I believe it's a matter of personal identity.
The people in these clips are VERY involved in projecting their identity. You look at these people and you know right away exactly who they want you to see them as.

"Conservative" is part of that identity.
It's "Conservative" being sold as a brand, an image, and a lifestyle. The details of the Republican platform are secondary. In fact, you can project anything you want onto it. It doesn't matter what's behind the label.

People are looking for a sense of inclusion. It's reassuring to know that you can howl the right words in a crowded space and hear your pack howl back. If the words you howl are shocking to another group...well that's all the better, it fits your personal identity.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

I'm sorry to hear about all of that poolcleaner. I think maybe you have the idea that Christians, according to the bible, are supposed to live pain free lives. That isn't what the bible says, though. Jesus promised that Christians would suffer, not only persecutions but grievous trials, physically and spiritually. A Christian is supposed to die to himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus.

That means a Christian can become depressed, or have gender issues, or any number of other infirmities or temptations. Christians can and do screw up all the time. People have a picture of churches filled with people who think they are perfect, but it is the opposite. Churches are usually filled with people who have screwed up everything royally, and God rebuilt their lives from the ground up. Churches are filled with people who know and proclaim that it is only by Gods grace and mercy that there is anything good happening in their lives; they are filled with broken people who are held together in the loving arms of almighty God. They fall apart sometimes and God puts them back together again.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

The most destructive thing in a mans life is a lack of integrity. When you cheat, you aren't getting away with it because no one found out; you are going to reap a bitter harvest from the bad seed you have sown. A loss will occur, whether it is financially, or even mentally and emotionally, and it will far outweigh the temporary gains. It is the same with lying, hating, lusting, etc. Sin in our lives is destructive physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. The bible describes it in exacting detail and it matches reality because the true reality of mankind, what he is really like, and why, can only be found in scripture. The bible is right about everything it says about mankind. Although the bible does match our observations of the natural world, I think it is more remarkable how it matches the reality of the inner universe.

I don't know if think you think this is science or not, as far as the video goes. As far as I can tell it is speculation based on a few studies the author researched. Has anyone tested his theory?

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

I'm not a Christian because I thought it was a good idea, or because it made me feel good. When I gave my life to Jesus, I didn't feel any differently at all, except perhaps with a realization of some things I had to change in my life. I became a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, and He showed me Jesus is the messiah. No one ever witnessed to me or explained the gospel in my entire life; it was entirely because of personal revelation that I became a Christian.

I'm not here to prove anything; I post when I feel motivated by God, and the intent of my heart is care and concern for your souls. I started coming here when I was a new christian, and I got into arguments with people over petty issues. To me, now, the real issue is where you're spending eternity and I am praying for that. Perhaps I will never be known on this forum as anything other than an unthinking zealot, but God knows I am sincere at least about that.

You do realize the people who have the whole world as their oyster are in an entirely different form of isolation, right? You're oversimplifying the concept of isolation in an effort to push your Jesus drug.

I understand this because I have lived that life; being both the life of the parties at fortune 500 companies and a solitary hermit, addicted and lonely in a world that no one else fully understands. Not because of a lack of Jesus drug, my friend. I tried the Jesus drug and it is the cause of much of my cognitive dissonance.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

There are so many other factors you're ignoring just so that you can present the lamest of analogies of seeds on dry soil and sin cages.

Sin cages. Ignorant science versus the logical sin cage. Nuff said.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

But that's not how science works. Scientists do not make stupid excuses in order to support prior written works which lack evidence. If something doesn't make sense, a scientist no longer uses it as a basis to explain the world around them.

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

When I first started volunteering to serve at a homeless shelter, many years ago, I didn't know exactly why I was doing it. Certainly it felt like the "right" thing to do. I was at least confident that I wasn't doing it for personal gain because I didn't wear it on my sleave, didn't brag about it or hang my ego on my personal identity of being a good person. When dissillusionment set in, when I realized just how many of the people I was serving were homeless by choice, I pushed through and carried on...and I still didn't know why. I just trusted that I would get it one day.

