jakelafort

_Robert_ wrote:
The whole “I’m a teacher gonna school you with my reaction” is just an attempt to avoid demonetization of their videos by the copyright owners. Many of the regular reactors have given up, but here is an education loophole of sorts. The best ones are the “stage presence coaches”, LOL.

Well, that’s a little cynical implying…[Read more]

I have a youtube playlist now to save reactions where a reactor had a “conversion” moment, i.e. they suddenly changed their opinion about a musical artist. For TW reactors who have very skeptical personalities, it’s often the second or third song that converts them into lovers of TW. Some of them are so skeptical at first, I never see them smile,…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
She’s a favorite of mine.

I’m still enjoying her, too. She’s interesting partly because of the way she grew up, so unaware of so many popular artists. (I got tired of popular music easily, hearing it played over and over again.)

I finally learned that she IS an actor, although almost all of her work was in commercials. She wants t…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
I consider J6 to have been an insurrection, and Trump is complicit. But doesn’t it require a party with legal standing to bring the case to a court of law which tries the case? I don’t see how just one branch of state government can have sole power to decide how to enforce a US constitutional amendment.

Some say he needs to be…[Read more]

I consider J6 to have been an insurrection, and Trump is complicit. But doesn’t it require a party with legal standing to bring the case to a court of law which tries the case? I don’t see how just one branch of state government can have sole power to decide how to enforce a US constitutional amendment.

@ Reg

I’m before your time, Reg. I’ve seen my share of rock royalty live as well. The Beatles and Stones, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, and Cream (from side stage, BTW), among them.

Here’s one more. Elizabeth Zharoff again reacting to Mistreated:

BTW, if there’s any doubt about whether she actually…[Read more]

I once had tickets booked months in advance for a rock concert. Sabbath were on the line up and Dio was with them at the time. However by the time the gig happened Ozzy had returned when Dio left over musical differences. They played a bit of Heaven and Hell during Paranoid for the encore………Motorhead were next and then Twisted Sister. Over…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Every system is influenced by random noise. If you have Parkinson’s, you probably have a great deal of experience with random nerve impulses, but everyone has twitches that may influence their behavior. As your teeth start chattering one can wonder how independent of noise our brain really is, or perhaps it is a key component in t…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
You still haven’t, despite about three requests now, given us the definition of free will or told me whether my cat has free will.

For me too, that’s the elephant in the kitchen. Or maybe the bathroom. Or homunculus. (jk, see?) One of the believed-in implications is that there is a soul or other supernatural force that magically e…[Read more]

If determinism precludes free will, so does randomness. If someone has a biological random number generator (or bio-analog) generating his behavior, well that sure sounds like insanity to me. On the other hand, if our behavior is determined by our synapses and our personal histories, both beyond our control, I’m far more comfortable with that.

Aren’t you?

Davis wrote:
“Influence” on how people decide to live their lives, infers “choice”. Is choice meaningful or not Pope? If it is not, then influencing someone’s choice is not meaningful either. This is not rocket science.

I think you mean “implies choice.” Close meanings, but different. Of course we have choices. That isn’t the question, and you s…[Read more]

“Influence” on how people decide to live their lives, infers “choice”. Is choice meaningful or not Pope? If it is not, then influencing someone’s choice is not meaningful either. This is not rocket science.

Davis wrote:
If one argues others have no choice to have done but what they have done, have no agency, it is absurd to then, in the same book, go on to try and influence their future choices/agency.

Free will or not, it’s a given that Harris’ readers can be influenced by his advice. Sapolski’s too, or anyone’s here.

I’m realizing that it doesn’t…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
If we don’t have free will, we are not responsible for our actions nor does it make sense, within the same argument, to then try to influence others.

If we DO have free will, then we are (at least to some extent) responsible for our actions and it makes sense, in the same argument to influence people’s choices.

“If God doesn’t exi…[Read more]

There is no superficiality about it. If one argues others have no choice to have done but what they have done, have no agency, it is absurd to then, in the same book, go on to try and influence their future choices/agency. The only way around that is magical thinking or special pleading.

If we don’t have free will, we are not responsible for our…[Read more]