MonDie

Vaginal lubrication might be a protective mechanism to prevent injury. http://www.indiana.edu/~sexlab/files/pubs/Chivers_Seto_Blanchard_2007.pdf

I'm not saying they have space between them; I'm saying they have a spatial relation. The interaction could be emergent if causal efficacy is an inherent property of each thing, but I don't see how a spatial relation could emerge from the mere fact that there are two particles. Maybe the spatial relation is just as fundamental. Heck, maybe spatial relations are more fundamental, and a "particle" is really just common focus for multiple spatial relations.

This tipped me off that I was reading bullcrap. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/collective-evolution.com I don't know whether aliens visit Earth; I do know that people lie, misjudge, or witness flukes, which is why somebody somwhere will think they saw an alien, or a ghost, or divine intervention regardless. It's not even weak evidence.

I really feel like this song describes why I participate in this forum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx4q935La2U

Huh, I actually relate to this except that I've never gotten it from physical pain and I don't become sexually aroused. Then again, I've never really had a sex life, so I've never tried leather, bondage, etc. I can relate to everything else, and I've bolded the parts that I relate to particularly. I do find it romantic in a way, and I would enjoy a romantic partner who gives me hell on occasion. I experienced a couple major stressors during my youth. The first one at 14-16 had some long-term negative effects; the second one did not. They both however were means to discovering the joy of conflict, and those situations encouraged me to refine my stress response. btw You're all free to take out your rage on me. I don't know what the mods will do, but it's not against my rules. I think it's weird for dominant guys to talk about it. I don't normally get crushes on guys, but it would definitely turn me off to hear him talk about doing "intense" things to me. Sorry, moontanman. Let's just be friends.

What does being fundamental have to do with ceasing to exist? moving on Your account ignores the spatial relations between these fundamental things. We don't just have two fundamental things, we have two fundamentals that are a precise distance from eachother: two fundamentals and the relation between them, which amounts to three things total.

Retro is hip IMO. Caravan Palace youtube.com/watch?v=rLuWcGQ5ZDo They're mostly electro-swing, but I find this song particularly retro. Katzenjammer youtube.com/watch?v=KHukwySEvKc Some of their other songs are rock or girly-country-pop, but still highly recommended. Don't make fun of me!

I think we're almost in agreement. Narcissism and tallness are both real variables, although who is narcissistic and who is tall are both arbitrary judgment calls. I don't know whether narcissism is one variable or multiple, or whether we can measure it with high accuracy. Psychometrics usually employs factor analysis to identifying distinct variables.

It's a shame that the organic movement will inevitably oppose Mmmeat.

It's not off topic. The article linked in the OP brings up the issue of which animals to prioritize. Since the goal is to prevent "cruelty", we must estimate each animal's capacity for suffering, which is a capacity of its brain.

According to io9's "4 Biggest Myths About THe Human Brain" article, the encephalization quotient (which compares brain sizes across orders) isn't even a good estimate because it ignores the fact that different orders of animalia have different sclaing rules. These "scaling rules" ultimately govern the number of neurons that will be present in a brain, and they don't necessarily result in more neurons when the brain is "scaled up". Using a new piece of equipment called an isotropic fractionator, researchers are able to take any portion of the brain and definitively determine (not estimate) the total number of glial and neuronal cells in it. I'm doing other things at the moment, so I'm putting a delay on neurobiology studying that could allow me to have a more comprehensive understanding of these studies. However, I am going to provide links for you all to look at. These are the two isotropic fractionator studies that I was able to find. #1, an early study, discusses how the isotropic fractionator works. #1 Summary: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/10/2518.long #1 Full (PDF): http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/10/2518.full.pdf In #2, they talk about rodent brains, so it might give us some idea of the brain power of mice. However, I don't know if they discuss rodents more in another study, or if this is the one to look at. #2 Summary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226510 #2 Full (PDF from researchgate.net): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F24024444_Equal_numbers_of_neuronal_and_nonneuronal_cells_make_the_human_brain_an_isometrically_scaled-up_primate_brain%2Ffile%2Fd912f50c100f1e72ba.pdf&ei=eEHUUajwKMGbygGTjoCgDA&usg=AFQjCNGKyMhOmHYI2Sa5lfyyvvdE-Z4jLQ&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc

It sounds good to me. http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=schmaltz

Who knew such a trivial debate could attract so much commentary? That isn't even in UrbanDictionary. If the word sounds made-up, you should provide a source.

Let's redefine metaphysics. In accordance with the Auguste Comte scheme, with mathematics at the bottom and sociology/anthropology at the top, what was previously called metaphysics is now cataphysics (denoting its silliness for ever thinking it was above physics). Metaphysics now denotes everything from chemistry through to anthropology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte#Three_Stages

A lot of vegetarians think meat itself is gross, and the way it's grown might not change that. It's still animal flesh.