Eventually I made a connection to the time I spent living in Sweden. In the town I lived in, every night a group of vagrants assembled in the market square. Every bit as dirty and drunken as the worst homeless person that most people imagine them all to be. Fighting, having sex in the public restroom, vomiting and carrying on loudly all night. But this was socialism, so they went home every night to their government payed for apartments. I realized that no matter what you do, there will always be a segment of society that just doesn't give a Fuck and is happy to take and never give back. We've all known these people. Family members, friends, acquaintances, who use up the good will of everyone they meet until they've got no one left to use and it falls to the larger community to support them. No economy, government or community planning will ever compell them to support themselves. We loathe them and shun them. Politicians with ulterior motives tell us that ALL homeless and disadvantaged ARE them. But it's a lie. There are the mentally and physically ill who have no support structure, who NEED their communities to help them. Most of these people were once functioning members of their communities who no longer have the ability to survive on their own.
And so I came to understand that it's better to feed a hundred leaches to serve a single helpless individual.

Boy was I proud of myself for realizing that.

And then I was layed off and my job shipped to India, followed closely by my wife spending a year in and out of the hospital, with no insurance. A careers worth of hard work, reduced to a data point on a corporate profit sheet. Waiting for the other shoe to drop, when the medical debt comes for me and everything I've built in my life is taken, to become a line in someone else's ledger. Betrayed by the greed in the system. Because I upheld my end of the social contract. I worked hard in school, excelled in my career, had two kids and bought a house in a neighborhood with good schools. But the system is run by the greediest and most power hungry. Politics and business is the domain of the high functioning sociopath. And to a sociopath, you're not a real person like them. You're a data point, a line in the ledger.

Then I came to respect the other segment of the homeless. The ones who rejected the social contract, who don't feel societal pressure to give more than they take. Because they got it right. It's all a lie. You don't earn anything in America. You don't deserve the fruits of your labor. You subsist at the whim of the people with money and power. And when it serves them, you get nothing.

We are all standing in line for food, hoping there's a room for the night.

Why this concept would be foreign to anyone is beyond me; nature has billions of years of evolution under it's belt and if there is one thing it has proven is beneficial for the vast majority it's balance relative to reality. If we can't evolve attitudes in line with reality we will render ourselves obsolete.

I'm disappointed to see this covered by a conventional partisan. If I could have one wish it would be to render the terms "conservative" and "liberal" out of our lexicon. Ideology is more complicated than a two-dimensional scale. Democracy is based on a thinking populous, and we need to revert to that ideal to survive. The separation of personal identity into "brands" is at the core of what is tearing our society apart.

I didn't want to join this tired discussion but decency requires someone oppose the appalling 'birth is magic - never kill a newborn' consensus. This is superstitious nonsense; wads of animal meat aren't supernaturally imbued with humanity by being shoved through a cunthole.

There's confusion and arbitrariness everywhere on this simple topic because nobody bothers to ground their moral sense in any kind of rational foundation. They look at a cute baby and their instincts and emotions destroy any hope of intelligent thought. Forget abortion, stop thinking about babies and heartbeats, it's moronic; go back and work on your basic understanding of ethics.

Why don't we kill people? Is it because we haven't been given a mandate; that there's no explicit cosmic distinction to separate one lump of matter from another, giving one the right to disrupt the other? Then we're all just bits of physics bumping into each other, and there's still no reason to prefer a foetus to its host; no more than a cancer sufferer to their tumour or indeed the whole of humanity to a grain of sand.
Is it because they're alive? Then we'd better learn to photosynthesise, because our existence requires the daily destruction of life. Life has no inherent value. It's just one peculiar way that our universe is shaped by its bizarre physical laws, with no mystery or significance - unapprehending molecules forced into the illusion of purpose.
Is it because they're human? Why do we value that species, is it only that it happens to be our own, or is there some particular quality of humanity beside their kind that requires moral treatment? There must be, or else to be consistent we would say that when a rock shatters another it commits a terrible crime among rocks, because one may not harm ones own kind.
Isn't it that we don't kill people because we recognise that the aggregation of their perception and understanding of reality, their cognitive excellence and continuity of personal identity gives rise to the new phenomenon of Mind - I give Mind a capital letter in that silly and somewhat religious way because it is the absolute centre and cause of moral necessity; without it there is simply no reason to be moral. Only by the application of Mind can there be a reality to be moral in. Mind is the universal source of all meaning.

