Forums

In the usage of the word "purpose" one does not imply a pre-existing, guiding teleos.

in evolution, trial and error selects the processes, attributes, that meet a need, offer a survival advantage. These are passed on.
The reason why these are passed on can be called a purpose, indicating a direction towards an outcome.

For instance, the reason why eyes evolve is because they offer the organism a survival advantage by giving it the efficiency benefit of sensual perception.
When speaking about sex, the only reason sex, and sexual types, would persist, evolve, is to meet a need, a survival need.
Reproduction is such a survival need, as it passes on the genes form an otherwise mortal creature.

This is it primary and original reason for evolving.
If later it also evolved other utilities is another matter.

Pleasure is the sensation of satisfying a survival need.

Granted sex is not an immediate survival need, but it is important for life, given mortality. Evolution develops secondary methods of ensuring a particular behavior...such as sexual lust, the inebriating frenzy of libidinal pressure.
Only organisms with sophisticated neurological networks can feel pleasure to the degree of a mammal's orgasm.
The sudden release of contained pressures, is experienced as ecstasy.

One feels something akin to it when drinking water, after a day in the sun...or vacating one's bowls after a days gluttony.
The sensation of sudden gratification, is orgasmic.
The level of pleasure is determined by the level of the need and the duration it went unsatisfied.

Ergo, pleasure is not the goal, but the sensation of acquiring the goal.

the man-child, asks at nobody in particular in the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thread.
I'm thinknig it's the infants way of asking a question from KT members.

Stew-y wrote:

Heisman's will was one of quality over quantity, but it was not a great will in that it was subverted towards a cause that was not his own. How do we negotiate the conflict between willing on one's own terms and the effects of the world that create those terms, especially as defined by one's ancestors?

Satyr's response:
Heisman, like Weininger, being honest Jews, realized what their own heritage was about: Nihilism, weakness inverting reality so as to become strong resulting in a paradox when a certain level of power was attained, by seducing weaklings across tribal, memetic lines.

The "cause" was innately his own.
He was honest enough, and courageous enough not only to see what Judaism resulted in - Modernity - but that committing suicide to return to the void was the only purely Jewish act of all.
Hating life, nature, self, and then making excuses to stay alive, exposes you as a hypocrite...the paradox.
In Christianity they invent a rule against suicide, when the rational thing to do for one who truly believes that there is a 'better' eternal life after death is to put an end to this "illusory" existence.
Christianity, being an outcrop of Judaism, must also contradict itself.

A brain can, indeed, contradict its own genes.
to what extent and how successfully is dependent on the brain's will-power.

Modernity is, in fact, this drive to detach from one's own nature, ones inherited past, and to reinvent one's self.
The rejection of one's past can never be complete because forgetting, denying, only deals with the brain's memories, experiences, knowledge, and not the genetic memories, which are always imposing themselves upon the brain's processes.

But, not all is lost.

The psychological triad, represented by the rider on a horse, REASON(man)<>WILL(stirrups)<>HORSE(passion) in a pagan mind comes in this order...this is the Hellenic, pagan, Indo-European ideal psyche.

With Nihilism, the Judeo-Christian man the order changes:
WILL(stirrups)<>REASON(man)<>HORSE(passion)
Also called the "priestly" psychology.
Will is externalized, as a God, man is harnessed to an authority, imposing itself upon reason, taming the passions.
The fact that the will disappears in some vague beyond, makes it easily manipulated by earthly wills.

To change this one begins with one's self.

Similarly to alter the Nihilistic from Top to Bottom thinking, where one begins with a desirable starting absolute and then tries to rationalize it, to justify it, must be returned to its healthy, normal, natural order of Down<>UP thinking.
A towards the absolute...."Will to Power"...."Will to Knowledge"..."Will to Life".

One begins as ignorant, using the senses to engage the world directly, slowly building upwards towards hypothesis...the from a godly perspective.
One climbs upwards, towards the summit, not downwards, where the summit imposes its mass upon you, forcing you to surrender to gravity.

This simple reversal defines one's character.
It changes how one relates to the world, and to himself, as the manifestation of an entire becoming.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The coward Stew-y, being too intimidated to come here, asks, from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

Stew-y wrote:

Granted he made the only act a Jew could do in complete honesty, and therefore it was a courageous act of will.

Nonetheless, the act could also be said to be a part of what he claims is the broader Jewish cause of a rapid increase in evolution through AI. Understandably that cause is Modern, but it raises another question; how is the effects of such Modernity of lower quality than the effects of remaining true to one's heritage?

Only a nihilistic degenerate would consider killing himself an act of progress.
Heisman killed himself because, as he said himself, he wanted to live-up to his own people's spirit...which is distinctly anti-life, anti-nature.

