mfoy_

20 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   There was a actually a meta-game of where you'd (1) take a horrible quote, (2) mis-attribute it to Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking, (3) put it on an image of space and (4) post it to r/atheism to see how many
2. 152.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   Check out his sequel: https://www.ynharari.com/book/homo-deus/
3. 153.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow"[1] by Yuval Noah Harari [1] https://www.ynharari.com/book/homo-deus/
4. 154.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   There's no graphic images. It's not a "shock" or "gotcha" link. The TL;DR is that the head can stay "alive" for some time after decapitation. The nominal example (see the URL) being Antoine-Laurent de
5. 155.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   That's unclear and unhelpful.
6. 156.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   Interesting experiments referenced. I think I my personal assumption was that fish could maybe feel pain, and insects probably couldn't. But now one of those is answered.
7. 157.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   Feel free to provide some sources to back up your claim.
8. 158.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   You might find this mobidly interesting... http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/06/lavoisier-blinks/
9. 159.▲
   by mfoy_ 8y ago

   I'm pretty sure the purpose of the modern gym curriculum is to create more meat for the college-football grinder.
10. 160.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    If it were more about physical education (literally) and had less emphasis on actually doing intense exercises I think it would be a lot more beneficial. Leave the crazy intense physical activities to extracurriculars. No personal trainer
11. 161.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Shouldn't any universal moral transcend species? But we only have one morality to observe: human. So I don't think it's meaningful to call our common morals "universal".
12. 162.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Which I see as a much larger problem... you're putting military hardware in the hands of local police officers.
13. 163.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    and all that sweet, sweet military surplus.
14. 164.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    The middle-ground certainly is wishy-washy, which is relativism's whole point, really. >Moderate meta-ethical relativism (as described in your link) postulates that there are some universal rules for morality. Not so? "Meta-e
15. 165.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    So, to preface, I'm not a philosopher by trade, so bear with me if I misuse certain terms / labels. http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part2/Routledge/R_Re... Going off this article, I&#x2
16. 166.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    I don't think you can just swoop in and say that two different schools of philosophy are really the same because you can't tell the difference.
17. 167.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19048897
18. 168.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    "Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts, that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right
19. 169.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Define "meaningful". You seem to have a really big chicken-and-egg problem here... you want morality to be universal. The problem is, "ethics", "morality", and "values" are all human constructs. We cr
20. 170.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    What's wrong with them being arbitrary?
21. 171.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Atheism only implies nihilism if you subscribe to the concept that values are objective and morality is universal, which begs the question of who determines values and what is morally "good" and how.
22. 172.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Atheism isn't nihilism. Values are subjective. Morality is relative.
23. 173.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Support our troops! (Unless they have ideas which threaten our world view...)
24. 174.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    I think you have it a bit backwards. You perceive reality through your consciousness. So if your consciousness were to interject a filter of its own choosing, your subjective reality would be affected. However, this has no bearing on object
25. 175.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    I think DP/DR is the opposite... "i.e. I can't control reality at all, or even myself or my choices"
26. 176.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    That's my takeaway too. In practice, it doesn't really matter since we only have the one universe to observe, so there's no material difference between one model and the other.
27. 177.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Interesting, I really appreciate you sharing your perspective. I mean no judgement by this, so I put a certain word in scare-quotes, but would you say that perhaps everyone who doesn't have DP/DR is actually more "delusio
28. 178.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    I recently read "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" and in it, the author raises many interesting ideas about consciousness, the mind, self, free will, etc. Would someone with DP/DR say they possess free will? Would you
29. 179.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    There's also a non-trivial percentage that love "liberal tears" and enjoy things like this that are petty and / or spiteful.
30. 180.▲
    by mfoy_ 8y ago

    Yes and no. In this case, Trump is basically holding government hostage. If congress doesn't want a wall, he cannot force a wall on them. EDIT: Better yet, according to that logic, a mugging is just a failed negotiation. If the victim