But I do pay for your meds. At least, I do if we're on the same health plan. That's how an insurance policy works. The money from policy premium is pooled to pay for the cost of medical treatment.

Ye gods, how sexist. It elevates Western stereotypes and traditions about the attitudes, behaviors, and abilities of both sexes, and presents them as essential qualities of the universe.

I think that may be one of the most sexist things that it is possible to do.

There are plenty of brick houses in Oklahoma. But this was an incredibly powerful tornado. It flattened buildings made of cinder bricks.

She really lucked up!

I have to say I think I disagree in this case. The path she took to public office--joining the Republican party out of a convenient alignment on certain issues--is actually quite common, at least at the state level.

I personally know several people who got involved in political campaigns in my own state for Republican representatives when they were in college, a couple of whom (at the time) had aspirations for public office. None of them were opposed to gay marriage, abortion, or the other social hot-button issues which Republicans are supposed to be against. One of them, a political science major at Rice University in his junior year, was directly below the head campaign manager for a candidate to the state House of Representatives.

Especially in the context of the wheeling and dealing of legislatures, I can easily see someone making a "yes" vote on DOMA or similar legislative proposals merely in order to keep other doors open.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Do you mean to say if liberals watched Ryan put on a dirty apron and wash a greasy pan while wearing business attire, THAT would have changed their minds?
Filth Clinton gets $100,000 a speech. Shall we research how much this compassionate, caring liberal gave to charity last year?
>> ^DarkenRahl:
QM, right on schedule with an inane non sequitur.



The Clintons haven't been releasing their tax returns since Hillary took over the Secretary of State position--it's not expected of cabinet members. Bill and Hillary usually file jointly.

In the time that Hillary was in the Senate, they typically donated about 10% of their income to charity. Which is substantially more than the average.

Likewise, Obama donated 25% of his income his first year in office, including most of the proceeds from his Nobel Peace Prize.

These guys again? Seriously?

If you weren't aware, the group that made the video has a history of misrepresenting themselves to employees of "liberal" organizations in the hopes that they will say something embarrassing, recording these conversations in violation of the laws of some states (I'm unsure if this conversation would qualify under TX law), and editing the tapes in order to create the appearance of wrongdoing.

Project Veritas is a farce. If they release a video, it's relatively safe to assume that there is exculpatory footage that they just didn't release--that's the way it has been so far.

The claim is that there is a special substance that is our consciousness, not that it causes our consciousness.

Those who propose that this is true usually attempt to support this with arguments showing not only do we not yet have any explanation for how consciousness could arise solely from physical matter (which is true), but we cannot in principle show that consciousness could arise from matter (which is debatable). If it is not possible to explain consciousness in terms of matter only, then we have to posit a non-physical substance--or at least non-physical properties. (The philosophers who argue for non-physical properties are called property dualists, like David Chalmers, and should be contrasted with substance dualists like Plantinga.) So, according to dualist philosophers of mind, postulating a non-physical substance is not an unnecessary complication, but an essential element of any complete account of the mind.

The arguments themselves can get very complicated. Philosophy of mind is a sonuvabitch.

>> ^messenger:

If someone's going to propose that there's a special substance that causes our consciousness and is non-physical, it has to be explained how this different substance creates consciousness AND how it interacts with physical objects. To propose an as-yet undetected type of physical matter (similar to how "dark matter" has mass, but remains undetected) only requires explanation of how it creates consciousness. Proposing that it's "non-physical" adds complexity, and doesn't provide any answers. It's a dodge.
@GeeSussFreeK
It's possible that we could know all the physical properties by empirical investigation, eventually. Why not? And if we can create robot intelligence, it might become superior to our own, as in chess. It might then create yet another higher form of intelligence, and so on until one is created that can derive all the physical laws of the universe and communicate them to us with proofs. We do have more than a billion years before the sun dries up all our water. Maybe we've got time.

Well... not really.

