wtf am i looking at?

So would you be with a MTF trans person?

leave trans people alone, if someone is a human then be kinds.

It would take a lot of writing to explain all the different factors in why free will is an illusion, here's a fairly decent yt video on the topic: "Why we don't have Free Will & Why that's OK" - What I've Learned
There are many great videos on this topic, but this video explains it quickly and well


When it comes to consciousness being an illusion, its fairly easy to see why. If free will is an illusion consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness is what gives us the concept of self and belief of having free will, in reality, there is no "self", we can't take out apart from your body and say this is where you are located. We cant call our current composition of cells us, then the past and future "you" can't be you. There are no "you" only dead things making up a pattern able to give the illusion of self

Why bother with anything if consciousness and free-will is an illusion? because we don't have free will so either "you" off "yourself" or go about your day accepting these illusions since it does not change your life in any and we continue our lives as normal although we still know about these illusions

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death ITT but I don't think anyone is arguing intersex people inherently have mental illness or anything. That's a biological result, not a psychological one. Trans and intersex are completely different things.

A particle can't exist and not exist at the same time, but I see what you're getting at. It seems you agree choice is also an illusion. God would have to already have known all your prayers, actions, etc when he first created the universe. This is almost consistent with Christianity. The issue is in the randomness of quantum events. Not even God ought to know the outcomes of measurements. Thus, God would have had to create the universe with certain rules, but not know how it would turn out. So, the entire notion of a God sitting there responding to prayers in some sort of absolute time doesn't make sense. It is possible there is some nonlocal hidden variable theory underpinning all of quantum theory, but that seems a bit farfetched. There is still some wiggle room to insert God, but it shrinks by the day, man.

I'm not going to tell you your faith is wrong. I'm just going to tell you you can't be absolutely sure it is correct, and that means there is no reason to use it as a basis for some sort of absolute code upon which to dictate how OTHERS ought to live. You may use it to govern your own life, but using it to tell other people what to do when you don't even know it is true or have any evidence is fuked up.

I just want you to put yourself in these peoples' shoes and ask if it seems right to bash them. It probably feels similar to being bashed for being black or something. You don't choose to have a female brain in a male body, to be born with fuked up genitals, etc.Exactly.

Hmmm i though it could. I believe my loose reading on quantum computers sort of goes there, riding on the notion of quantum entanglement. After running a quick search, not sure if i can stand on it, but this is from wikipedia:

"However, this behavior gives rise to seeminglyparadoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle performs an irreversible collapse on that particle and will change the original quantum state. In the case of entangled particles,such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole."

In the case of our measurement to gauge free will, if it indeed involves quantum variables, we are left with a recursive issue as to how far we can go to determine a non paradoxical axiom. So, even though we can agree that the state is true, we cannot also measure it either. If we cannot directly measure something, what does that actually mean?Illusion is becoming a catch all word i think in your case. You muse define the words that you are using to more precisely explain yourself. What constitutes an illusion? A lack of reality? What is really real then? So, define what is real first, then define what is an illusion (or artificial). As far as God not being aware, that would be against his nature. He must remain omniscient to be sovereign, otherwise, he is not God. Obviously such a quantity that would be all knowing cannot exist in a physical space, as it implies a depth without end.

In the Christian worldview, this is the invisible God, what I understand to be the Father (what we cannot fathom about God). Christ is the fathomable aspect. Consider the figurative idea of the internet. If i point to a computer and said 'that's the internet', it isn't really, yet it is. It's a truncated form of meaning I suppose. What doesn't make sense is to restrict God to being just the idea (the internet), as it would violate other aspects we might recognize of a divine mind. God is not a child with an ant farm, nor can he rightly remain aloof without implementing just/efficient cause (since he knows everything).

Also, the idea of a person, vs just being an idea touches upon a kind of transcendent notion, that we would encapsulate as something called human worth. So when it comes to prayers, or communing with the Lord, you might treat him like a person, instead of an idea (and he would do the same to you). Much more meaningful then just some bland state of enlightenment or force if you think about it. We are relation oriented creatures, so wouldn't make sense for him to communicate with us physically? If he did this, surely he could truncate himself to accomplish this. i choose to believe it was Jesus.Your logic here i believe is false. You cannot tell me to not live by a code, and it not also remain a code. You are making an objective moral statement, to then reduce it to being subjective. That's illogical methinks.Like I said, it would be bad for me to accept their terrible values as true, or good. But I can value them as a person. I can respect differences but not absolutely. I don't have to twist my view to facilitate theirs. Also, what evidence supports the idea a man can be born with a female brain? Where did you get this? And are you saying that some small .0001 percent of the population get to make license for those who simply feel that they also have the same problem (handwaiving science)?