I have separated this post into two portions. The first portion is a philosophical argument for the soundness of utilitarian ethics. The second portion just discusses some interesting utilitarian considerations that I couldn't find a place for within the major argument. Utilitarianism is as Rational as Empiricism When one thinks analytically, they reach conclusions via linguistic and mathematical definitions. These definitions are outlined by criteria. Without criteria, there would be no definitions or language, and no truth; it's an easily justifiable system. However, analytical thought alone won't lead to ethical formulations. A famous example of this deificiency is the ought/is distinction. Any criteria used to identify what ought to be done is inevitably arbitrary, casting "ought" statements outside the realm of truth and falsity. However, analytical thought isn't just insufficient for the purpose of ethical claims, it's insufficient for claims about reality. Essential to the discussion of reality is the discussion of what exists. Although "existence" may seem so intuitive so as to be beyond question, it's not. We need some criterion for determining whether an hypothetical thing would hypothetically "exist" or "be" before we can talk about reality. AFAIK, the only good criteria are empirical, for example: whether the thing (a) has impact upon our senses or (b) is the result of a process that impacts our senses. It's hard to imagine any sort of existence criterion for things that do not impact our senses. The empirical criteria are quite nice, but we should acknowledge that they aren't fundamentally analytical, they're based on intuition. The chain of analytical criteria derived from other analytical criteria derived from other analytical criteria cannot go on infinitely, so there must be some unanalytical base. Furthermore, language deals in the abstract, but reality is thought to be something more than abstract. In order for language to describe anything other than language itself, there must be some reality-derived criteria. These criteria are our sensations. Without these intuitive criteria, analytical thought just drills an abysmal hole of circularity. Yet Wittgenstein's private language argument makes explicit the unanalytical nature of our sensations. Without any external reference, what criteria could I provide you for the sensation or experience of red? None. Yet, despite this deficiency, I can consistently identify wavelength combinations by this intuitive criteria. Furthermore, just as I can point at a thing in response to the sensation of its color, I can respond with an utterance such as "red". When I make the right utterances in response to various experiences, they become ripe for logical analysis. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on pleasure and pain. Although there are objective definitions of "pleasure" and "pain", they can also be thought of as utterances resulting from brain states. The same goes for words such as "discomfort", "anger", or "happiness". If these utterances have a significant degree of correlation with brain states, they are meaningful. Yet meaning isn't enough, we must prove that "good" and "bad" brain states are somehow ethically relevant. The key lies in "desirability". Although the sociopath can be set on causing pain rather than pleasure, this point would not be lost on them. They still understand one's desire of food and comfort for one's self, if not one's desire of it for someone else. "Desirability" may not be as consistent as color, but an individual can understand what is desirable intuitively; there is enough culture-independent consistency in our use of the term to suggest that there is a right answer as to what is desirable, that desire is not learned. Furthermore, just as sight is useful in wavelength identification, our sense of desirability is useful in empathy. With an understanding of pleasure, I can effectively bring pleasure to others. Of course, pleasure isn't easy to quantify, but bringing pleasure without adverse effects will obviously add to the total amount of pleasure. Up until now, I have left the notion of desirability unrefined. The above makes sense if we are thinking of e.g. the desirability of a ripe and healthy vegetable, but things change for an issue like addiction. But what seems like a contradiction is only a complication. Our desires can conflict. If a desirable thing is immediately available, we may succumb to the desire for it even though it conflicts with long-term desires. One moment of weakness, of forgetfulness toward our long-term goals, wastes all our efforts at self-control. This applies to everything from appetite & weight loss to crime & jail-time to cocaine & responsibility to lust & emotional fulfillment to suicide & long-term effort. These issues can be framed in terms of "higher order" and "lower order" desires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_volition It could even be argued that some "pleasures" are merely automatic or impulsive, or that some "pleasures" they don't really please a person except by relieving the discomfort brought about by the desire for it. In such cases, the person may wish to be free of the desire, and it may be better to eliminate the desire through clinical treatment or medication rather than fulfill it repeatedly. Other Interesting Considerations Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist ethics, but deontological ethics can be derived from it. Law enforcement is valuable to the utilitarian because it provides a sense of security and promotes positive behaviors. Furthermore, murder is wrong because it hurts loved ones and takes away the pleasure that the individual would have experienced otherwise. After all, it takes a lot of work to make, nurture, and assimilate a healthy person. An advantage of utilitarianism is that it bypasses certain prejudices that are manifest in arbitrary morality. For example, if two homosexual men have a brain state similar to that of a man interacting with a woman, the heterosexual cannot argue that his sexual desires are intrinisically superior. The same would apply for interracial sexuality, inter-religious sexuality, etc. Although this ethical system is atheistic (does not require theism), it would acknowledge the value of "spiritual" states and aesthetics even though the pursuit of such states (through mysticism/superstition) is often regarded as harmfully self-indulgent by the rational thinker, especially when/if it has the potential to produce prejudiced attitudes or lunatic behavior. Lastly, did evolution design morality, or did it merely allow morality to persist because of its beneficial nature?