A.I. is a way of saying that man uses technologies to escape the determinations of the past...nature.
It embraces escape via techniques, with unforeseeable repercussions...like pollutions in genetic and memetic contexts.

Here is the difference:
Pagans (call it paternalism) took natural sexual differences, and then forced them into a behavioral standard, a technique - marriage - for the sake of a goal.
Gender being the application of already present sexual types within a socioeconomic paradigm.

Humanists are Judeo-Christians, minus the God part - it was amputated with a Marxist blade.
Humanists reject both sexual differences and marriage - the latter selectively, reinventing it - proposing a technology, a technique that does not manipulate the naturally occurring but that rejects it altogether, producing, as a goal, a coming future world where sex is not applicable - a-sexuality...A.I.
Transhumanism....
The term "human", in that case would be obsolete.
We enter into a world of pure meme...pure ideal.
"Pure" in this case means detached from the world, from the mud of the earthly, from nature (pure artificiality).

I, for one, embrace this...because then the division, fragmentation of this sexual type "Human" will be easier. Then community will be founded on shared ideals...as is occurring on-line.
This does not dismiss sex and race as a factor, it incorporates it into a meme, a value judgment.  
The chaff will be separated, by their own doing.
See MRA and how they willingly, supposedly, take themselves out of the genes pool?
Yes...that, I like.
Nihilism, you see, is self-destructive.
It must contradict itself to not annihilate itself ...see Zionism, the Jew Paradox...what Heisman uncovered.
Se Christianity.
See Americanism, and its exceptionalism and benevolence of no-Empire bullshit.
Nihilism when it attains power, must contradict itself....or it must, like Heisman, commit suicide, under the principles it values.

But nihilists are more often hypocrites and cowards.
Their altruistic, selflessness, is fake. It's a way of groveling for what they think they deserve and have a "right" to.  

Heritage is a term describing an individual's Becoming, within a cultural memetic continuum.  
Since memes are extensions, continuations, of genes, heritage defines the historical, written, traditional, mythological spiritual, inheritance, implying genetic foundations.
As such the motive is important.
By "motive" I mean "goal".....object/objective....Ideal.
The projection the group, the individual, moves towards.

When one is guided by a desire to connect with his past - to Know Thyself - in other words to know his nature, to follow his memetic and genetic line as far back as he possibly can, to find an identity there, by accepting this, then he is not detaching, as moderns do, but attaching.
He does not stay there, but improves upon the given.
Knowledge of the past, nature, and not rejecting it, alters the form and the plausibility of the projected ideal. It connects it to the real and so makes it realistic...the opposite of fantastic, supernatural.  

He does not reject race, sex, nature in general, but adapts to it and incorporates it into his ongoing becoming. He does not dismiss, reject, forget...he does the opposite.  

Technologies either enhance or amputate/castrate.
To amputate, using a technique, a technology, is to reject the past, forget it, replace it with a fabricated one.
This has consequences.
We call these pollutants.
There are material pollutants and genetic pollutants.

Embracing your heritage, your nature, is a drive towards self-completion.
To amputate yourself, using whatever surgical techniques, is to divide yourself into pieces, hoping that at some coming date you will find something superior to what you were.
By amputating yourself away from your own self - since you are a manifestation of your past/nature - is another way of saying that you are detaching yourself from reality, from the world. Whatever you imagine from then on, whatever techniques and technologies you innovate to deal with the consequence of your own surgical, selective, meddling, will be a monstrosity, a caricature...

Example:
If a mind deals with its problems, its self, it can hope - not guaranteed - to either grow or die.
If, on the other hand, he uses techniques, like drugs, alcohol, self-castration, self-denial, forgetting, he does not deal with the problem he postpones the increasing effects. He surrenders to their impact.
Dealing with a wound on your leg by chopping off your leg, does not solve the problem.


Now....given that ILP is dying - we can all see it - after the moderators destroyed it with their stupidity, I will not respond to this jerk-off, who spent months casting words my way in a desperate attempt to be noticed.
 
If she wants to know my opinions here is where I am.
If she has balls, and is a HE, and is not a cunt, like I suspect he is, then he will also use his moniker Stuart.

Let's face it Carleas is a moron.
He placed morons in positions of power reflecting his own quality of mind.
More is better....quantity over quality...pride in numbers, in being popular.,...and they bragged about it!!!

When you have an imbecile claiming to be almost MENSA, like the brown cow, or Only_Humean with his double-standard application of stringency, and you allow cows and stupid men-children, claiming to have IQ.'s of 150 but cannot display this formidable intellect, then what would you expect?

