Blue Genes, Alt-Red Memes. Animals like us

[Anonymous 1]

Gravel Pit wrote:

While Molyneux presents facts that I don’t disagree with, I think memetic factors magnify problems that they’re trying to associate with IQ discrepancy, in ways we have yet to account for. Our social governing and cultural melting-pots are horrendous, basically ‘chaos’ has more order and logic. So in my opinion, its disingenuous to speak about the IQ racial divides, or to chalk up anything to IQ racial divides. Take a look at 1000 other variables!

Yeah, IQ is a misnomer. Molyneux and others on the Alt-Right are trying to push a Racial Superiority theory with the IQ test being their shining example of superiority.

The IQ test is bulls~~~ as a true intelligence test anyways. You can take the test and score better every time you take it. In other words it measures your ability to take a standardized test. There are other forms of intelligence they ignore because they can’t be quantified.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

I often forget simple things like that, thanks again Wizard’s Pupil. IQ tests were always bunk. Spacial Reasoning, Mathematics, Instinct, even hyper-senses we don’t normally talk about, there are extra-sensory type senses that we harbor at tiny degrees. NOT CRAZY WOO WOO type stuff either. Sort of like how Sharks smell blood, bat’s radar and others…. There’s so much more to humans than pigment based on geographical latitude. I like Molyneux but he drops the ball on BIG philosophy like Freewill and IQ/Race … he is stubborn in his views often. Though there are differences in IQ based on RACE, its so negligible and causes such HUGE social strife, causing unnecessary fallout that its not worth bringing up, we have bigger fish to fry as a species than narrowing in on trivial s~~~ like that.

[Anonymous 1]

Gravel Pit wrote:

Though there are differences in IQ based on RACE, its so negligible and causes such HUGE social strife, causing unnecessary fallout that its not worth bringing up, we have bigger fish to fry as a species than narrowing in on trivial s~~~ like that.

Here is something else underlying all this talk about RACE.

Look at the word “Race.” In the English Language we cannot help, but associate this with a competition as in people competing in a foot race.

There is a subconscious psychological association with the word “Race” and competition. Therefore all English native speakers will associate Race with Winners and Losers. This plays perfectly into the politicians hands.

We are programmed to be Race baited. We can’t help it. Its a backdoor that bypasses your rational firewall.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gravel Pit wrote:

Imagine two galaxies colliding. Their arms entwine. Their clouds turn inside out and they race past each other in a repeating entanglement. The two are forever stuck in a cosmic dance.
The two galaxies are like Genetics and Memetics.
What are genes?
Following Newton’s three laws, gravity and electromagnetic force arrange matter. Though seemingly random to us, energy and matter arrive on a one way street. Only what can happen, will happen. As it relates to genetics, we call this street Biological Determinism. Genes adapted to environments and produced large hominid brains. I’m trying to be as brief as possible.
Consciousness was not a sudden threshold reached in the hominid brain. It formed slowly and developed into complexity. At first, only glimmers of sentience, then a little more. And with each changing ape, we can envision consciousness grabbing hold. Seven million years ago, Australopithecus catching a reflection of itself in a rain puddle and pauses for a moment confused. Two million years pass, Homo habilis plays hide and seek with his siblings in a giddy but demented psychological existence. Millions of more years and we imagine Homo erectus angered by the finality of death. And thus Homo sapien, now vainly anthropomorphizing a consciousness that is responsible for consciousness, go figure.

Anyway, you get the picture of Genes, they form over epochs. They produced flesh and bone locomotion and finally consciousness. Genes laid the foundation for Memetics by providing the bio-machinery but memes are now a force all their own.

This observes a basic problem where one can see a face, and see it in the clouds, a rock, a piece of burnt toast, etc.

The question is less of whether an object is anthropomorphic or not but rather there is certain symmetries which not just replicate amidst various phenomena but act as basic bindings to reality.