Wikipedia agrees with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation But the NOVA documentary speculates about the use of the technology to teleport a person. If that's possible, I think it would be possible for aliens to maintain contact through entangled particles.

Multiple possibilities are feasible until there is falsification, and some things are untestable yet still feasible. By what criteria do you determine whether an hypothetical thing would hypothetically "exist" or "be"? Without such criteria, claims to existence cannot be true or false.

My earlier post was probably wrong. Such aliens probably could maintain contact with home via quantum entanglement. For everything about entanglement: 26:00 onward For the part on quantum entanglement used for teleportation: 37:40 to ~44:00 However, I don't know how many times this could be used. The actual entangled particles themselves are transformed? Once they're transformed, are they still entangled?

From a biological standpoint, your genes would remain intact, and that's all that's important. From an egoistic standpoint, you (or something like you) would still exist to carry out your will.

This first one is not for the faint of heart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZgXg_Ito3c

Language was meant to interact with reality. Through this interaction, concepts that are different in the abstract can be identical for empirical purposes.

What do you mean by this? I think that only the unthinking individual can escape pain by means of self-denial, meditation or positive thinking. I mean that we would be talking in terms of pleasure qualia and pain qualia, not happy people and unhappy people. Most people don't think in this way. If given the opportunity to bring a little happiness to the most miserable person or bring a lot of happiness to an already happy person, most people would choose the former, but the latter is actually more favorable from a utilitarian perspective. Since it's relevant to the question of what it means to exist, I'll bring it up. The question of identity is relevant to the possibility of quantum teleportation (40:00 - 44:00 of this NOVA video). They pose the question: is he actually teleported to Paris, or is he merely transformed into a lump of matter?

How would you define "reality"? As I understand it, reality consists in that which exists. Initially, the only definition for "exist" I could come up with was "have the potential to impact our perceptions of reality" or, in other words, "potentially have perceptible consequences." However, our perceptions let us realize that there is activity going on in reality. The fact that there is activity that impacts us should lead us to ask whether there is activity that does not impact us. An activity can only impact us if it is, but an activity needn't impact us merely because it is, nor is impact on us a requirement for it to be. As an example, consider the possibility of multiple universes resulting from the statistical functions of quantum mechanics. Technically, the only activity relevant to us is the activity that resulted in our existence, but that doesn't necessitate that there is no other activity. We could define "exist" as "be part of some activity" in order to include unimpactful activity in our concept of reality. Scratch that... scratch all of it. You could ask what the criteria is for determining whether or not an activity is. The only criterion I can think of is whether it has the ability to impact us. In fact, the whole argument boils down to circular reasoning since "to be" = "to exist". I implicitly redefined "to exist" in order to justify my explicit redefinition of the same. I give up... for now. But it looks like I'm not the first person to ask. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

The prediction is that the theory will be self consistent. If it's not self consistent, it has been falsified. The only thing unscientific about this is that it doesn't rely on empirical observation. However, if the formulation of predictions relies on empirical observation alone, then practically all science that has ever been conducted is actually pseudoscience. I explain this below. In science, the two major tools are empiricism and logic. A statement consists of various claims, and those claims can be proven false directly through empirical observation, or indirectly through logic. As an example of empiricism, if my claim is that an object will be red, I can test that directly by looking at the object. As an example of logic, if neon is produced inside of the rod, I will see red neon light when I run an electric current through it. In the latter, the logical connections are: neon emits red wavelength light; neon will emit light if I run an electric current through it; if there is neon in my rod, running an electric curent through the rod will run the electric current through the neon. Logically, this tells us that the neon hypothesis predicts red light. However, if I were allowed to break the rules of logic, I could argue that the neon hypothesis predicts green light. So science relies on the soundness of two methods, empirical observation and logic. If metaphysics solely relies on finding self contradictions in the theories, then metaphysics only relies on one of those methods, logic. The conlcusion is that the tools of metephysics comprise a subset of the tools of science, so you cannot denigrate metaphysical methods without denigrating scientific methods. In that case, the question should be: is the metaphysical method enough for one to arrive at any firm conclusions?