I like the idea but it seems like a great way to make yourself liable to discrimination laws.
666 karma · joined May 12, 2012
>Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.
When Discovery Institute successfully brought creationism into the classroom it was able to do so on the grounds that there are holes in the Modern Synthesis. Since then it has become politically incorrect to question the validity of such a claim without walking on eggshells.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
Two points on this:
OOBE are a different class of experiences. It's a completely different state characterized by theta wave activity whereas mystical experiences are associated with delta and gamma waves. Having a malleable sense of self and experiencing dream-like states aren't equivalent phenomena.
People experience what is traditionally considered real(physical reality) and have naive interpretations of what that is(flat world, anthropomorphize animals, finite universe, etc...). Same goes for any other state of consciousness. An interesting counter example is shared hallucinations in such dream states. If you and someone else experience the same phenomena within the same state it goes from a 1st person experience to a 3rd person experience. That doesn't mean the hallucination is there in a physical sense but at the same time the experience suggests and underlying "realness" to it.
>Dreams can seem just as real as real life so I'd speculate that there is nothing that happens in our brains that can't be explained by our brains chemistry.
That's my point. Finding neural correlates doesn't prove/disprove anything as both sides of the argument often like to believe. The experience of the world is also just brain chemistry. We only know the world through experience(and by association biochemistry) so it's not a useful distinction.
Is there any human experience, real or not, that can't be described as "mere blips in brain chemistry". Everything we experience is going to have a neural correlate. To a Buddhist this is an affirmation that what they experience is qualitatively unique as they claim. To an atheist this affirmation that it's all just chemistry. What both are doing is re-affirming their own preconceived notions and beliefs. That's not taking a more "critical eye of events".
Philosophies have been swapping ideas for thousands of years and it shows. Take a look at thinkers like Plotinus for example. He lived in Alexandria back when it was a multicultural metropolis hosting people from across the known world. His philosophy uses ideas and language you would expect to find in eastern traditions. Thanks to his extensive influence you will also find this jargon in western philosophy, christianity, islam, etc... This might not seem relevant to you. But if you know the historical connections between neo-platonism and philosophy of math it might.
OP is probably referring to the Hard Problem of Consciousness[1].
I think it's a real barrier. It's fundamentally illogical trying to map formal constructs onto experiential domains. But that doesn't mean building a sentient being is impossible. Our existence is proof that it's possible. It does mean the best model our brains can muster for sentients is a blackbox system. Some sort of state machine or statistical model built up from correlations.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Or there is a selective pressure making sure organisms don't have indefinite lifespans. You need death for a constant stream of sexual reproduction.
Imagine if the History department had an aggregation of white supremacists. They were allowed to have their own department, their own academic journals, and even held positions of power like Dean. Would their more inclusive peers not hold some responsibility in enabling these bigots? I know you're pointing out the good side of gender studies but you're also being apologetic and enabling radicalized feminism.
Every feminist and their mom is quick to point out how feminism is inclusive whenever this discussion comes up. Very few of them actually stand up to transphobia, misandry, and countless other forms of bigotry in their circles.
A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas.
B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature.
C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.
That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists.
Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point.
>I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice.
But it's alright to just accept we're all products of socialization as a valid conclusion?
>What's the alternative being suggested?
A nuanced conversation on the interplay of biology and environment. Which there is very little of.