The question occurs as to what constitutes this symmetry and while a long argument may be necessary for some, generally speaking, space is the foundation for all being.

All things originate from a point, this point is directed through itself as itself to form all phenomena (abstract and empirical) and effectively results in infinite possibilities where we view this one point approximately through multiple connected and seperated points. This one point effectively acts as a field considering it exists as itself through itself and is both boundless and formless.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

To Wizard, thanks for your insight. Yeah, the word “race” is pretty loaded. There are some here that subscribe to the “white genocide” theories. I’m not particularly convinced by them, neither am I opposed, but when you consider how flimsy the word “race” actually is, it makes you think, how is it that the farce continues? Maybe it is an inside job and not just feminism and the pill. Perhaps some of the loons have a point, or else, we’re that trivial and divisive as a species…

I had this insight yesterday: When you look at it objectively, our whole biology and genome going back 80,000 years, 150,000 years, even 2 million years back to where we split from Erectus… Our varying IQs are no more alarming than the varying lengths of shin bones. And our shin bones work quite well either way… And even today, extreme intelligence comes in flavors (as stated in the Stephen Molyneux video ironically). You have ‘spacial reasoning genius’ and “communicative, wordy genius.” Sort of like the difference between Beethoven and Newton, or Napoleon and Einstein, how about Salvador Dali and Steve Jobs; one man has hand-eye-coordination and an imagination on par with a super-computer, while the other can actually build a super-computer.

Imagine this: if all hominids, including humans, had never had vision/sight. That we were literally blind! I dare say, no I promise you, that the amount of “racism” and subsequent social horror that vision has caused would have never happened at all, period. These blind Geneticists would detect pigment differences in their own studies, and they would find it’s correlation to ‘IQ’ completely boring! In fact, they’d probably wonder why we make such a loud noise over skin-color/IQ but totally ignore other larger physical differences. The hue change is so distinct in varying pigments that it just begs to catch the eyes of the judgmental.

Its so EASY to see BLACK… Whereas did you know that ‘Negroes’ have certain anatomical advantages over ‘whites’ like foot bones that other ‘races’ don’t? Yes, its true. Also, they have longer legs and can run faster and jump higher, or haven’t you ever watched a f~~~ing Basketball game?! LOL. But why aren’t we segregating the sports?! Seriously, that is a real handicap the whites play with, no one says a damn word! Why! Because the psychotic amount of suffering that has happened on account of race in the past. There is no conspiracy, we’re that ignorant as a species and that bashful too!

Education I say! Teach people the damn truth. Celebrate Diversity NO! Celebrate Uniformity!

John Doe wrote:

This observes a basic problem where one can see a face, and see it in the clouds, a rock, a piece of burnt toast, etc.

The question is less of whether an object is anthropomorphic or not but rather

To John. The small mention of anthropomorphism in the OP was eccentric writing to illustrate a point. It is not the topic of this thread. Please do not post stuff about symmetries, phenomenon, points in space or whatever else here… thanks. I invite you to begin a new thread on that topic! Please go ahead and I will check it out. This thread is about the collision of Genetics and Memetics, two large forces that dictate Anthropology. This thread is not abstract or theory. It’s specifically speaking about the misdirection and political bullcrap that gives rise to retarded social memeplexes like Black Lives Matter and The Alt Right… both of which are groups based in ignorance.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gravel Pit wrote:

To Wizard, thanks for your insight. Yeah, the word “race” is pretty loaded. There are some here that subscribe to the “white genocide” theories. I’m not particularly convinced by them, neither am I opposed, but when you consider how flimsy the word “race” actually is, it makes you think, how is it that the farce continues? Perhaps some of the loons have a point, or else, we’re that trivial and divisive as a species…
I had this insight yesterday: When you look at it totally objectively, our whole biology and genome going back 80K years, 150K years, even 2 million years back to where we split from Erectus… Our varying IQs are no more alarming than the varying lengths of shin bones. And even today, extreme intelligence comes in flavors (as stated in the Stephen Molyneux video ironically enough). YOu have ‘spacial reasoning genius’ and “communicative, wordy genius.” Sort of like the difference between Beethoven and Newton, or Napoleon and Eisntein, how about Salvador Dali and Steve Jobs, one has hand-eye-coordination and an imagination on par with a super computer, while the other can actually build a super computer.
Imagine this: if all hominids, including humans, had never had vision/sight. That we were literally blind! I dare say, no I promise you, that the amount of “racism” and subsequent social horror it has caused would have never happened at all, period. These blind Geneticists would detect pigment differences in their own studies, and they would find it’s correlation to ‘IQ’ completely boring. In fact, they’d probably wonder why we make such a loud noise over skin-color/IQ but totally ignore other larger physical differences. The hue change is so distinct in varying pigments that it just begs to catch the eyes of the judgemental. Its so EASY to see BLACK… Whereas did you know that ‘Negroes’ have certain anatomical advantages over ‘whites’ like foot bones that other ‘races’ dont? Yes, its true. Also, they have longer legs and can run faster and jump higher, or haven’t you ever watched a f~~~ing Basketball game?! LOL. But why aren’t we segregating the sports?! Seriously, that is a real handicap the whites play with, no one says a damn word! Why! Because the psychotic amount of suffering that has happened on account of race before.
Education I say! Teach people the damn truth. Celebrate Diversity NO! Celebrate Uniformity!

John Doe wrote:

This observes a basic problem where one can see a face, and see it in the clouds, a rock, a piece of burnt toast, etc.
The question is less of whether an object is anthropomorphic or not but rather

To John. The small mention of anthropomorphism in the OP was eccentric writing to illustrate a point. It is not the topic of this thread. Please do not post stuff about symmetries, phenomenon, points in space or whatever else here… thanks. I invite you to begin a new thread on that topic! Please go ahead and I will check it out. This thread is about the collision of Genetics and Memetics, two large forces that dictate Anthropology. This thread is not abstract or theory. It’s specifically speaking about the misdirection and political bullcrap that gives rise to retarded social memeplexes like Black Lives Matter and The Alt Right… both of which are groups based in ignorance.

Memetics is an abstraction and evolution is still regarded as theoretical. Most gene mapping is strictly an study of probabilities. I know because my cousin is a retired geneticist from Harvard and we have had long conversations on it while working on some projects.

The point is not about anthropomorhism or not, you can replace anthropomorphism with any variable. Memetics, as the replication of information, observed through the genome dually in this case, observes all knowledge as having a progressive or repetitive nature (I can do a post to address this point)

All axioms (self evident truths) effectively progress to further axioms canceling out the prior axiom. The PC movement and is inherently progressive nature is based upon a projection away from old values, with this projective nature not limited to memetics or genetics (however they are valid points) but all phenomena in general (projective movements in physics, “projection” in psychology, linear reasoning in math/logic/language, etc.). Hence we are left with spatial axioms as universal laws and not just projection.

The problem in determining that genetics and memetics determine anthropology is that is necessitates there is a gene (or group of genes) as well as a meme or (group of memes) responsible for the studying of genes and memes and we are left with a self referencing loop.

The progressive nature of evolution requires a form of fractation in identities resulting in variation. For example one type of moth evolves to various other mothers. This applies to the PC movements as well and can be observed as a “branching effect” where one phenomenon (in this case the “ideas” which provide the root for the PC movement) branches towards others.

This is considering each phenomenon, in this case the PC ideas, is moving linearly through time and effectively branches to other linear movement in time. In simpler terms each idea projects through time, and as it projects through time is forming reality by determining movements (ideas determine the movements of reality).

