Nobody would say otherwise. It's your argument that folk are *only* those things. You dismiss all evidence otherwise, even as you acknowledge it. For instance, you admit you know children are taught and looked after but you dismiss it and just reiterate your premise. That isn't an argument, it's dismissing the obvious factual contradiction of your belief. It's you that is delusional. [Delusional really does scan much better than delusionary.]

The first definition of "delusional" on Google says:

"characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

Clearly you are not alone on this thread. lol

My theory is that it's magic frogs that whisper our thoughts into our minds. And the only antidote is chocolate cake.

No, just kidding. Actually I suspect it has something to do with the material basis of nature. All materialists (obviously?) treat the working of the brain and consciousness as essentially material problems. A bit of carbon here, an electrical potential there, etc. OTOH, it seems almost impossible to me that reductionism and incrementalism will get us there. Some people take that position as their launchpad for all sorts of "woo". The "unknown" obviously collects all sorts of oddball notions and all sorts of "woo" - because folk often don't know how to treat *evidence* (or its absence).

There's a big fairy living in the middle of Jupiter? I have no evidence to give you that there is not, so one can comfortably believe it, if one chooses. Personally, when I find myself believing such things I disabuse myself of them. It's a constant, often tiresome business. It's also fascinating to deconstruct one's self like that: what a pathetic yet nevertheless amazing ape I am.

Maybe not the forum for you then? :D

Well, it's more like a simple denial of all countervailing evidence.

 

i am in a panic. our philosopher king who inhabits the character of an ubermench appears to have abandoned us. how are we ever going to know the true nature of reality. just as i have developed a profound thirst for such knowledge -- nay! fundamental descriptions of the essential nature of reality -- and i had a small technical question about person x with properties a, b, c performing an action y upon person z given concious awareness theta... and all the possible permutations and combinations, ad infinitum.

alas, i suppose given all the evidence (specifically the brain stuff and the history stuff) genetically inferior plebs like us were never designed to ascend to the lofty heights. *sigh* being limited by our material circumstance sucks.

"you have shown me the sky, but what good is the sky? to a creature who will never do better than crawl."

i however suspect our ubermench is extremely busy with all the raising of funds for all the highly specific cognitive neural research and the globally networking university departments... *scratch that*. the universities are compromised. that makes this 'great work' even harder. no wonder he can hardly be hanging around here dealing out morsels to the peasants.

once the inevitable adoption of this worldview is fully realized, i personally am looking forward to my small family unit killing all my neighbors because they are stealing all my resources and i think the only formal institution i will allow to exist is the sperm bank. i am excited by the prospect of this glorious future.

and all you people saying this thread is a opinionated puff piece -- shame on you. we are merely tying up some loose ends. you will not be laughing when we expunge your genetically inferior asses. muah! oh! the sweet sweet taste of power. be patient my impetuous soul. be patient.

 

That is how i "feel" too. But I know ("feel" because of enough evidence for ideas that I have attached to some emotional "feeling") that everything so far has been found to have material basis. Everything ...that we have actually found, that is.
They had not "found" dark matter and energy? Well, that HAD, via errors, but since they could not detect the material basis they could not say they had found the cause of the errors. So they were not really ignoring it, or denying it, and were accounting for their inability as they could.

I suspect there may be some other things we have yet to identify in this universe, and perhaps in the brain as well, but i guess that it's really the complexity in how consciousness "emerges" that's the problem, as opposed to "undiscovered material".
I see it in a sense as a problem of not having the words to describe, and we won't have the words, until we can map the process more fully.

I think, even if we did not understand HOW it happens, if we had the means to map every synapse in a brain at a moment in time, and then somehow play it back into the (necessarily) same brain, before any substantial physical changes had occurred in that brain, the person would achieve the same brain state , and perhaps have the same thoughts.

Well, I try to keep an open mind, but avoid the "woo" :P

 

Bro, you're going to have to not cut off all of the context from my statements if you quote me. This is the kind of shit that got Optimus Prime killed...

 

This is real, there might have God but you might not have known him? To quelch the doubters about DMT, ..there's DMT. But for you and I, what you saw was just the doormat to that existense.

 

Humanity is a stereotype. There is, almost certainly, a real humanity out there somewhere. But all we really know directly is our own nervous systems. This is why people are so susceptible to self-serving biases over evidence. The solution IMO is to try making people who don't believe their own BS so easily.

 

That's another post where someone looks to be wilfully misrepresenting what I've written.
It's not my argument at all that folk are "*only* those things". I've said it's our natural default, but many times I've acknowledged how learnt behaviour and control can manage, minimise and mitigate.

Which one of these two quotes of mine about children being taught and looked after is dismissing all evidence otherwise, even as I acknowledge it?