I mean Fausty was a moderator who, on behalf of his master, lowered the ILP forum to an all-inclusive den of dim-wits where, in true democratic style, all was reduced to the lowest-common-denominator of a common, braggart, c-Rapping his insecurity - the shit-Smears of modern western decadence.

Better to be silent than to say anything at all and expect to be respected because it's your "right", and you "deserve" it.

Why would I deal in hypotheticals?


What if an alien race came to Earth and offered us a immortality?
The 'what if's' are as infinite as the human mind's ability to imagine.

I deal with 'what is' and how it can be used going forward.

No AI in the past. Nothing pointing to its parity with human intelligence.
At that point in time we can no longer speak of a 'human race'.

Stuart. wrote:

Satyr wrote:

When one is guided by a desire to connect with his past - to Know Thyself - in other words to know his nature, to follow his memetic and genetic line as far back as he possibly can, to find an identity there, by accepting this, then he is not detaching, as moderns do, but attaching.
He does not stay there, but improves upon the given.
Knowledge of the past, nature, and not rejecting it, alters the form and the plausibility of the projected ideal. It connects it to the real and so makes it realistic...the opposite of fantastic, supernatural.

Instead of the Jewish version of AI, there could be a form of AI that has all of one's heritage within it. The obvious example would be the old idea of uploading one's brain and other aspects of ones physiology onto an advanced system of computers and other electronics. If done correctly, the latter form could enhance rather than amputate. It could know itself and it's origins, including it's genetic origins through those who made it.

Knowing is Not uploading Data.

Charting a genealogy tree on your computer is Not the natural drive of our being that selects, rejects, discriminates, emphasizes, de-emphasizes - the shape forming process... a Willing.
It is neither intelligence nor storage.

Stuart. wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Knowing is Not uploading Data.

Charting a genealogy tree on your computer is Not the natural drive of our being that selects, rejects, discriminates, emphasizes, de-emphasizes - the shape forming process... a Willing.
It is neither intelligence nor storage.

I'm still not convinced that the some form of transition away from the biological can't be rationalized. But, being that I find the idea abhorrent, I'm satisfied to put my doubts aside for now.

You make the error of assuming Consciousness comes about with least resistance and so filing up vast amounts of data offers an advantage.... - no. Consciousness comes about with maximum resistance, friction, pressure and any technology trying to offer advantage and comfort to soften that pressure can only diminish your consciousness.

Evolution is a reaction to stress.
No stress, no growth.
Natural selection: adapt or die.

It is the stress that damages, forcing the organism to grow, or perish.
Sheltering = stagnation, decay...stupidity.

What we call "spirit" the daemon is the manifestation of this accumulated pain and suffering.
A machine carrying none of thee experiences is a dead thing...no soul, to character, no daemo - mechanical recitation, raw date following a code, automatic, heartless.
No blood to tie it to a past...an inheritance.

This is why modernity creates dead-minds, the brain-dead, zombies.
Machines of production and consumption. No spirit, no dameon, no character/charisma.
No connection, via blood (via the genes) to a past, beyond ones birth, and, perhaps, a generation or two.
Shallow, "individualistic" in the most superficial sense - detached from reality.

Instead of honoring man you want to escape man through a mechanism?
An escape through artificiality?

Maybe you do belong on ILP.

Satyr wrote:

Only a nihilistic degenerate would consider killing himself an act of progress.

In all contexts?



That is how he actually killed himself. The most aristocratic of deaths. Hard to find more noble acts. I'm paraphrazing: Yukio Mishima -- In the West they look at suicide as an act of weakness. In Japan sometimes, through admiting defeat, you win in the end.




“True beauty is something that attacks, overpowers, robs, and finally destroys.”
“Anything can become excusable when seen from the standpoint of the result”
“We live in an age in which there is no heroic death.”
“Possessing by letting go of things was a secret of ownership unknown to youth
“Perfect purity is possible if you turn your life into a line of poetry written with a splash of blood.”
“Beauty is something that burns the hand when you touch it.”
“Other people must be destroyed. In order that I might truly face the sun, the world itself must be destroyed....”
“a samurai is a total human being, whereas a man who is completely absorbed in his technical skill has degenerated into a ‘function’, one cog in a machine.”
― Yukio Mishima

There Will Be Blood wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Only a nihilistic degenerate would consider killing himself an act of progress.

In all contexts?

But in the case of a noble suicide, or even a self-sacrifice, there is no claim to progress.
The act is one of defiance.

To say that Heisman, and Weininger, killed themselves, in agreement with their people's nihilistic, nature-hating, life-hating, principles, which most deny and contradict, is not "progress".

We can call it noble, honorable, honest, but nothing more.
I guess Heisman, who killed himself in front of the University he was teaching in, was also making a statement.
Can't say it was progressive though.

