Please post books about humans, human behavior, psychology, brain science, evolutionary biology, and anything that can help us learn more about the animal we are.
Pic related, a master class in human behavior
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Human Nature
Oops thread was bad and no one replied
Great book. It's Reddit in the most positive sense of the word.
I really enjoyed this guy's lectures on YouTube and have this on my to read. Worth?
The book is basically the lectures you already watched, but with more added on and a weird psudo-political stint at the very end. Overall I think it's worth reading if you enjoyed his lectures, gives you a bit more to think about.
>determinist, no choices and no hope
>but pedophilia is wrong, racism is wrong
>you should feel bad about what your ancestors did, but Koreans eating dogs is fine, you're not allowed to object
How do these people live with this sort of dissonance?
Worse, yet: they're materialist.
Did he say all that or are those examples you came up with?
Of course he did. The dog thing is directly from the book OP posted. He talks about judicial reform in an interview he did with Joe Rogan.
Anon, those are examples Sapolsky provides. You misunderstood, as you always will.
I kneel.
The israelite is unbased, but determinism is still the one true god.
Your god is Satan, then
God is the one true god. Things are mostly predetermined but God left some wiggle room for us to see if we are based or cringe.
Outing yourself as a pedophile racist is also bad, but there was no other thing you could've done. Your broken mind cannot function in a different way, you have no free will; from the moment your ancestors began shitting out your lineage this post was already there, you have no free will.
Even in a completely deterministic world pedophiles can’t be allowed to exist in society
Why not? If there's no objective truth, why should that be the case?
Have you tried not being a racist pedophile?
Why wouldn’t you want to, anyway? Don’t like blacks and kids are sexy.
The concept of "choices" and "hope" still exist in a predetermined world. If people tell you that you should act a certain way or punishments will be enforced, both the structure of punishment and the people in favor of such punishment can be acting wholly along determinist lines and the result will be a system where undesirably things occur less. In short, everything is predetermined, but the concept of things being "wrong" and that you "should do this or that" are still part of the functional system, therefore no dissonance. The ancestor shame and ignoring other atrocities is a pathology though, but I find it interesting you went with Koreans eating a certain animal instead of, you know, China performing genocide against an ethnic minority while also forcing them to do labor and how this topic which would normally be the focus of mass outrage is basically unmentioned because of the geopolitical power of the country performing this genocide.
Anon, the dog thing is an example Sapolsky himself uses to highlight a baseline relativism. In the same chapter, he discusses the indefensibility of ethnic cleansing. That's not a coherent position.
Leftism is a powerful mind virus that can cripple even very intelligent people.
Easy: they get paid for it
- Biology: a Self-Teaching Guide by Steven Daniel Garber;
- The History of Life: a Very Short Introduction by Michael J. Benton;
- The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin;
- The Denial of Death - Ernest Becker;
- Escape from Evil - Ernest Becker.
Becker is shit
Ernest Becker is a joke. He literally wrote about how women with penises were the highest form of the "whole" human form.
He is right
You can't refute futa supremacy.
Cope and seethe. Dilate, even.
at least recommend descent of man if you're gonna suggest books you haven't read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_in_the_Brain
https://opentheory.net/principia-qualia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10%2C000_Year_Explosion
Oliver Sacks
Begin with Freud
>Pic related, a master class in human behavior
I remember that guy. He said humans have no free will, so I instantly knew he was a lobotomized academic. Please don't spread his works around
Good and evil, ethical and unethical, virtuous and vicious: all are artificial human values, all creations of our minds. There is no justification to support any of these values that isn't based on artificial constructs. This is why so many legal philosophies try to find some supreme and initial norm, some immutable norm, from which all other norms descend. This is where things like God, natural law, concepts like 'right to life, liberty, and property,' etc., come into play.
But the truth is that anything can be considered legislation. You can create laws that support a country or nation like Nazi Germany or The New Order in Indonesia, and you won't see the sky darken with shame or the sun dry up and wither to avoid witnessing what is happening. Electromagnetism and gravity won't become nauseated. There is no morality other than the synthetic morality created by our species.
As of today, there is no evidence of the existence of a personal God (beyond faith-based evidence), so you could say, yes, everything is permitted, everything can become law, because there is no supreme and unquestionable moral authority that supports our legal systems. Even the twisting and churning of our guts caused by witnessing the agony of others, even this empathetic response, ultimately isn't evidence that what causes visceral disgust should be considered a moral law: there is no logical construction that can sustain itself from the level of 'this is how it is' to the level of 'if this is how it is, then it must be seen in this or that way.'
