Read my replies again, carefully, because you are missing the point entirely.

In that case, you may find this interesting -> https://social-epistemology.com/2022/05/13/power-not-knowledge-is-power-a-tale-of-two-naivetes-and-the-depredations-of-first-amendment-fundamentalism-ahmed-bouzid/

Part of what I just said was a lie. I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist. Never in a meaningful way. I don't want that to be true inside for reasons that are my own. So, I experiment with that.

Personally, I am an empath. Doesn't mean I can't have narcissistic tendencies. Everyone does to some degree. I am not always a good person either as you have pointed out, but I try to be.

>you are not a very nice person now.

But I try to be. I've treated you with a lot of respect, a lot more than is deserved, that is why I continue to respond.

>Do you object to being judged by your words and actions? How else should I judge you?

What gives you the inherent right to judge anyone? God.

>Pick up any science book. Have you provided some evidence that they exist outside of this universe?

My only argument here is that I personally find it odd that science always comes tantalizingly close to these answers. Like 98%. But never 100%.

>Do you always pass such sweeping judgements so quickly, my lord?

Do you object to being judged by your words and actions? How else should I judge you?

>You know absolutely nothing about me beyond this very brief exchange in which I have been purposefully dismissive and avoidant of several of your questions.

I have based my opinion on this exchange. Everything is based on things you said.

>You started out the conversation with an immediately insulting tone, and yet I have still treated you with far more respect than you deserve.

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>I am Buddha for being able to deal with people like you. You must have a TON of friends lmfao.

I do have a ton of friends. None of them believe gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe though and oddly enough none of them have demanded I tell them how gravity works.

>You have yet to provide a singular source that proves that they do.

Pick up any science book. Have you provided some evidence that they exist outside of this universe?

>What I love most is that they can never not respond.

Is that why you continue to respond?

>I was not a very nice person.

you are not a very nice person now.

Do you always pass such sweeping judgements so quickly, my lord? You know absolutely nothing about me beyond this very brief exchange in which I have been purposefully dismissive and avoidant of several of your questions. You started out the conversation with an immediately insulting tone, and yet I have still treated you with far more respect than you deserve. I am Buddha for being able to deal with people like you. You must have a TON of friends lmfao.

>A path that believes dark matter and gravity don't exist in this universe.

You have yet to provide a singular source that proves that they do. You cannot prove exactly what they are or how they function, what they are even comprised of. Therefore you cannot make such a statement. The fact that you continue to distort this position so severely yet throw out the insults you do proves the narcissism. I have a lot of experience dealing with narcissists. What I love most is that they can never not respond.

>Why?

I was not a very nice person.

>Once you blow through all the pleasures of being "successful" and finally bottom out from it all, you start spending a lot of time focusing on personal development.

If you are an example of a muslim who has achieved the top of personal development then no thanks. I don't want anything to do with islam and I hope to god all muslims don't act and think like you do.

>I found the path that works for me after all of that.

A path that believes dark matter and gravity don't exist in this universe.

Disgusting.

>You should honestly be very thankful I did.

Why?

>I am pretty sure there are science books that tell you how gravity works.

I give you enough credit that I think you get the actual point.

>And yours does?

For me.

>I don't see too many muslims on the top of anything.

Once you blow through all the pleasures of being "successful" and finally bottom out from it all, you start spending a lot of time focusing on personal development. What else is there that is actually meaningful to do? I found the path that works for me after all of that. You should honestly be very thankful I did.

The comment about Al Franken at the end... I felt this way so strongly that it truly sapped any enthusiasm I could muster for the Democrats. To blast your own foot like that and pretend it wasn't an utter disaster is a good way to telegraph to your constituents that you are unserious about governing.

I still vote for them out of abhorrence for the Trumpist party, but my support hardly rises to the level of 'lukewarm'. With no vision but grievance and guilt, they offer nothing but a way to not vote Trump, and I'm bracing for impact because I know that isn't enough.

>I've read enough science books to know that you cannot scientifically tell me how gravity actually fundamentally works at all.