Ah, I misinterpreted then. Thanks

Also, grapes stressed by heat and little hydration produce the sweetest grapes and best wine.
Stress is an intensifier.

Stuart. wrote:

That argument helps; several people who all have high opinions of each other working in a comfortable setting making this AI, couldn't help make one with no internal pressures nor drive worth mentioning and therefore no degree of consciousness worth mentioning.

Again you make the error of assuming an Evenness; Fine-tuning the balances to the sensitivity of a feather falling will show how uneven the terrain and balances are.

Increase sensitivity of your own discerning machine, then cracks will show up... frictions and pressure.
Even the most homogenous environment is bristling with competition.

Just because Nuances operate at a subliminal level and not easily detected at the calm surface, doesn't mean, what you are observing here is another herd stable.

There Will Be Blood wrote:

That is how he actually killed himself. The most aristocratic of deaths. Hard to find more noble acts. I'm paraphrazing: Yukio Mishima -- In the West they look at suicide as an act of weakness. In Japan sometimes, through admiting defeat, you win in the end.




“True beauty is something that attacks, overpowers, robs, and finally destroys.”
“Anything can become excusable when seen from the standpoint of the result”
“We live in an age in which there is no heroic death.”
“Possessing by letting go of things was a secret of ownership unknown to youth
“Perfect purity is possible if you turn your life into a line of poetry written with a splash of blood.”
“Beauty is something that burns the hand when you touch it.”
“Other people must be destroyed. In order that I might truly face the sun, the world itself must be destroyed....”
“a samurai is a total human being, whereas a man who is completely absorbed in his technical skill has degenerated into a ‘function’, one cog in a machine.”
― Yukio Mishima

Beautiful footage and words, he seems to be an interesting man - i always found, since i was a child, the Roman and Japanese way to take your own life, an act of nobleness.
I just did (do) not know why..

An algorithm which could translate pressure into growth, uploaded into a machine that can self-correct, but not entirely, would do it.

Uuuummmm, this is a thread about Forums.
so, on topic...on ILP who is the dumbest fuck in your opinion?
Who is the most degenerate, pathetic, one?

Speaking of shit, smeared across a screen...do you understand why politeness, although necessary, when it becomes extreme, like a religious "thou shalt not," and supported by the "cult of victimhood" the the ideal of quantities over qualities - more is better - resulting in uncontrolled all-inclusion (like the one produced by monogamy and rules concerning sexual etiquette) prevents a thorough cleaning out of "house"?

Like not taking out the garbage because somewhere in the smelly, decomposing, mush, some useful bacteria might be growing.
The risk of dis-ease would outweigh any potential bacterial growth.
At some time one must decide if having a clean house is better than having an open house...and why build walls, doors, and windows, if everyone is allowed in?

A refreshing drizzle of genius - the 150 I.Q. kind - in a sea of mediocrity.

shit-Smears wrote:

lol at debating the "purpose of sex".

Some people do it because it feels good.

Others to make babies.

Some for both reasons.

That's what the case actually is. So stop trying to ignore half the truth to make some silly theory work.

And the mouth, taste did not evolve for only drinking and eating....for distinguishing what is edible and useful to the organism - it's a "half-truth".
The other half of the "truth" is is that it is for getting drunk, taking your medicine, feeling pleasure when eating/drinking, getting high, cunnilingus, fellatio, smoking pot, piercings etc...

The muti-utilitarianism purpose for the evolution of the tongue, lips, and taste buds.

Sex as not just for pleasure but for distinguishing difference(and the compatibility of differences) on a close, physical level.

perpetualburn wrote:

Sex as not just for pleasure but for distinguishing difference(and the compatibility of differences) on a close, physical level.  

He never asks why he feels pleasure...he only feels that he does.

If it were pain, then he would ask..
He would explore, delve deeper into what caused him pain.
He would seek a motive, a reason, and if he could not find one he would project one there.

Why do we feel pleasure when drinking water, after a day in the sun?
Why do certain foods give as a pleasing feeling?

A popular method of defending the anti-sex, anti-race, positions - the loving, uniformity, camp's singalong tunes - is to refer to the long (yet not so long) list of female and negro "philosophers".

Two things to consider:

1- Subtract from that list the modernistic conception of "philosophy" which also includes social advocacy, and academic discourse - how many are left?

2- Of those, how many can be considered influential, or amongst the upper 10% in terms of quality?

If it is enough to have a degree in philosophy, to know it, and to have written a few books showing interest in metaphysics, existentialism or some branch of the philosophical discipline?
If so, then we should include Creationists with PhD in biology, having written a few books about evolution, in our list of "scientists," or empirical thinkers.

