MindTraveller @ MindTraveller @lemmy.ca

Posts

6

Comments

1,246

Joined

1 yr. ago

You're gonna tell me that "real" science is whatever aligns with your religion, aren't you?

IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.

My perception is the opposite. Being trapped inside one universe is the dead end. Abandoning the universe lets you experience a multiverse. You can use magic and meet fantastic creatures like dragons and gods. Traversing the mythic plane, the world between worlds, is the route to greater knowledge. I never slowed down learning from this realisation. The pace just keeps accelerating.

Do you want me to use tame insults or to call carnists murderers?

Okay have fun using insults to compensate for your lack of having any arguments or evidence.

That's nonsense. You don't need objectivity for all that. Subjectively, we did all that, and also subjectively we didn't. If you'll permit me to explain the subjective angle against all of that.

Yes, scientific medical advancements saved many lives. Before modern medicine, about half of all babies died. However, death is a social construct. There is no law writ upon the bones of the universe saying "life is real". Life is just self-replicating compounds that humans decided to give a name. There's no such thing as dead babies nor alive babies if you don't buy in to the human construct of life. And yet, I choose to believe in life, and thus I am grateful to doctors for saving babies. A subjective gratefulness for a subjective saving.

Engineering and astrophysics put a man on the moon. Yet, masculinity and man-ness are social constructs. Neil is not a man because the universe decreed it, he's a man because humans did. And the same goes for his humanity. Humanity is just a silly thing humans invented. I am not impressed that a man walked on the moon, because I don't believe in men. Nor am I impressed a human did so. But I do choose to believe in people, and I choose to believe two people went to the moon. That's why I'm grateful to science for its subjective achievement.

Computing and telecoms created the internet. But the internet isn't real! You ever heard someone use the phrase "IRL". It literally translates as "in real life", and it refer to not the internet. The internet is fake. It's a social construct. It is not imbued with any more inherent realness than the illusory physical plane. But I choose to believe in the internet, and I choose to be glad science made it. Even as assholes tell me to go touch grass because they think I use it too much, and a dose of the illusory physical plane ought to fix me.

Hope this explains why science is fake and good.

Reason offers no path to objective truth. Syllogism requires premises. Premises require axioms. Reason and logic cannot create knowledge ex nihilo. They can only create knowledge within an already extant framework.

Empiricism is equally flawed, for the ghost in the machine problem is bidirectional. Many philosophers have asked how a construct of information, such as the human mind, can control a construct of matter such as the body. But I ask the reverse question, how can information perceive matter? How can matter act upon information? As we can see from the difficulty babies and children have with perceiving the world, perception is a learned process. How do we know we've learned it correctly? How do we know we're not just reproducing social biases? The answer is that we certainly know that our perception is indeed a reproduction of social bias. For example, our perception of other people as men or women is quite immediate to us. We notice it before we can name any details that lead us to this perception. Yet some people are nonbinary, and transphobes perceive others as male or female when it is untrue and they are both or neither. The symbols that make up our perception, our schemas, are indeed founded upon social bias. They are not the source of truth.

And am I to point out the flaws with mysticism as well? I'm sure you are already familiar with those.

Thus the only answer is to consciously choose our axioms and our schemas, with the aim of imagining into being a better world, or at least the tools to create one. We cannot do this if we chain ourselves to belief in the objective.

That's right, it's just my subjective opinion. Which I'm choosing to push on others because in my subjective universe, the belief in objectivity has been used as a justification for various genocides such as the Crusades, the colonisation of the Americas, the stolen generations, and the bombing of Gaza.

I don't think agricultural orgs are the ones talking about sustainable gardening.

Like 60% of internet speak, "thicc" did indeed originate with AAVE.

There's no such thing as objectivity.

Actually Eldritch Blast is 1d10

I see that you're only able to argue using words when discussing the Thanksgiving turkey. For which your arguments amount to "but it's cooked tho" and "but only the consumption of the flesh happens on the day". Okay, both correct, and both irrelevant. Meanwhile, you've responded to all of my core points not with words, logic, or meaning, but with guttural vocalisations of emotion. Thus, I infer that your only argument in favour of the carnist religion is an emotional one, intended not to persuade but to intimidate. So I repeat my claim that no scientifically minded person could agree with your religion.

No thanks, I'm allergic to grass. I'll get itchy and my nose will run.

There's no way a person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would eat corpses. Not unless they were in a situation of absolute desperation. A person who bases their decisions on scientific thinking would determine killing is bad, and would just eat plants instead. Even if it cost an extra four dollars per grocery trip.

Corpse eating happens because of tradition and dogma. Because "that's the way we've always done things." We indoctrinate children into this blood cult and normalise violence the same way some religions normalise genital mutilation or ritual sacrifice of humans. Hells, the thanksgiving turkey, which is served in the literal shape of its corpse rather than being butchered or processed, is a ritual sacrifice.

A religion is not defined only by worship of gods, or else Buddhism would not be a religion. A religion can be defined by dogmatic, ritualised, inhumane practices taught to children from birth in the name of tradition. That's what carnism is. I've never seen a defence of carnism that didn't speak to some idea of "the natural order" or "tradition" or "the gods made them to be our food", or some other religious nonsense.

Ew, corpse eating. When will people realise that these disgusting religious practices aren't okay to talk about in public? Nobody likes your corpse eating cult.

You left your SI in the link

Well it's true. Watch this:

He was a boy, he was a boy.
Can I make it any more obvious?"

If the lyrics was this, homophobes would be up in arms about it saying it brainwashes children into thinking the gay is normal. Truth is, the version that actually exists is brainwashing children into thinking the straight is normal, and furthermore that platonic relationships between members of opposite genders don't exist.

If you don't have good lyrics, do vocal or instrumental. Lyrics are not required.

It's heteronormativity. It's homophobic is what it is.

Fake news.