I am pretty sure there are science books that tell you how gravity works.

>Your personal god (science/yourself) can't explain it though.

And yours does?

>What use is this science you hold above everything else when it can't even answer what should be a very trivial question?

I don't hold science above everything else and I don't claim it can answer every question.

As for what good science is well I am typing this on a computer on the internet while on medication so there you go it does plenty of good.

> Why do you want to be right so much in this area?

Because I am?

>Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Not at all.

> I can clearly see which way you have chosen in response to that question lol.

See above.

>Statements like these are how I know you are 12.

Statements like are how I know you lack thinking skills and base your beliefs on whatever it is you are feeling at the moment.

> People like me are at the top of it.

I don't see too many muslims on the top of anything.

I've read enough science books to know that you cannot scientifically tell me how gravity actually fundamentally works at all. I don't deny its existence. No shit it exists. Your personal god (science/yourself) can't explain it though. What use is this science you hold above everything else when it can't even answer what should be a very trivial question? It could though! So much belief. That is a bigger leap of faith than the alternative when you actually think about it. Why do you want to be right so much in this area? Why does it matter to you inside so much? "Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" I can clearly see which way you have chosen in response to that question lol.

>A person specifically trained in rhetoric won't be as dishonest and sleazy as you.

Statements like these are how I know you are 12. Welcome to the real world, kiddo. People like me are at the top of it.

>What is your definition of in this universe? Mine is, in our same universe and dimension.

Yup same as me.

>What is the gravity particle?

The graviton is the proposed name.

> How does gravity actually work according to science?

read a science book.

>Because I am specifically trained in rhetoric.

A person specifically trained in rhetoric won't be as dishonest and sleazy as you.

>I'm better at it than you.

You are dishonest and I am not. That makes me better.

>I also have quite a few years of life experience on you, young narcissist.

more experience in denying gravity exists I guess.

I see now. What is your definition of in this universe? Mine is, in our same universe and dimension. What is the gravity particle? How does gravity actually work according to science?

>Why are you so dishonest?

Because I am specifically trained in rhetoric. That's my secret in every situation I find myself in. I'm better at it than you. I also have quite a few years of life experience on you, young narcissist.

>Can you go get some for me to prove it does?

As I said please read some papers or watch some youtube videos on it.

>Can you even prove gravity exists in this universe?

I am not a physicist but yes it has been proven that gravity exists in this universe. I can't believe I am talking to a person who denies gravity exists. That's a new one.

>What happened one second before the Big Bang?

Nobody knows. Do you?

>Science has all the answers though you say.

I never said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth. Why are you so dishonest?

>No, I do not think Mohammed split the moon in two (PBUH).

Then you don't believe the quron is the truth.

>If I am deluded about the age then you are definitely a narcissist.

Or maybe you are a person who believes things based on no evidence.

>That's fine too. I still lean towards a little Column A, little Column B rather than just one of those though.

it's actually column C. You lack thinking and analytical skills. You are prone to believing things that are not true.

No, I believe the feigned certainty that tends to attract followers is a lie. It's clear that no one really knows. We've looked at it every which way. If there's any kind of "after", it doesn't interact with the "here and now".

Can you go get some for me to prove it does?

Can you even prove gravity exists in this universe?

What happened one second before the Big Bang?

Science has all the answers though you say. I say that's quite a belief you have. I also say that no matter what road you go, you're believing in something.

No, I do not think Mohammed split the moon in two (PBUH).

If I am deluded about the age then you are definitely a narcissist. That's fine too. I still lean towards a little Column A, little Column B rather than just one of those though.

>It doesn't exist "in this universe" though, or maybe it does.

But it does. Why don't you try learning some things about it?

>It interacts with matter in this universe.

Because it's in this universe.

>That does not necessitate that it exists in this universe.

Yea it does.

>I think that Islam is the truthful account.

Ok then you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two.

>I really don't think I'm deluded about the age at all.

But you are deluded though.

>Narrow-mindedness to such a degree is only a youthful quality, literally because the brain has not fully developed yet.

And yet I don't believe a human is able to split the moon in two.