We live in an age of mass production: data overload, education provided for a fee, knowledge at your fingertips; everyone is getting published, has credentials indicating a specialization, and can wear any identification card he manages to purchase from the system.

Everyone is an artist, though they only perform art...like in the pop-arts.

But is a professor of philosophy a philosopher?
Is an art teacher automatically an artist of merit?
Is a writer who writes about philosophy a philosopher?
Does having a thought make you a thinker?

And if so, how are we going to discern higher from lower levels of thinking?

Is being a political advocate, fighting for social issues, a philosophical stance worthy of a place amongst the pantheon of human intellectuals?
Is Nelson Mandela a philosopher...a thinker, the equal to a Heidegger, a Plato, a Spinoza, a Marx, a Goethe?

Here is the easiest way to cut through the Modern, uniformity producing, Nihilsitic, bullshyte:

How many of these women "philosophers, or these Negro "intellectuals," revolutionized human thinking?
Not contributed to it, participate in it, made a living with it, became famous because of it, but actually broke the boundaries and stretched human derstanding of self and the human condition.

You'll find the list dwindling down to nil, with a few exceptions that are notable but still fall short of the high mark.

It's not enough to call yourself a philosopher, and be interested in thinking about certain topics associated with academic philosophy, nor is it enough to know the different schools of thought and the names of the famous thinkers in history.
It's not enough to be published and to have sold your ideas.
Oprah Winfrey is not a thinker...not even that smart.
It doesn't take smarts to make money, particularly in the United States.

It's simple:
How many of these Negro and female "philosophers" actually revolutionized human thinking?

There are also plenty of females contributing to science, and we praise them all...but how many revolutionized science?
Same goes for the arts.
Many notable female artists...how many invented an art-form?
How many revolutionized an art-form?
Not contributed, participated, became famous, made a living with it, taught it...but revolutionized it.

Well said.

If we take a look at these exalted "great minds", we also find that they mainly contribute to progressive standards of thinking "trends" such as genetic engineering,transhuman life extension theory and the ever continuing mutations of democratic idealism or academic cultism.

Creativity, artistry, imagination;the marks of true genius are rarely anywhere to be found. Go to enroll in college and tell them you want to pursue philosophy or literature or any other intellectual non-fiscal avenue as a career major and you might either be laughed at or endure a blank stare of confusion. The most sought after professions are in the fields of computer technology, business, medicine, etc. It's all about the dollar. All about the retirement fund. All about the social status. It is downright foolish to most people that you would be there simply for the sake of knowledge and education for itself alone.

People with average or slightly above average intelligence manufacture books like canned food from a factory every year. The wisdom afforded in these books in conjunction with the presumed statistics and facts and referenced cited material that surely inundates them, cannot be worth anything.

Nothing is pursued for its own sake, for its own virtue or value anymore. Take a look at how many bored people flock to nursing school to sign up to be nurses every year. It's fantastically absurd. Is it because these hundreds of thousands of people are born with a gift for altruism or nurturing of the sick? No. It's all about the dollar. Because nurses or RNs, if you are lucky enough to land a solid full time position as one, make 30 dollars an hour or more. Economic perfomativity is the name of the game. Everyone is being trained to think and to not think.

Any idiot that knows how to speak the English language, can go out and land a sales job, working 12 hours a day pulling in a six figure income, and it is exactly this same idiot that sustains the quintessential modern delusion about the "joy" of hard work. People today profess to enjoy their jobs the same way an inmate in a prison will eventually be forced to find some happiness for his fate of never being free.

By the gods, the world is full of imbeciles.
One leaves and ten take his place.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He just wanted to say that there are individuals, in the world, who call themselves "philosophers"...who identify with this word.
The word being detached from the action....it is a garment to be worn by anyone who goes through the rituals, and learns the mantras.

So, there ARE female philosophers, because there are females who call themselves philosophers.
The quality does not matter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ya know, if you have a declared intelligent quotient of 150, or claim to be a member of MENSA, and you still cannot understand how declaring and being, in not the same thing, or why talking about philosophy or pretending to be philosophizing is not the same as actually thinking, still does not compute, then the hell with intelligence.

The weakling [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to this imbecile

1- The difference in appearance does not constitute a difference in essence.
Ergo, what differentiates him from a chimp is simply a rearrangement of organs and some chemistry.

2- Commenting on nature is "cruel", yet attacking one's identity is "unreasonable"...ergo the only thing one can say about nature must be flattering, if it cannot be changed.

3- To speak the truth about nature is to force someone to abide by it, as if not saying anything, ignoring it, means one can pretend he or she is not bound by it.

Nature being the sum of nurturing, the past.
Ergo, speaking honestly about nature, about one's nature, is cruel, if it is not flattering, and one must remain silent, pretend it is not so, if it cannot be changed.
Luckily, for the coward, all differences are rearrangements of the same...so what makes a cow different from his mother....ummmm, bad example.

