Source: Original Site Post

  • The Purpose of Sophism Is Overloading

    The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition is even more negatively biased than our cognitive biases.

  • The Purpose of Sophism Is Overloading

    The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition is even more negatively biased than our cognitive biases.

  • —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method. Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort. Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim. Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty. Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration? In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them. Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable. So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record. Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition. A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness. Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use. Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measurable. Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies. Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies. The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit. There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’. There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).

  • —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method. Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort. Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim. Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty. Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration? In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them. Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable. So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record. Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition. A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness. Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use. Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measurable. Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies. Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies. The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit. There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’. There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).

  • No Professional Parasites

    It’s not that complicated. We have known this fact for two thousand years: (a) no professional priests, (b) no professional politicians (c) no monopoly bureaucracy, and therefore no insulation from the market. Add (d) full accountability for the truthfulness of public speech by involuntary warranty of consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, and full accounting.

  • No Professional Parasites

    It’s not that complicated. We have known this fact for two thousand years: (a) no professional priests, (b) no professional politicians (c) no monopoly bureaucracy, and therefore no insulation from the market. Add (d) full accountability for the truthfulness of public speech by involuntary warranty of consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, and full accounting.

  • —“Why Do Women Engage in Naxalt?”—

    —“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.

  • —“Why Do Women Engage in Naxalt?”—

    —“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success. Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism). Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”, -vs- Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth” Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefiting from the division of labor between the genders. The question is, what behavior will men demonstrate now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism). Without invasion by more primitive groups, we would expect to see the return to maternal households in the majority of the underclasses, and save paternal households in the upper classes – as was the case throughout most of history. With the invasion of more primitive groups we should expect to see extermination of the less competitive single motherhood maternal family by the more competitive division of labor between male producers of income and female producers of the next generation. (which is what we are seeing.) To men, everything is a disribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.

  • —“Is saying that “women’s rights are human rights” a microaggression?”—

    Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests are in competition with men’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests; and that men’s interests advance the condition of women and children, while women’s interests undermine the compromise between men and women and destroy civilization (really) by uncontrolled hyper consumption, dysgenic reproduction, and political undermining by competing groups. Without women’s votes we would never have had a left leaning president, nor immigration on a scale that has created the conditions for civil war.

  • —“Is saying that “women’s rights are human rights” a microaggression?”—

    Of course it is, for the simple reason that women’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests are in competition with men’s psychological, social, reproductive, and economic interests; and that men’s interests advance the condition of women and children, while women’s interests undermine the compromise between men and women and destroy civilization (really) by uncontrolled hyper consumption, dysgenic reproduction, and political undermining by competing groups. Without women’s votes we would never have had a left leaning president, nor immigration on a scale that has created the conditions for civil war.