zapatos

Can you tell me which of the two seems strange to you? Meaning, do you think the idea that homosexuality being genetic is strange, and/or that distaste of homosexual acts being learned behavior is strange?

Aren't traits selected for by the individual? That is, it has to be beneficial to ME, allowing me to be more likely to reproduce. How can being homosexual be a reproductive advantage?

If it is inherited I wonder why so many people are NOT homophobes. Or how you can 'grow out' of your genetic predisposition to be a homophobe.

Citation please.

I'm not sure what it is you want to discuss. You proposed a very specific change to the way humans' brains might work, but it seems like it is simply a scenario you made up off the top of your head. It is very unlikely that we can pick some random yet very specific change to human brains and expect that change to materialize. I could just as well pick numbers for a lottery but there is no reason to think that I'm going to be correct.

What makes you think this will ever happen?

No one assumed you were demanding. We're responding to what you posted. You can always alter the direction of the discussion if we are not addressing exactly what you wanted to examine.

Is that an unbiased opinion? 😁 I tend to see biases. You tend to see none. I have no idea which of us (if either) is seeing reality. Clearly science tries to remove subjectivity but I don't know if it is 100% possible. If a word in my culture has a slightly different meaning than the same word in your culture don't we run the risk of either performing experiments differently, or interpreting the results differently, even though we both start with the same set of instructions?

We are just not there yet. Understanding the thought process requires taking steps from A to Z. 'A' was simply knowing that the brain is where thoughts occur. We then had to develop tests to look at brain. That further understanding led to additional tests and technologies. Continue the iterative process. The brain is a tough nut to crack. We'll get there eventually. Seems unlikely. How would we have evolved a defense to 'understanding the brain'? Surely there would have been a 'threat' of understanding the brain before a defense developed. What is the 'threat'? That seems self evident.

Are you expecting an answer to every one of those questions?

Welcome! And no issue with the language. We'll do our best.

That is only on day one of your membership here. It is to limit things like advertising bots and trolls. You can now post to your heart's content. EDIT: Oh, or what Phi said...

You just string words together and pretend they are meaningful. What did I say that was ironic? How was I hiding behind that? Save me from what? You are simply trying to distract from the fact that I called you out for complaining about an ad hominem attack against yourself while you disparage an entire generation of people who are not even here to defend themselves. I'm tired of your nonsense.

My irony meter just broke.

Has anyone here actually taken the course or seen details of the case it makes? I don't know if it is valid or not, but I presume the instructor intends to make their case during the duration of the semester.

Because you said...

This is a science site so we are interested in discussing the scientific aspects of consciousness. If you don't believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, and thus supernatural, you are in the wrong place.

Well, this is a discussion site, so if you don't want to talk about it, it might be best not to bring up that particular topic.

Sure, I understand. If you clearly explain your position, can provide reason or evidence to support your position, and respond directly to the questions of others, you will get along great here even if others disagree with you. You also have the right to expect the same from others. If you don't know, simply say "I don't know". If you are shown to be in error, admit to it and move on. No one cares if someone makes a mistake; we all do it. If you mean "almost never", don't say "never". People will respond to the words you use, not the words you "meant" to use. This is a science site. Logic, reason and evidence are important, no matter the topic.

Who is "they"?

Do you have a recollection of begging for life before coming here?

Can you expand on this please? What is "crosstalk error"? What is "weight of its eventual public acceptance"? On what are you basing your conclusion that the 'error' seems to be related to the 'weight'?

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

Peoples' identity is often tied to the group they belong to. It is incredibly important to be a part of that. That is where your friends are. You have a lot invested in the group. If you deny the beliefs of your group you are ostracizing yourself and cutting yourself off from an important part of your life. For many people it is better to not look too closely, or to entertain questions which in the long run can do you harm. I overlook things my family members do that I would find unacceptable in others. People vote for candidates in their political party who are clearly unqualified. It is a lot more common than many people recognize.

The above seems at odds with the below. Am I misunderstanding? That does seem to make the most sense. I am no expert on Evolution and wonder how individuals develop traits that are beneficial to the group, which of course then makes those traits beneficial for the individual in a round about way.