What makes a cow different from a normal healthy human female: organ arrangement and some insignificant chemistry.  
The cow can't help being a cow, so nothing unflattering can be said about cows, or their calf they bore, by being fertilized by a stupid bull.
The cow can't change her inheritance, her nature, ergo we must pretend it isn't a factor.

And if her calf, being the product of such a cruel nature, grows up to be a dull, stupid bull, like his daddy, then we must not draw connections from genetics - not unless something can be done to help this stupid burgeoning bull cope with his nature.

Unfortunately for the son of a come, or sow, gender is the application of sexual specialized roles that have more than a cosmetic significance...and it isn't I, nor anybody else who is "forcing" this upon those born as female or male.


On the other front of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], we have the usual suspects trying to get attention by being obtuse.
We know that there are females who wear the crown of "philosopher" and this is enough for the resident man-whore....but Dawkins is not a philosopher, simply because.

Two things to note:

1- All humans are philosophers as all humans have minds seeking truth, exploring reality...and all humans have a world-view, whether it be adopted, and parroted, or the product of personal effort.

2- Not all minds are equally endowed...and inheritance is the only factor determined the quality of mind. Environment simply contributing to the extent a mind develops its inherited mental potentials.

Therefore, although many can claim to be writes, poets, intellectuals, philosophers, artists, musicians or anything creative, not all are of the same caliber, on the same level of quality.

There are definitely females claiming to be philosophers and honestly interested in exploring philosophical concepts....just as there are definitely females whoa re artists and interested in expressing their inner world artistically...but this does not make them thinkers and artist on a level we would call insightful, or inspiring, or revolutionizing in that they expand human awareness, understanding and awareness.

There are artists like pop-artist, who call themselves "artists" and do no more than repeat a recipe that sells.
Yes, Beyonce calls herself an "artist" even if she is more of a performer of art...but this does not make her the equal of a Beethoven, a Michelangelo, a Stravinsky, who were more artist than performer of art.    
Yes Britney Spears may consider herself as belonging to the artistic group, but this self-identification, no matter how many accept ti as valid, does not make her the equal of a Roger Waters, or a Vivaldi.

And if an IQ of 150 does not help you understand why, then either you are a liar and a hypocrite, or a delusional modern fuck...perhaps a bit of both.
Back to Wikipedia with ya.

But he's already telling us what he is:

shit-Smears wrote:

Dawkins doesn't do anything philosophical. His entire existence is as a salesman.I mean you can't be serious right?

Right there, he delivers his self-identification card to us all.
You notice it in the ease with which he alters positions.
One moment he is laughing at race, mocking it, claiming it is absurd....and the next he admits that there are races, but nobody should be cruel about it.
In between, he declares himself a genius, a philosopher, but is unable to provide evidence for it.
He finds ways to avoid topics when they become too-deep, and go beyond his intellectual comfort zones.
He prefers to insinuate, as you will see in what follows, rather than to act.

Some would call this "trolling", and he is the first to use this term as a defensive attack, but here the word is misleading.
He does get a self-esteem boost when he makes others pay attention to him, but his need is genuine, not faked.
He actually believes himself. He's used this technique for so long it has become second-nature to him....it has buried the underlying weakness, insecurity, neediness, under a level of manufactured bravado and arrogance.

He thinks he's smart because he can make minds incomprehensible to him, react to him...pay attention to him.
He has tricked them into taking him seriously.
They've failed to see how stupid he knows he is, and they waste their energies upon him.

shit-Smears wrote:

He's a pop-pseudoscientist who's work is intended for people who aren't reading Kant or Kripke or you know....any real philosophers.

He uses the name-dropping technique, implying that he is far above Dawkins.
His positions on Dawkins are interesting since this fella is more of a scientist dealing with evolution, and someone attacking modern religious stupidity.
Shit-Smears, the douche-bag, calls himself an atheist, no...so why this attack on Dawkins?
A ploy. He wants to become controversial...attention whoring. If he feels pressure he'll use one of his usual methods of cutting and running...having already achieved what he wanted.

He simply wants attention, and is willing to do and say anything to get it.
no matter how insignificant and dull he feels he is, he can forget it, for a while...the rest of the time he must medicate himself to accomplish the same escape from himself.

I wondered why such an obvious simpleton would have nothing to say on philosophical matters, except as references and deference to text, and then still be a consistent contributor on a "philosophy forum".