"a point raised by the 'man is good' brigade is how the negative aspects of human nature are learnt behaviour. I disagree.
So lets start from the beginning. When kids are very small they are taught to share, to play nicely, to be kind to others. Why is that clear taught/learnt behaviour needed if we're not pre disposed to do the opposite?"

"As those aspects of human nature carry on, so does that of nurturing children, though again it should be noted that lots of children still don't survive infancy even in the days of modern medicine, in part due to the consequences of man's hatred."

Clearly I don't dismiss the fact that children are taught. They're my points, I made them. Why would I do that?
The first is saying that learning to do good is the learnt behaviour as the bad stuff is already there. The second, replying to a not very good point, that just as those default attributes have carried on, so has nurturing children, and I noted the appalling state of infant mortality in the modern era.

The rest of your post is meaningless, apart from the bit where you try to link me with having a mental disorder, which funnily in this topic, isn't a very nice thing to do. ;)
Almost makes you as bad as that stalky, bum sore guy

 

Fair enough. Not much of an argument then. The only issue now is what on earth does "natural default" mean?

There's nothing unnatural in the cosmos, it's all nature, by definition. So what about "default"? What on earth does "the default" mean in regards to humans? Haven't we just been through all this? There isn't a default - humanity contains all the things humans are capable of.

Again, it can only be taken as a confession by the OP whom, I suppose, has no experience of small children and is completely ignorant of the usual response of even the smallest child to other animals, for instance. Hint - they don't smash them to pieces. :D

 

hardly stalking dude, but i guess you got to be the victim.

i don't get it, why particularly is "this topic" any different than any other?

i take it you mean this? i don't know.

i have made my case, just because you try to evaded it or ignore it doesn't mean it does not exist.

all this person x with properties a, b, c performing an action y upon person z given conscious awareness theta... and all the possible permutations and combinations ad infinitum, just isn't going to cut it.

i am never going to convince you of anything. i am simply trying to hold you to exactly what you have posted. is that bad?

 

alright, let me be very clear, just in case you do not understand what i am saying here.

*you* have claimed you have scientific and historical evidence to back your "reality based" claims. quite simple -- present it. hopefully in a manner that is somewhat compelling. then and only then can people judge it on its merits.

if you do not present compelling evidence --as *you* stated-- i will assume this is just an opinionated puff piece and cease to have any interest. i will be gone from this thread (i.e no stalking in you language).

an optional extra is an apology for misleading people but i would not hold my breath.

 

Blimey, this is tough going. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier in the tribute thread that guy who obsessively took no real bad started?

Yes, mankind has the potential to change his default state, and people make that effort all the time
"the natural state of man is aggression, possession, prejudice and victory through self preservation. From war with sticks and stones, to road rage, to posting on the internet, mankind is the same as ever he was."
Nothing in this thread has convinced me otherwise, not even close.

Your lack of astuteness got a little laugh.

 

pleeease type more, and faster, faster you sexy little pigglet. do you know what a raptilian is??

 

dude. *you* made the claims. *you* have to prove it. that's how science works. the onus of proof is on you. no one else.

if its not science its just opinion and i don't think many people interested in what you think (they are not even your own original thoughts, you are just parroting). they have their own dumb opinions. even if someone did convince you, you could just deny it. that's the whole point.

if you have no valid science, then do not state that you do. its very simple.

 

i am a reptilian but i will not present any evidence to prove it. you have to prove that i am not.

 

bravo, that deadly serious blue belt in the gym who chokes out all the white belts and then struts and preens. are you that guy?

 

Come on then, explain what "a default state" is? How do you know it exists? How do you know its content and character?

Fact is, it's a crock of shite. You don't have *anything* on which to make any claims about a "default state" of humans. It's something you invented. It's BS.

How do you imagine you can tell **an infant** is full of hate and whatnot? Prove that newborn infants are full of hate and whatever else you claim.

First, clearly define what you mean by "default state".
Second, provide evidence that a newborn infant exhibits the malign qualities you claim it does.

 

You're really getting perplexed by the meaning of 'default state'? I don't believe you. It's quite clear.
Sure, as you probably do know the term, you are free to argue against that state being described as I have.

As has been outlined before, new born babies are shit, eat and sleep machines.
Infants, as toddlers, first exhibit all those qualities I've proffered, which is why they are trained to do the opposite. Clearly this doesn't work so well considering violent crimes, greed crimes, road rage to internet warriors getting angry and panic posting or making tribute threads etc...

I suggests, instead of trying to disprove what in effect in your case, given mankind's historical and present day prevalence to sucking big time, you have an argument you can't win, your time would be better spent proving that humanity is the utopian dream some claim it to be.

 

Oh well.

 

I will wait for your proof how humanities natural state isn't aggression, possession, prejudice and win at all costs self preservation.