Comment on Lemmy is the best social media

• Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The benefit Hoffman’s theory does us is that is reveals the universe is governed not by physical laws, but by cognitive laws, of which apparent physical laws are a contextually dependent subset.

  This is not what he says at all, and if he has any credibility as a scientist and doesn’t want to change careers to cult leader, he would completely disavow what you just said.

  And we can use that, because it means reality can be manipulated not just by physical technology, but also by psychological technology.

  This is complete nonsense.

  That’s precisely the situation our civilisation now finds itself in.

  No it absolutely is not.

  Antirealists demand that the government pour more research money into developing psychological technologies that alter our perception of reality.

  Yes, I figured this was about getting high and seeing pretty colors.

  Why do you need the government for this? If you need more funds, why don’t you just alter reality to manifest them into existence?

  For example, the technology to see a trans person as their preferred gender presentation regardless of their physical form.

  Again, respecting a trans person’s identity does not require a denial of reality or of our physical forms. If the physical form of a trans person wasn’t objectively different from that of a cis person of the same gender, then we would not need any of the medications or treatments that we do - we wouldn’t even have the terms “trans” and “cis.” Please stop talking as if trans identities are somehow a denial of reality.

  We are fighting an anti-science platform

  If you respond to nothing else I say, then at least answer me this: why have you chosen to term something that is anti-science as “reality?” It makes absolutely no sense. Just say that science is real, that trans identities are real, and that transphobes are pushing a false and unreal narrative.

  Try to pay attention to the language we’ve all agreed on.

  source

  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If you respond to nothing else I say, then at least answer me this: why have you chosen to term something that is anti-science as “reality?” It makes absolutely no sense. Just say that science is real, that trans identities are real, and that transphobes are pushing a false and unreal narrative.

    I didn’t choose to term anti-science beliefs as reality. Society did, and then I went along with it so as not to be incomprehensible to you. If by “reality”, we mean “An objectively extant world”, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by reality we mean “The world society thinks is objectively extant”, then that thing is anti-science.

    It’s much the same language as an atheist might use to talk about the gods. The atheist would say "If by ‘the gods’, you mean ‘almighty beings’, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by ‘the gods’, you mean ‘the almighty beings society believes in’, then they are anti-science.

    Please don’t begrudge me for accepting your premise that consensus reality is reality. It’s just a matter of convenience. I cannot at the same time believe that reality is true, and that reality is what the realists believe in. I have to pick one or the other.

    Why do you need the government for this? If you need more funds, why don’t you just alter reality to manifest them into existence?

    Cause the brain doesn’t work like that, you dipshit. Didn’t I say our perceptual reality is governed by cognitive laws? Cognitive laws don’t allow me to just do that. Weren’t you paying attention, or do you just have a kindergartener’s understanding of psychology?

    source

    • Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I didn’t choose to term anti-science beliefs as reality. Society did, and then I went along with it so as not to be incomprehensible to you. If by “reality”, we mean “An objectively extant world”, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by reality we mean “The world society thinks is objectively extant”, then that thing is anti-science.

      That which has the potential to smack you if you pretend it doesn’t exist is objectively real. It is nonsense to say that that is not real or that anything else is more real than that. There is no “world society thinks is objectively extant.” Society contains a lot of people who disagree on a lot of things. Scientists and supporters of trans rights are part of society.

      Please don’t begrudge me for accepting your premise that consensus reality is reality.

      Never said that. That’s your position, isn’t it? My position is that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of what people believe.

      Cause the brain doesn’t work like that, you dipshit. Didn’t I say our perceptual reality is governed by cognitive laws? Cognitive laws don’t allow me to just do that. Weren’t you paying attention, or do you just have a kindergartener’s understanding of psychology?

      Sorry, I suppose I’ve only been schooled in laws that, uh, actually exist and are observable and testable. I suppose I do have a kindergartener’s understanding of these magical psychic laws you’ve made up, I know nothing about how they supposedly work, please excuse my ignorance.

      source

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You see, denying the existence of the entire field of psychology and claiming I made it up is exactly what makes you an anti-science weirdo.

        source

        • -> View More Comments