Then I saw his pictures, and observed his posts when he was ignored.
The images alone screamed of desperation...and their consistency.
All circled around him, his life, his supposed personality, genius and so on.
He is "living the life" we talk about.
Yet, here he is day after day....even on Saturday nights...
Why would someone who is as happy and living such an exciting life be on ILP day after day...when no philosophy really interests him beyond Game Theory (theory of serious playas), or anything dealing with cost/benefit analysis?

Simple...
Neeeeeeed.

Need, hidden beneath a carefully cultivated image, reflecting a modern American ideal: the Tupac urban poet,/hustler, gangsta image.
In one of the pics, with his supposed buddies, you see them all relaxed, and then him, right in the middle, with this attempt to appear tough, taller...his arms wrapped around two guy, raising his shoulders above them...his brow furrowed, like a sneer.

Then you see him bounce from thread to thread with one-liners, one one paragraph contributions, mind-farting himself across ILP domestication.

Then there was the incident when he was partially exposed as what he is (a common drug-dealer, and penny-stock internet dealer)...and how long he disappeared from the scene - licking his wounds.  

No doubt his defensive aggressive stance has some success amongst the simpletons he hangs around with...inflating his self--esteem.
His verbal acrobatics are effective, within modern contexts.
They impress.
But he is way over his head here...even if he is participating on ILP where most of the bright ones have fled, leaving behind some average minds, and a few dumb cows.

Now he indulges in baiting....trolling.
Offering controversial statements, he cannot support, name-dropping, so as to insinuate that he might know what he is talking about, and then falling back on what has worked for him in his daily life when he's been cornered, and threatened with being exposed as the needy, insecure, unhappy, imbecile that he truly is.      

He is interesting in this sense alone: a perfect representation of Americanism...of modernity, of nihilism.

A fatherless, man-child, seeking an identity, adopting what is popular, trying to be liked, but also wanting to manipulate, preserving an modernistic, gangsta (playa, hustler) image.

shit-Smears wrote:

Same as Dennett. I've met those guys several times, and when they get done selling books to teenage atheists and start talking about philosophy among their peers, they usually just end up chuckling and talking about how many books they sold.

Here we see how he uses the usual methods of manipulation...to produce an effect.

It's all innuendo, with no direct statements.
He knows what they do amongst their peers.
No doubt from Youtube and Wikipedia.
He's met them...
Got an autograph.
They are hustlers, selling books....
Like he wants to be....he wants to sell, to be marketable.
He envies them because they make money by selling to teenagers.
They sell to teenagers...
He finds dumb females to sell drugs to, and then fucks them, sometimes.
Surprising what some pot can do when dealing with a fatherless, cultural-less, clue-less, dumb female raised to think that being a whore is how you get attention.

His original distaste for me was that I failed to be what he thinks I ought to be, to sell to as many as possible.  
He, mistaking his motive for mine, is a better manipulator, a more talented hustler.
You see it in how fast he switches positions, when he dares to say anything concrete.
He avoids being clear because he wants to leave his options open.  
A clever hustler always implies, never says anything honestly, definitely.  
When he faces resistance or the threat of exposure, he has his verbal talents to deny, redirect, using sarcasm, humor...or a reference to some text or to some famous name.  

He delivers himself on a platter.

Fascinating specimen.

You appear to be an idiot? No problem. You've got a second chance by showing off the high quality of your soul. What constitutes a good soul? - Telling people what they want to hear and not upsetting them.

One can also recognize the carrier of a good soul by how much he suffered in life. The amount of suffering is determined by how well the emotional responses of others can be evoked.
Even purer souls complain about the lot of some other poor souls. Just make sure to find someone who likes to be portrayed as a victim. We wouldn't want your credibility to suffer by someone protesting the allegations of being a victim.
But what sane person would do that anyway??

Did you not just contradict yourself there?? I'm just baffled by this lack of substance. Put some effort into if you really care. Why else would you bother to write it? Perhaps trying to prove something to yourself, just don't know what.




Watch this. Anyone could find it highly informative/useful, in one point or another of their life.

Imbesil wrote:

Just a couple of fallacies:
1) 150 I.Q. people think the same because of one shared attribute.
2) If one instance of the above, then throw the baby out with the bathwater and apply the rule to all those with the above attribute (dismiss a particular measure of intelligence entirely).

Will ya help me out here, Imbesil?
Explain the bullshit tactic which is used in that passage of yours.
I get it but it's really difficult for me to put it into words.

Oh and nice that you manage to share something about yourself. What things make you think and feel. And I like the remarks at the end about all the back-slapping about being a philosopher which is going on here.

You silly coot.

Ha!!!

Imbesil wrote:

Just a couple of fallacies:
1) 150 I.Q. people think the same because of one shared attribute.

Nobody said any such thing.
In fact, it is the similarity of this particular imbecile's "thinking" with every other below-average turd on ILP which makes his claim of 150 I.Q. an obvious hyperbole, if not an utter lie.