PC ideology can be viewed metaphorically as the ideological cracking of a civilizations values, but none the less this “branching movement” as lines projecting from other lines, is still premised in spatial axioms.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Im not reading any of that. I consider it a rude deviation from the topic. I asked that you start a new thread. YOu’re being a contraian and highjacking a thread with your crazy ass theories again. I dont appreciate that at all, not on a thread I created.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gravel Pit wrote:

Im not reading any of that. I consider it a rude deviation from the topic. I asked that you start a new thread. YOu’re being a contraian and highjacking a thread with your crazy ass theories again. I dont appreciate that at all, not on a thread I created.

How can you consider it a deviation if you didn’t read it. Contrary to the circle jerk you need to give you personal validation, it addressed the topic directly.

Save the “your rude” remarks, your behavior is observed in the prior posts. It is like some guy pushing a guy in the bar, then the other guy turns around and knocks him out. The guy runs off screaming and crying “I was just joking”.

These “books” you reference are just meant for public consumption, that is all.

Now to get back on topic.

I worked, actually worked, with a Harvard geneticist. Genetics, even by his own admission, is limited in many respects to a science of probabilities. He had to major in mathematical statistics because of it, well not had to but had so many course he chose to, and got a PhD in the field.

Genetics is borderline mathematical in nature and cannot be seperate from systems of logic because of it.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

John Doe wrote:

Genetics is borderline mathematical in nature and cannot be seperate from systems of logic because of it.

No, it isn’t. All you do is go around undermining science and logic, with the agenda of confirming your theological convictions.

That’s what you do. That’s what you’ve always done here. You insist on freewill though it’s subjectively and objectively BUNK. Proven a dozen ways… but you, Christ’s little drummer boy, mentally masturbate all over the thread and invent some word salad that supposedly makes it okay to believe whatever you already believed…

You come in undermining the anthropomorphic error in human psychology (though that wasn’t even the topic)…

Then you start saying how Genes aren’t facts, they’re “probabilities”… insane….
Next you say Memes are not facts, they’re just theory too (after multiple decades of sociological studies and THOUSANDS of published works)…again, insane.

You’re the kind of person, who makes people like me, turn into people like Gargamel. When intelligent people lose interest and decide that there is nothing here to value any longer so they make it their mission to silence you and harass you and troll you until you quit.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Gravel Pit wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Genetics is borderline mathematical in nature and cannot be seperate from systems of logic because of it.

No, it isn’t. All you do is go around undermining science and logic, with the agenda of confirming your theological convictions.
That’s what you do. That’s what you’ve always done here. You insist on freewill though it’s subjectively and objectively BUNK. Proven a dozen ways… but you, Christ’s little drummer boy, mentally masturbate all over the thread and invent some word salad that supposedly makes it okay to believe whatever you already believed…
You come in undermining the anthropomorphic error in human psychology (though that wasn’t even the topic)…
Then you start saying how Genes aren’t facts, they’re “probabilities”… insane….Next you say Memes are not facts, they’re just theory too (after multiple decades of sociological studies and THOUSANDS of published works)…again, insane.
You’re the kind of person, who makes people like me, turn into people like Gargamel. When intelligent people lose interest and decide that there is nothing here to value any longer so they make it their mission to silence you and harass you and troll you until you quit.

What theological garbel, I am talking about space and directed movements, even you argued it is strictly abstract thought and theory.

Where am I pushing religion in any of this? And if I worked with a geneticist from Harvard who admitted genetics is strictly a science that is heavily dependent upon statistics to the point you need a PhD in math…then why are you raving about religion? You are the one always talking about it and projecting it.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

You can try all you want to troll the threads, but it really isn’t going to get you anywhere.

As a matter of fact you are coming off as angry, helpless and unstable.

I will post a thread on free will as determinism considering you seem obsessed with it.

You forget, all your schizophrenic post are what bore people and why they leave. You are just an angry loser… one of millions. And I deal with them all the time online and in real life.

Genetics is a science of probability…blame harvard.

Sociology is strictly statistical philosophy and is subject to change, but even sociology that you claim is correct argues for religion…I am not even arguing that. As a matter of fact nothing I am arguing is about religion.

[Author]

Posts