Particles exist in the form of quantum fields. It's a weird notion unlike anything conventional language is equipped to describe. Even the number of particles in a system is not entirely fixed. The best analogy I can give you is that there is a kind of soup of potential stuff everywhere in the universe, and there's a chance for a certain amount of the stuff to be detected within some region of space. But even the amount of the stuff, such as number of electrons isn't fixed. It ends up being something measured. My idea of how our consciousness works is it is coming from a classical system that feeds back into itself. I fully believe that if one builds a sufficiently complicated AI automaton, it would exhibit intelligence and believe itself to be self aware, like in the CHina brain thought experiment. I think this is what happened to us. I think fundamentally, it's all stimulus and response, hard coded by the molecules that assemble the cell structures.

Regarding trans brain differences,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/check this article out. And ofc, there are some people who are 46XX and 46XY intersex who end up getting hormone replacement/reassignment as well. Illusion meaning there is no actual choice. It's an apparent feature. We think we choose, but it's just a brain functioning subject to the laws of physics.

You can't be sure Christianity is absolutely correct. There are statements in the bible that imply pi is 3.

most of the misc wood

accuracy of physics in a book meant for a broad audience seems to be a bit of stretch, as to disqualifying it. I'm not saying Christianity is absolutely able to be proven. I am saying that you must have a faith statement to believe anything.

I do kind of agree that there could processes in our mind that feedback onto itself (recursive patterns). Much like a recursive function in a script i suppose, interplaying and weaving various predetermined sets of conditional logic. Sometimes they can be harmful. However, the projection that processes are somehow in control, is a statement that requires philosophical testing. Can you prove that the China brain thing is actually not a religious composition, or for that matter, what constitutes a collective? Is a collective not composed of individual things? In which case, what is individual? What value do they have? If we are but cogs in a wheel, who is to say that is true, and why should it matter? The question here is who determines what is consciousness? Consciousness probably is inherently a religious sub category to be honest, no matter how secular one paints it. Furthermore, why have faith that consciousness is an illusion? Is that not setting up a paradox?

What constitutes a person, is first a faith statement then an approach to science. 'Who am I' is the first thing we decide. If you are who God says you are, you will operate a certain way. If you are who you say you are, you operate as being your own God. It's a choice. Every person operates this way, in whatever they do. If you choose to believe you are the son of Cthulhu, then that will manifest in some form, but it doesn't make it really true.

Well, the best evidence that we think using physical systems is that when the physical system of a brain is damaged, the resulting "mind" or "soul" of that individual changes dramatically. Examples of this include people with brain tumors who develop paraphilias, people with brain injuries becoming excessively violent and making poor decisions, and people with alzheimers forgetting everything about who they are.

Like I said, it's fine if you believe certain things. You have that right. It's not okay for you to oppress others. You don't have to be friends with trans people. I'm just asking you not to gas them or pass laws such that it becomes very difficult for them to exist anywhere.

But as to who they 'really are', is a matter to be judged (invoking an objective statement, like God) in a philosophical/theological/metaphysical tense, not the realm of science.

If I took a drug and it altered my personality for a time, does that drug erase the past? Is it something that proves that I am no longer who I am? Our history, as to what we do amounts to who we are, at least in part.

That's my contention. Who you are changes and is only accurate in the present as an approximation. In reality, "you" are a collection of particles. "You" were once nothing but a mere cell.

Tbh I'm not overly surprised that wincel is a transgender man. His thumbs look gender fluid

Science doesn't deal in proofs. That's a basic aspect of the philosophy of science, any conclusion/model needs to have the possibility of being falsified.

The conclusion of science are IMO (taken from the opinion of Richard Feynman) best described on a sliding scale of probability.

This video is explains the fundamentals of the philosophy of science, explained by a scientist...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgzbUuLMuBM

However, if you are claiming that it's being proven using reason (ie. a deductive argument) then please present the argument.Also Evolutionary psychology is IMO best described as pseudoscience, scientific models/conclusion are testable, and predicted. Evolutionary psychology conclusions arelargelyunfalsifiable, untestable and non-predictive, they seem to be created by retrospectively using the presupposition of "everything must be advantageous to genetic survival". It's more philosophy than science. (I'm definitely not the only person who thinks that BTW... Just google;Evolutionary Psychology pseudoscienceif you haven't already done so.)

Note: It's always a pet peeve of mine, when people claim that science has 'proven' something.

Who 'you' are is not absent of your past.

Who 'you' are is a statement of faith.

Vinnyboy90 is obviously your alt. You were trying to present the point of view of a transgender person via a "fake" account.