It doesn't exist "in this universe" though, or maybe it does. It interacts with matter in this universe. That does not necessitate that it exists in this universe.

I think that Islam is the truthful account.

I really don't think I'm deluded about the age at all. Narrow-mindedness to such a degree is only a youthful quality, literally because the brain has not fully developed yet.

>Evidence for the specific claims you made about dark matter.

I am still confused about what you want here. I made the claim that dark matter exists in this universe. Every paper on dark matter is about that.

>I never said I believe that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

Sorry I presumed you were a christian given this is an english language forum.

What relligion do you believe in? Are you a muslim? A Buddhist? A viccan perhaps?

>I can tell you're under 25. Be well!

Yet another thing you are deluded about. You seem to be susceptible to believing things on no merit and without any credible evidence.

>The former opinion—that we can have
intelligence that doesn’t feel—is popular among the scientifically
minded, despite its apparent incompatibility with emergentism.

​

You haven't really established that intelligence without feeling is incompatible with emergentism.

All current known examples of advanced intelligence got here through Darwinian processes and therefore have a high likelihood of having a goal set that prioritises maximising the well-being of the organism containing the intelligence. Most feelings experienced by that intelligent system are directly related to changes in well-being and challenges to that goal set.

A human-created intelligence need not have any self model, nor any interest in the well-being of its own hardware/software configuration, nor any reason to model changes in well-being via a system that we would consider to represent/instantiate feelings. We could give it those things, but it is not an automatic consequence of creating intelligence.

Similarly, I think it would be relatively easy, in theory, to select for organisms that had intelligence but no feelings. The circuitry of intelligence and the circuitry of feelings are not the same.

And there are billions who do enjoy life. Are those examples you list a reason why those billions should not live and enjoy life?

Again, "I'm not happy, therefore you shouldn't exist" is the position of the school shooter, not a rational human being.

>I believe self awareness is just a small part of the brain

Self-awareness isn't a part of the brain at all. But it is the most important property of our brains, regardless of what proportion of our neural processes related directly to conscious thoughts. Survival is a minuscule consideration, in comparison; even creatures without brains survive and apparently act with volition.

>And I believe I “die” each time I zone out.

Then you are using that word very differently than everyone else does. Your outlook seems bleak and cynical, which isn't unusual these days, but isn't as necessary as your postmodern analysis suggests.

>It is a”sad” reality but like the cat in the box, if u wait 100 years to accept the cat is dead, it won’t change the state of the cat.

I presume you are referring to Schrödinger's cat. That cat remains alive no matter how long you wait to open the box. But it doesn't die until you cause it to assume that state by opening the box; half the time, anyway.

> Feedback is appreciated, I’m just beginning my philosophical journey.

Start with this.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Evidence for the specific claims you made about dark matter. I never said I believe that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Your views seem very narrow. I can tell you're under 25. Be well!

>Can you cite a scientific source for these claims?

For dark matter? There is a buttload of papers.

>Science is a process of discovery. Why is it such a foreign thought to believe that someone could deduce their way towards religion?

Because there is no evidence for the supernatural nor could there be any evidence for the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is not in this universe and is not detectable.

> I started out as a nihilist. The more I studied quantum physics, the more I found scientists that go deep down that path turn to religion. I know this is shattering to your thesis but I didn't make your thesis.

It's not shattering at all. All kinds of people discover religion for all kinds of reasons. Some people accept god because they hear voices in their head. Some people look at the trees and are instantly convinced god exists. Some people survive a traumatic event and are convinced god did it.

Why would it be shattering to me that some nihilist tried to study quantum physics and somehow got convinced god exists and created the universe and send his only begotten son to be sacrificed for my sins?

>What device is used to measure them?

I'll tackle human delusion and hubris.

They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.

>What is the unit of measure?

There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?

>Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).

in the brain.

>The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)

So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?

>I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).

it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.

>For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).

What do you mean by the cause of causality?

>For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled

Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

>For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.

OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.

>I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.

But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?

>recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).

Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?

>Great, then let's proceed.

We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.