First off, this isn't a specifically religious line of argument. Sure, the philosophers that he's quoting are indeed well known Christian philosophers. But one doesn't need to be Christian, or to be religious, or even broadly theistic in order to recognize the strength of some arguments for dualism.

So let's start with QualiaSoup's repeated comments about what would constitute a coherent account of dualism. His constant question is what an account of dualism would even look like without a physical account. For example, "How would an agent with no physical manifestation differ from no agent at all?"But this borders on circularity--if the only kind of coherent account that exists is a physical account, then there clearly cannot be a coherent account of dualism. Which is to say that QualiaSoup appears to be rejecting dualist accounts because they are dualist. Which is circular reasoning. If QualiaSoup wishes to advance such an objection, then it demonstrates nothing but the state of his beliefs about dualism, and says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the substance dualist theory of mind.


Moreover, he consistently conflates consciousness with cognition. Cognition pertains to the processing of data. An entity that is not conscious could certainly go through processes we would recognize as cognitive. Consciousness pertains to the awareness or the internal experience of, among other things, the objects of cognition. Even if cognition were largely handled by a physical brain, one could still assert a non-physical consciousness without any contradictions.

QualiaSoup does not seem to realize that substance dualism all but requires that damage to the brain result in bizarre functioning. One of the most consistent elements of dualist theories since the 17th century has been an understanding that the mind and the brain have causal relationships with each other. Pointing out the bizarre effects of brain damage on mental functioning no more disproves dualism than pointing out that drinking too much alcohol gets you drunk--the dualist already understands that these kinds of relationships must hold, and there are already the broad outlines of an account in place in dualism.

In his discussions of Swinburne's modal argument for dualism, QualiaSoup fundamentally misunderstands possibility and "apparent conceivability." Let's quote from the revised edition of Swinburne's Evolution of the Soul:

"The only arguments which can be given to show some supposition to be logically possible are arguments which spell it out, which tell in detail a story of what it would be like for it to be true and do not seem to involve any contradictions, i.e. arguments from apparent conceivability. Apparent conceivability
is evidence (though not of course conclusive evidence) of logical possibility." (pp. 324-325)

QualiaSoup's objection is clearly a straw-man argument when you look at the full passage. The counter-example of the time-traveler fails the "apparent conceivability" test immediately because it involves an obvious contradiction. Which is to say that, by Swinburne's definition, QS's example is NOT apparently conceivable. Moreover, QualiaSoup clearly misunderstands the notion of "logical possibility." A statement can be logically possible without being physically possible. It is logically possible that the moon is made out of cheese--there are no logical contradictions that would follow--despite its being a physical impossibility. Swinburne's argument has nothing to do with physical possibility--only logical possibility.

tl;dr
QualiaSoup needs to take some more philosophy classes. Philosophy is totally badass.

>> ^hpqp:

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a quality take-down of religious sophistry.

Enoch did not specify that he was a substance dualist. As QualiaSoup recognizes at the beginning of the video, there is more than one kind of dualism.

>> ^messenger:

I too like talking about this stuff, and I don't like all of his arguments either, but some of it is worth examining.
First, are you a) proposing a certain kind of substance outside of the physical that has specific properties; or b) do you deduce that some non-physical substance must exist because you don't believe that physical substances can give rise to consciousness? If a), what properties? What's your evidence? If b), why do you mean by "substance", and how did you come to the conclusion that physical substance could not give rise to consciousness?>> ^enoch:
yep.
i am a dualist and damn proud of it.
i really enjoy this guys videos but i wouldnt specify this particular video as one of his best.
maybe it is because he is making a very specific argument on a subject i absolutely love talking about "what IS consciousness"?
still...
he makes some great points against those who may push the "substance dualism" argument.

>> ^lantern53:

Most people don't like gay people and you can blame gay people. If gay people acted like everyone else, in that they kept their private affairs private, most would have no trouble with them. It's when they parade down the street with red codpieces, or french kiss in front of children, or wear dogcollars with little metal studs, or fling semen from 2nd story windows...
that is the kind of thing that pisses people off. You don't see Neil Patrick Harris doing that, which is why he's so adorable.