What makes more sense to me is that vinnyboy90 actually IS you. You are obviously very emotionally attached to this subject and based on your previous posts and general view points I am going to say that it makes the most sense to say that it is in fact you. Or your IRL persona.

Which leads me to ask. Why have you been hiding that? Afraid to get negged as a new account? There was another fairly prominent trans poster active for a few months late last year who also shared your writing style. Was that you as well?

Wincel is trans. Who would have thought?

-transgender man
-

pick oneI'm not trans u fuking limpdick soyboy. That ******* said some chit about the moon landing being a hoax. While I sympathize with that person's situation, I am definitely not in support of all the views that person posts on here, and I would never push the idea that the moon landings were a hoax. That is completely against who I am. I have the highest respect for the work done by NASA, and the accomplishments of our society. Besides, I am sure the mods can see the IP addresses, browser, windows version, desktop resolution, etc to tell it is not me.

If you go here,https://amiunique.org/fp, you can see if your computer is unique. Mods have access to this info. A proxy can help, but not by much since you still use similar settings for browser, OS, sound device etc. I actually have zero alts. SRS.

[QUOTE=wincel post_id=1579882461]-transgender man
-[img]https://i.imgur.com/memiS7A.png[/img

pick one[/QUOTE]A picture of a blood test doesn't prove anything unless your ftm.

Wincel is trans.


Edit:LOL looked at the test again

Age:7-17. You're not a tranny you're a 16 year old idiot.

Youre 16 bro. You're not even out of high school yet.

You should be out having fun with your friends not arguing with strangers on a bodybuilding forum about trannys.

You got so much wrong in this post, but I wont bother to prove you wrong, you already did yourself when you have "the dangers of wifi" in your siggy
Lmfao

Well I guess it depends on how you define what "you" are. But I would argue you were a cell at some point.

To BetaAsPhuck, you are right that science cannot "prove" anything. However, we can infer some things based on the empirical evidence at hand. Evolutionary biology and psychology are not pseudoscience. The claims are often phrased in clumsy pseudoscientific manner, such as "because x had adaptive traits, x exists today", but that can be rephrased to be scientifically valid. IE "We posit that based on the conditions of the time, the trait that x had conferred to it a survival advantage, and it replicated more successfully and thus, its genes were seen to have a higher frequency in the population today." This is now a claim based on some sort of model. While it isn't rigorous, you could potentially build a computer model and test if something had a survival advantage. For example, flipper shape has actually been optimized over time for dolphins, and you could test fluid models for what would happen for different shaped flippers and see that they would be less effective. Ultimately though, you are right that science never answers "why". It answers "how". It is descriptive and possibly predictive. It can never answer why.

Some believe that is where religion comes in. Others, like me, believe that just leads to new "why" questions until you are left with the very essential unanswerable fundamental question of existence, "Why is there something?" Even god cannot answer that question because if God was the first thing, there is nothing to which God can refer for logical implication.

I'm not age 7-17. That is a description of what reference values are for that age group, you cuck.

Scrolled down the first page to find this reply and left the rest. Leftism is the real mental illness. Deranged people harming children is what really gets me.

On the other hand, I am really not concerned whatsoever with self proclaimed lifelong virgins posting "intellectual" arguments in vain attempt to showcase their "intelligence" prior to demonstrating common sense. Would not be surprised if OP was a feminist trans or paid shill.

Yeah, OK. Because they're going to test a 30 year old man using age 7-17 reference values. Don't be stupid.

Srs wtf bro how do you have 22k posts at age 17? Don't waste this time in your life miscing and arguing with people on the internet. You're gonna have bills and responsibilities and **** soon go enjoy your life a little bit while mom is still paying for everything.

Gtfo off of misc and go spend some time actually interacting with kids your age. Go bowling, go to the movies, something not here or on the internet man.

The fact you're that young discredits a lot of your view points because you don't have the life experience. I was independent at 14 and even I know that the maturity jump from 17 to 25 has been huge. You obviously have your bills paid for if you have time to make 22k posts in three years. Go take advantage of that a bit you idiot.

Theres no point in arguing with you. I hope you make it off this **** hole and go enjoy your life.

They didn't test me using those values idiot. It just shows up as a reference description. Holy chit u are retarded.

How old are you?

fuking 31

u know right next to that 7-17 chit they have a thing saying male and female

oh chit bro ur onto me...I must be both male and female

Just saw you had 'autism crew' in your sig.

Sorry bro. Signing off.

That's what I was saying earlier.

Maybe you're a 17 year old tranny?

Either a 17 year old tranny or a 30 year old autistic guy. Either way that's enough to discredit your bi weekly preaching.