Imbesil wrote:

2) If one instance of the above, then throw the baby out with the bathwater and apply the rule to all those with the above attribute (dismiss a particular measure of intelligence entirely).

By the gods, dear boy...if you're going to prove your MENSA status you must follow the logic.
Nobody dismissed the measure of intelligence, but one did question the particular claim.

The premise is simple...even you, despite your membership, can follow it.

Someone, in this case a nobody known as shit-Smears, claims a numerical value of his intelligence.
The performance, on the other hand, does not merit such a quantity.

The dilemma is this:
Does one believe in the words, the code, or does one judge the other on performance, in the present?

A number of things might be used to explain this disparity between a claim, a numerical value, and a performance, a judgment of activity.
Someone is lying, or inflating data...or totally convinced of a lie, which is also typical.  

The measuring of intelligence is not questioned...but the source of the score is...and the methodology more so.
Of all places here intelligence cannot be faked.
Not unless one confuses knowledge for intellect.
Here the mind, and only the mind, is on display...with few distractions.
The distractions themselves come in the form of mind expressions.

You can Wikipedia all you like....you can refer and defer....you can claim to have a 200 I.Q.....you can tell everyone you are in the top 1% of your Mensa group's score....who cares?
The performance here is always intellectual. Even when intelligence is discredited and dismissed it must be done by using mind.

Actually in this case I used the specimen, the shit-Smear, to prove my own positions on ideal versus real, or words versus actions.
The typical moron thinks that words can mask his identity....because he's convinced idiots on a lower level than itself, and in real life where other elements are in play.
So, the retard come on-line with confidence, that the same methods that have proven to be successful, for him, in his daily life, will also work here.

He drops a few names, refers to some statistics, mentions a few texts, defers to a later date, to some ambiguous title, makes exaggerated claims, proclaims himself to be intellectual, proposes that his gangsta, playa, whigger status is evidence of this - when it is evidence of the opposite - and giggles, in private, convinced that it is working.
Here words are not enough...
Nothing in any his many posts displays this mental prowess...in fact the opposite.
The methods used to avoid being exposed, when others corner him, become excruciating to watch.

Anyone who can say that philosophy is not about value judgments, and then go on to say he has a 150 I.Q. is truly a fascinating specimen of modern decay.

As for MENSA membership...I don't know much but this I do know.
If you are, there is no need to declare it.
It's obvious.
If you declare it, you must feel uncertain about it yourself.

It's like saying "I can bench-press 500 lbs" to get out of a fight.
The moment you say "I know karate" you've already exposed your weakness.

It's like an ugly girl, all made-up, stating "I am pretty".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...I think someone dropped a stone in the shit-hole.
Something might bubble up. Something real pungent...like it's been festering there for thousands of years, in the collective, finding s single boil to explode out of smearing itself across the post-modern landscapes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Æon wrote:

Now I want to get to the point here.

A girl has been following me around on the internet, for quite some time now. I know who she is. I know what her name is. I know all of her stupid little fake personas and whatnot. I know that she creates false internet accounts, to trail me around........
She stole them from my book. And she claimed her words as her own. When they were not hers. She did not own them. She did not understand them.

The irony...

Æon wrote:

Here's something to consider. If I say dogs and cats are stupider than humans, and are generally unintelligent, does that then mean that I'm cruel to a dog or cat that I own, and that I do not "loooooove" it? If something is lower than my intelligence, then why do YOU automatically presume contempt? Why is there hatred associated with different levels of intelligence?

This shit writes itself.

The other turd chimes in...

Fixed (Castrated) wrote:

It's probably The Joker or Satyr.
Satyr uses feminine names to troll people.

The projection of understanding is delicious.
In that single judgment I saw a big chunk of this individual's mental universe, his quality of judging.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Æon wrote:

Now I want to get to the point here.

A girl has been following me around on the internet, for quite some time now. I know who she is. I know what her name is. I know all of her stupid little fake personas and whatnot. I know that she creates false internet accounts, to trail me around........
She stole them from my book. And she claimed her words as her own. When they were not hers. She did not own them. She did not understand them.

The irony...

Æon wrote:

Here's something to consider. If I say dogs and cats are stupider than humans, and are generally unintelligent, does that then mean that I'm cruel to a dog or cat that I own, and that I do not "loooooove" it? If something is lower than my intelligence, then why do YOU automatically presume contempt? Why is there hatred associated with different levels of intelligence?

  

Satyr wrote:

"Respect is an anxiety based practice.

Is saying, a dog is not as smart as we are, a disrespectful thing?
Can we not treat a dog, as we would want to be treated ourselves, and still think of it as a dumber type of life-form?"