So the question you ask yourself when considering the rights of a creature is 'what is the condition of its intellect; to what extent is it conscious; is it Mind?'

Everybody already agrees with me if they had the sense to see it. If I could produce a tomato with a mind equivalent to a human, which I was able to demonstrate could think and talk and feel and reason like any one of us, would we be happy to chop it into a salad? What about a human with the mind of a tomato? Well they already exist; they're called babies.

ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith. I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs. I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”. I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation. I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed. I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want. I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.

What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.

What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.

What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.

Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.

The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences. What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add). If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.

P.S. I agree that Freud is now useless in the light of research from cognitive sciences. The reason for this is primarily because his conclusions were based on subjective and anecdotal information.

P.P.S. In the other comment you talked about your definition of god as being all of the particles and the material in the universe, basically, you're saying that the universe is god. Why not just call the universe the universe rather than attaching something unnecessary to it. I realize that you probably like to look at it that way, that the universe is god but that really isn't necessary and in a way, it isn't very helpful either.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do you suspect that i am somehow anti-research?
on the contrary my friend.research is the very thing that proves my premise concerning our curiosity and drive to know.the very "spirit" or essence of what i am trying to convey.
do you think that i am fearful that maybe research and a desire for the truth may prove my thesis wrong?
why would i be fearful?
i make only claims of faith not of certitude.
i hold no illusions that my faith can be certified by any verifiable means and hence a main reason why i do not espouse some hidden truth and force others to respect or believe my conclusions.
thats religions job,not mine.

let me ask you these questions:
what is ego?
what is reality?
what is consciousness?
WHO are YOU?

please do not answer with a scientific paper because none of these questions have been answered adequately.they are an ongoing investigation and there has been no definative concensus.
but they are worthy questions,maybe the most important of all questions.
i guess that is relative.
i find them to be very important questions and the answers on an individual basis reveal much about that person.

ps:freud was a cunt.avoid using him as a basis for the ego.his work concerning that particular dynamic has already been eviscerated.

i'm just really glad that trailer trash kids have a unifying subculture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Juggalos have to be one of the saddest subcultures ever to have existed. I don't get people who feel the need to make these fat, middle aged, unremarkable, white rappers in clown make up part of their personal identity. I'd be less embarrassed joining Scientology or the Westburo Baptist Church.

Juggalos have to be one of the saddest subcultures ever to have existed. I don't get people who feel the need to make these fat, middle aged, unremarkable, white rappers in clown make up part of their personal identity. I'd be less embarrassed joining Scientology or the Westburo Baptist Church.

The southern U.S. was, and still is, a VERY different place than the north. It's amazing that the civil war occurred almost 100 years before this, and over 150 years before now, and yet the attitudes still remain.

When I think about that it makes me very angry. I was born and raised in the north, and I find that the group of people whom I most loathe is my stereotypical view of U.S. southern whites. I realize it's a stereotypical view and that it's not true, but I don't really know where these feelings of hate come from..... (probably incidents such as this one)

The interesting thing being that I assume southern whites feel the same way against northern whites.... us tree-hugging bleeding hart bastards up here. :-D I also wonder how much racism has lived on simply because some folks in the south feel like it's a unique part of their personal identity.

In addition, we see the political fallout of this on nearly a daily basis. While alot of southerners may not racist, (that I am aware of directly, at least) there are very substantial political differences when it comes to human rights as a whole. It seems it is those very differences that people make part of their political ideology that drives the sides further apart.

In the end, what amazes me is the duration of the negative effects of slavery and war. As long as this country stands I suspect we will continue to feel the pain...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'yale courses, university, lecture, death, philosophy' to 'yale courses, university, lecture, death, mind body problem, personal identity' - edited by mauz15

>> ^imstellar28:
As opposed to making practically every possible action illegal, and putting everything in the hands of the arresting officer, prosecutor, or local judge?

On the contrary, it takes it out of the hands of people and puts it into written law.

It's still dependent on people enforcing and obeying it, and you're right that the people who've gone to the trouble to earn the right to enforce the law have some leeway on how it's enforced. But there's a difference between deciding to let someone go from a speeding ticket, and cops being able to charge whoever they choose when two cars collide.

