fghrthtb

I wouldn't

True, but this is slightly higher up the abstraction stack.

"Capitalism does not require the concept of a loser. It's the base human instinct of comparison to ones neighbor that requires the concept of a loser."

I would say that both benefit from the concept of a loser. In fact capitalism and this instinct go hand in hand. Capitalism is a frame work which works with this instinct.

Having said that it is also true that children have a natural instinct to play with their own faeces. Both this preoccupation with poo and the desire to elevate self at the expense of other should be discouraged.

Capitalism sucks, for the reasons eloquently outlined in this article.

I agree it definitely has that quality. However the analysis also 'feels' right to me, the proposed model fits elegantly. My money is on him being correct in many ways.

But you see the polygraph test doesn't have to be accurate. It's not there to actually tell whether the person is guilty. It's there so that the police can save face. Instead of "we made a mistake, we charged the wrong person", they can say "we charged this person, all the evidence suggested they were guilty, but, look at this polygraph test! It proves they are actually innocent". The police must not be questioned, if you believe the police are corrupt as I do then you become very unhappy/restless. Such an attitude does not lend itself to a cohesive society...

Science is becoming a church, to the detriment of science itself.

Objective truth, lol, good one.

Will power consumes mental energy. Fighting the urge not to consume the cheap sugary food all around you is not something many people have the resources to do - especially the poor, who are under stress and therefore have fewer cognitive resources to devote to willpower. Drop the politics and think about things logically - then reintroduce your emotion. If you manage it you will be outraged at the disgusting setup of modern society.

It's also possibly to do with their lack of shell. While other molluscs have a shell to protect them Cephalopod do not, perhaps this forced the evolution of a more capable brain.

Thanks, for your reply. I think I'm being down voted because the idea is too general for most people to understand, also they get caught up in the emotional back patting that goes on whenever people get a chance to show their allegiance to the "group think". I'm getting pretty sick of being correct and yet ignored. As a younger man I thought I was just stupid and wrong, that was bad. Now I am older I realise that most other people are wrong and that I am usually right, I am not sure which is worse.

Have you misunderstood the meaning of sophomoric? You are describing your own interesting philosophical thoughts as sophomoric. Is this because people have told you that they are? Have you considered the possibility that the complexity and breadth of your thoughts in this area make them feel inadequate?

Well, not entirely. Imagine a perfect replica of Rembrandt's brain connected to an artificial body, a painting produced by this machine would be a Rembrandt.

Now imagine reducing the correlation between the artificial brain and Rembrandt's brain until you reach the level of correlation to that of the machine described in the article. There will be a precise point where the paintings produced by the device will stop being Rembrandt's.

That is not to say that this machine is producing Rembrandt's. I am only saying that your reasoning is too simplistic.

"There are strong parallels between people who give this kind of advice to delayed sleep sufferers and people who think they can cure homosexuality"

I almost said the same thing in another post, but thought it was too controversial. Kudos to you for saying it - I agree the mindset feels similar.