To be truthful, even human actions we consider monstrous and cruel aren't, according to determinism, the 'offender's fault,' since, due to all the infinite causes and consequences that have piled up on the shoulders of that offender, their fate was already sealed when the universe was born. This means our concepts of 'guilty' are also fictions because no one truly has a choice to act in any way other than the way they will act.
With all that said, there is no doubt about the importance of our fictions, the importance of our social contract, the importance of our laws, the importance of our concepts of ethics and human dignity. Without these inventions, our civilization would be doomed to barbarism. These fictions are some of the most important technologies our species has ever created.
There is no evidence that any personal Deity from which our moral laws emanate exists. However, our species was intelligent enough to organize itself in a way that creates fictions to fill the dangerous void left by the absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.
But in the end not even Hitler can be blamed for his actions without an appeal to moral fictions and freedom-of-will-fictions.
For anyone interested in legal issues in a world where there are no absolute values derived from a God or Natural Law, I suggest reading the works of Hans Kelsen.
>absence of eternal and unshakeable moral, legal, and ethical values.
homie bot read Kant already.
Kant system is also based on artificial premises.
You can make that statement. But without any arguments to support your case I will just assume you misunderstood him like so many others before you. Kant's system represents the same insight shared by Plato, so when you come at the king you best not miss.
The distinction between descriptive statements about what "is" in nature and prescriptive statements about what "should be" is at the core of the "is-ought" problem in philosophy. This problem addresses the challenge of moving from observations about how things are in the world (descriptive statements) to making value judgments or moral claims about how things should be (prescriptive statements). This challenge highlights the potential gap between facts and values.
For example, the statement "I feel pain when someone stabs me" or "I feel pain when someone kills and eats my babies" describes an emotional and physical response that is a natural consequence of certain actions. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because these actions cause pain, they "should be" viewed as right or wrong.
This view contrasts with Kant's moral system, which is based on the categorical imperative and deontological ethics. Kant argues that moral principles are derived from reason and are universally applicable, independent of personal preferences or subjective judgments. According to Kant, actions are morally right or wrong based on their conformity to rational moral principles, rather than on the subjective feelings or consequences they produce.
Kant's moral system focuses on the rationality of actions and the inherent worth of rational beings. It emphasizes the importance of acting out of a sense of duty and following principles that can be consistently willed as universal laws. Kant's approach seeks to provide a rational and objective foundation for moral judgments that is not reliant on individual preferences or subjective feelings, in contrast to the view that links morality solely to the subjective experiences of pain and pleasure.
Cont.
The distinction between descriptive statements about natural occurrences and prescriptive statements about morality is essential in understanding how ethical frameworks like Immanuel Kant's differ from subjective judgments based solely on personal experiences. While it's true that experiencing pain when someone stabs or when one's offspring are threatened is a natural reaction, it doesn't automatically translate to a moral judgment about what "should be" right or wrong.
The leap from "is" to "ought" faces the challenge of the naturalistic fallacy, where inferring morality from natural facts can be problematic. Just because something causes pain doesn't inherently dictate whether it is morally right or wrong. This is where Kant's moral system diverges.
Kant's deontological ethics, expressed through the categorical imperative, emphasizes the rational nature of moral principles. He argues that morality should be grounded in rational principles that can be consistently applied universally, regardless of personal feelings. Kant's framework is meant to provide an objective and universal basis for morality, rather than relying on subjective emotional responses to events.
However, one might argue that Kant's moral system is flawed because it's based on artificial principles of morality. This criticism suggests that Kant's emphasis on rationality might be detached from the complex and nuanced reality of human emotions and experiences. It could be argued that emotions play a significant role in shaping our moral intuitions, and thus Kant's framework might not fully capture the intricacies of human ethical decision-making.
In summary, the "is-ought" distinction reminds us that natural observations don't directly lead to moral conclusions. Kant's approach seeks to establish an objective moral framework through rational principles, which contrasts with the idea that morality is solely subjective. However, one could criticize Kant's system as overly reliant on rationality, possibly neglecting the role of emotions and personal experiences in shaping our understanding of right and wrong. This criticism, however, depends on one's perspective on the relationship between reason and emotion in moral philosophy.
>cant make arguments of his own and forces a soulless bot to produce slop for him.