You could make the same argument to forbid, say, islam, couldn't you?
The problem, perhaps ironically, with what you are proposing is that it is entirely subjective and arbitrary. If you can give me a single, objective algorithm with which to separate laws into "just" and "unjust" I will retract my assessment. I have already given mine - laws forbidding crimes with victims are just, those without victims are unjust. The process in which laws are created (the means) has no bearing on the justness (ends) of the law.


I don't think I've ever tried to create a deterministic series of formal logic to describe my views. Even if I could I would argue that there is no single algorithm that everyone could agree with, and I lack the arrogance required to believe that my particular views define the highest possible moral standard, so I don't feel that anything I disagree with is tyrannical by definition.

To differentiate laws banning the practice of Islam from banning running red lights, there are many arguments I could use for explaining why the former is wrong, while the latter is not. First and foremost, freedom of religion is expressly protected by the Constitution, and the very history of our nation began when people who'd been persecuted for their religion decided to strike out into the world and make a place where they'd have the freedom to do so.

Second, I'd argue that the freedom to worship Islam places no one at any kind of risk in and of itself, and is considered to be a central part of one's personal identity. Running red lights is both dangerous to the offender and others, and no argument can be made about the importance of someone not having to wait for a traffic signal.

A tougher conundrum for me would be something like a ban on eating meat. I suspect that truly would be a higher moral standard, and also likely better for people on a practical basis (both for the environment and personal health), but I sure do love to eat it.

If such a thing passed congress, and was popular amongst the populace, I'd probably just try to learn to enjoy a new diet rather than protest the ban as tyrannically limiting my freedom.

I think the big difference between your moral reasoning and mine is that you see all limits on personal freedom as being abhorrent, no matter how good intentioned, whereas I place a higher value on the aggregate good for all of society. I'd prefer to have both, but I think it's perfectly okay to learn from our mistakes, and outlaw behavior that we've learned causes damage to society as a whole, especially when it's difficult to see how it materially affects their freedom beyond their freedom to act in an irresponsible manner (as is the case with drunk driving).

>> ^dbarry3:
> Do many homosexuals conclude much of their personal identity of who they are as persons from their sexuality?

safe to assume it'd be about the same % as hetero.

> Isn't sexuality just one of the physical functions of a human being?

yes, absolutely.

> It's almost like someone proudly proclaiming that they are a "masticater."

not really.
because every human being is supposed to be able to chew.
there are reasons not to be able to, of course. lots of old people, for instance, who may not like dentures. people with some birth defects, or have had serious injuries or mouth cancer, etc, and i know people in every one of those categories.

point is, no one gives a shit whether or not you chew your food, eh?
but, some people do seem to give a shit, who someone else fucks.
though there's no good reason to, unless you're one of the people they're fucking.

> So regardless of what sexual preference one has, isn't it a bit alarming that so much attention is given to sexuality?

not especially, imo, only because it's so basic and universal a desire.
basically 4th, after food, clothing, and shelter, right?
and it's the 1 of those 4, that elevates life above mere survival.

just wanted to expand on what oatmeal & dft were saying, in a more direct answer to your questions. i sincerely hope we helped make up your mind, about "taking sides" on gay marriage measures like Prop 8.

at the very least, i'm not going to bullshit anyone with
"You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair... that they made the Jews wear..."

I'm not agreeing with what this gentleman said, or taking sides. I simply want to throw a question out there that entered into my mind while watching this and considering the Prop 8 debate.

Do many homosexuals conclude much of their personal identity of who they are as persons from their sexuality? Isn't sexuality just one of the physical functions of a human being? It's almost like someone proudly proclaiming that they are a "masticater." So regardless of what sexual preference one has, isn't it a bit alarming that so much attention is given to sexuality? and more so, that so much self worth comes from sexuality? Is it healthy to be in a society that is driven by people (again, hetero, or homosexual) that elevate one basic human action above all others?

Aren't people made up of so much more than just sexuality? Shouldn't one's identity be derived from so much more than simply one's sexuality?

In the meantime, I'm a masticater. I chew food.