a really dangerous country? I heard they’re at war and they have concentration camps, I wouldn’t want to move there.

I agree that there’s a big difference between natural pedophiles (pedophilia as a sexuality) and Epstein pedophiles (pedophilia as a kink).

The research that I’ve read on the subject suggests that Epstein pedophiles are opportunistic - they offend when there is an opportunity to do so. That could be having a martini on Epstein’s island, or it could be browsing Reddit and seeing a post from r/jailbait. During that first encounter, if the person has enough excuses to be able to say it’s not that bad, it’s not illegal, it’s not actually harming anyone, then they are likely to seek out more “content” and re-offend in worse ways.

In other words, if we make cruelty free imitation child porn available to natural pedophiles, we’re going to create more Epstein pedophiles. We’re not actually helping by doing that. It’s counterproductive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Tribalism is the state of being organized by, or advocating for, tribes or tribal lifestyles

I think tribes are good and tribalism is good. I’m a tribalist. We have some great tribes here in Australia and I respect their ancient practices.

I’m being a bit sneaky and defining tribalism differently than you without telling you. See, we live in a very racist society with some very negative views of tribes. Many people think tribes are primitive and warlike, and that’s where the definition of tribalism you’re using comes from. I think using that definition is thoughtlessly callous, because I have a positive view of tribes, so I’m defining tribalism much more positively, as the view that tribes are a better way to organise a society than western civilisation. Hence My above point that white supremacists are very unlikely to be tribalists under My definition. White supremacists are only tribalists when we use white supremacist language.

I’ve never met a white supremacist who was tribalist. All the white supremacists I know are civilisationalists. And by that I mean, they uncritically accept the western idea of civilisation as consisting of domination and exploitation of the natural world and one’s fellow human beings. Everyone I know who subscribes to tribal knowledge systems is very anti-racist, so I have a very positive view of tribalism.

I believe that for a person to have unshakeable faith in objective reality, even despite all of the scientific and philosophical evidence and logic against it, speaks to an unnaturally feeble state of mind which has been cultivated in our society by the rich and powerful as a means of control. Human beings are not naturally so willfully ignorant; it must be trained from a young age.

Actually, homosexuality is a social construct and is not objective. In Ancient Greece and Rome, there was no homosexuality. Men having sex with men was considered quite normal, personal preference or attraction didn’t come into it. But for a man to take it in the butt from his social inferior was taboo in the same way homosexuality has been in much of the modern age. It was considered a deviant and unusual preference, much like being gay.

Legally, it is. I agree with the law that cruelty free imitation child porn is still child porn, just like I believe vegan butter is butter.

Playing video games causes more playing video games. Looking at child porn causes more looking at more child porn.

I made it! I’m on MULTIVERSE, the antirealist instance

Whatever you do, don’t put it on Jupiter! It’ll get more stupider!

There’s an argument to be made that this content satisfies a need for some mentally ill people, and I did believe in that argument when I was younger, but hopefully we’ve all learned from the Epstein files that demand for this kind of thing can be created from scratch in formerly normal people.

Yes, the name should be changed. The pictures on that community would be completely legal to look at if they were not described as fauxbait, but when they are posted with that framing, they become a crime to look at in Australia (And Finland, according to a Finn on Matrix)

Maybe we should put datacenters on Mars, to warm it up.

Oh, you’re a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don’t really exist? I’m somewhat similar, I’m an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It’s cool that you don’t believe in trees, though!