Kant understood the human condition and it is reflected in his writings. Something a bot can never do nor most people for that matter. True philosophers are a different breed and evidently out of your reach
Kant morality isn’t based on any evidence that can be scientifically proved to exist (like elements of matter of physical forces), but depends of human perceptions about phenomena. So, although there is something in nature called pain, that can be detected via the study of nervous systems, there isn’t something perceivable in nature as “wrongness” or “immorallness” of this physical thing called pain.
I used a bot because I was at lunch break and it helped me to save time.
And what “human condition” means? What “good” and “bad” mean? What’s evidence, in nature, for something as being “immoral”?
I’m not saying that this synthetic values aren’t important, but they simply don’t exist in nature. They are human creations, so even if you use reason to find things that would be pleasurable and unpleasurable to all beings, even if you create a system of morality that is based on the avoidance of suffering for all creatures, there still remains the question that there’s not any natural evidence for seeing bodily or mental pain, for example (let’s say: the Neuro-chemistry of pain), as “bad” or “immoral” or “wrong”. Pain exists (there is a chemical and neurological process we call pain), but all moral perceptions about pain are artificial.
When you have that in mind all ethical systems become artificial. They are important, but there’s nothing like “Divinity” or “God” or “Human Nature” that can lend them the quality of being empirical.
>But muh Positivism!!
Its funny how you come across as a brainless semen slurper
Explain why positivism is wrong using only evidences that can be empirically verified.
Are you a creation of my mind, too?
All the responses from that guy are actually just ai responses from a prompt. You can tell if you have a soul.
Are you religious by any chance?
Are you in good standing with your father, by chance? See I can make baseless accusations too!
Explain why someone with free will would choose to waste their life on IQfy
>lack of willpower=no freedom of will
bruh...
Yes
If you have to fight your own brain to choose an action then you're suffering from biological determinism
If you're not actively making choices and just going with how you feel you have no free will
>And that's why it's not my fault I'm a fat slop. It's my genetics and no fault of my own :^)
Whatever fattie
Path of least resistance. It is easier to waste time on IQfy instead of growing by learning a skill.
we make automatic decisions based on unconscious processes that are influenced by our genetics and environment
that's just cope code for
>nobody can be culpable for anything ever, except the cishet whites
His next book coming out in October is about that topic. You should give it a read, Anon
>oh so you think his views are moronic on a fundamental level? You should BUY his new book where he expands upon them in excruciating detail.
Shill plz :/
>Sapolsky is also interested in the role of schizotypal disorders in the emergence and development of shamanism and the major Western religions. In this context, he has noted similarities between obsessive-compulsive behavior and religious rituals.
>Author of Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will (Penguin Press, 2023)
>Sapolsky was born in Brooklyn, New York, to immigrants from the Soviet Union. His father, Thomas Sapolsky, was an architect who renovated the restaurants Lüchow's and Lundy's.[4] Robert was raised an Orthodox israelite and spent his time reading about and imagining living with silverback gorillas.
a key influence on ted kaczysnki
Jung Collected Works
sapolsky in his youtube lecture series pushes for gould's punctuated equilibrium theory, tries to downplay heredity, and starts the entire lecture series off by moralizing about eugenics. He's actually a subversive and I presume his book is just the cliffnotes version of his lecture series
having watched his lecture series and read this book, pretty much on the money. Still enjoyable.
Would you say educational value the entire book is marred by this, or can one just ignore the preaching bits?
Look up his book on Goodreads and other sources. Remember, you're on IQfy right now. Do you think the average 4chsn poster has a measured look on reality?
I found that here barely preaches, is rather honest and direct if he does interject his own opinions, and takes a measured approach throughout the entire book.
>refuse to spend 90 second to understand what someone means when they state humans do not have free will
>Spend 4 minutes angrily typing a response to every thread you see while casually browsing IQfy on the subject for the rest of your life
>make an inane statement that stems from the 17th century that goes against modern common sense
>gets upset when people say its a moronic position to take
>pick up book because it was actually recommended on IQfy
>go into it blind
>Start reading the first or second chapter
>Author mentions something about his wife getting out of the car and yelling at someone for a minor traffic incident
>Uses the Holocaust as his reference point for morally extreme behavior
>"What a minute"
>pull up Wikipedia
>israeli
I didn't ask for these powers.
check em
>Behave
no, I don't think I will
devilish
Beehive
>learn more about the animal we are.
>christgays in 20243
stop insulting God's creation,just because we have similarity to animals doesnt mean we are in fact animals.
we are made in God's image for christ sake.
Greatly enjoyed this book, goes into great detail about sexual selection and how it applies to humans.