You are a troll, yes?

Unless you live in a very rare kind of area (perhaps you moved into your city's gay especially felonious gay district without realizing it?), I have serious doubts that you've witnessed those kinds of actions when you haven't seen them among straight people. I've seen plenty of apparently straight people french-kissing in public in front of children and wearing studded collars. (I have yet to see anyone with a red codpiece outside of a Renaissance Festival or a play.)

Or perhaps your objection is that they "don't keep it in private," that they don't hide that they're gay. That they kiss their girl/boyfriend in public where you can see it, or hold hands in public, just the way that straight couples do.

People can dislike it all they want, but gay people, bisexuals exhibiting their same-sex attraction, and transmen and transwomen enacting their gender have as much right to the public space as you do.

So suck it.


<==== pissed off (and slightly drunk) bisexual

This particular song was kind of a viral sensation about...six years ago? It found its way all over the place--video game mods, parody videos, all kinds of places.

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.


I think it's more likely because the driver is in a big, heavy vehicle that moves really fast. In most cases, the presumption is going to be that the driver owes a duty to take care not to injure anyone due to the potential danger of operating a motor vehicle, and has more ability to avoid incidents due to the speed of the vehicle. After all, you have to get a license to drive. You don't have to get one to walk. Unless you have a dashcam or other documentation to prove that liability is on the pedestrian, or unless the pedestrian admits fault, these other factors are probably going to carry the day.

Many, if not most, pedestrians do have liability insurance that might apply in the case of being found at fault for this kind of thing--homeowner's or renter's insurance. Most policies come with liability coverage that applies whether you're on the property or not--it's mainly used for things like dog bites, people injuring themselves on your property, etc., but depending on the policy it might apply to this sort of incident.

Also, if the pedestrian has insurance on their own automobile, in most states one can get medical coverage or personal injury protection coverage that applies regardless of whether you are in your vehicle or not--it just has to be a car accident of some kind.

Interesting.

It doesn't make much mention of Hermetic Qabalah, though. It briefly mentions that the texts reached scholars who used it to interpret ancient Greek writings. This interpretation of the Kabbalah was eventually also fused with the grimoire traditions (which also contained practices preserved from ancient Greece, along with Christian and Muslim elements), to the extent that after the 16th century, nearly all serious magicians also studied Kabbalah. And this continued on for several centuries.

The version used by practicing occultists--who usually spell the tradition as Qabalah or Qabbalah--was refined and popularized during the occult revival of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Alongside the occult revival, and with many overlapping figures, was a revival of Paganism and a general rejection of Christianity. These twin movements sort of bubbled along under the surface until the 60s and 70s, when they started gaining steam. And with the rise of the internet in the 90s, as access to the ideas grew, the movements exploded.

With the rather curious result that there are now thousands of self-professed Pagans and occultists who, with no affiliation with Christianity or Judaism at all, nonetheless study the Zohar and the Sepher Yetzirah with a great deal of energy. Naturally, the traditions one finds among these communities differ substantially from Kabbalah as practiced by Jewish adherents.

Um, Bill Nye? Do you think that astrologers are really unaware of the precession of the equinoxes?

What do you think that whole "Age of Aquarius" thing was about?

As any basic introduction to astrology--heck, the Wikipedia entry on astrology--will tell you, there are two different ways of calculating the signs: tropical and sidereal. Under sidereal astrology, your sign is based on the actual constellation. Most people who think of themselves as a Sagitarrius really will be a Scorpio under sidereal astrology.

Tropical astrology, the most popular form of astrology in the West, is on the other hand based not on the positions of the constellations, but based on the position of the sun at the equinoxes and solstices. The signs are named after the constellations that were present in them back in the day, but it's not as if the equinoxes occur at different points in the year than they used to.

Whether or not you think astrology is bogus or not, it's probably a good idea to at least read the Wikipedia entry on a subject before you criticize it.