lol learn something new every day apparently

whats that

again:



"word salad" isn't relevant to brain chemistry. nor is the fact that humans discovered and created words for testosterone and estrogen, their existence predates their discovery. we can call them boy juice and girl juice if you'd prefer tho.

nature creates a category, we name it. we can make bad reads and create a category that isnt tied to underlying facts, and we have. see panda bears.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 31 2022 10:50am

Nature creates a set of facts. We then observe those facts and categories as a way to simplify and communicate. Nature does not create categories itself.

If you want to argue that nature creates categories the only way to make that leap is to posit a consciousness on top of nature at the same time. Which you might be willing to do, since you believe in God, but you don't get to posit categories without also positing consciousness.


There are actually mental illnesses that make it impossible to create categories. For instance there's a type of injury where you stop recognizing parts of your body as "yours". The recognition of self is a natural part of our brain development, but it only exists in our brain.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 31 2022 11:27am

using semantic arguments which i dont disagree with is a really odd way to respond to me saying that brain chemistry dichotomy corresponding to genitalia drives most human behaviors, so like idk.

we have 2 categories:

1. things both men and women do, which differing levels of T and E dont seem to make a difference.

2. things men do significantly more than women, and vice versa. in which the greatest factors are brain chemistry and physical biology.

if you'd like tho you can tell me that i made the categories up, and nature didnt create them. maybe do that again lol.

Plenty of counter examples in nature, especially among the humans of earth.

If you aren't capable of understanding the basics there's no reason to go any further. You are wanting to skip to calculus when you don't even understand addition.

If the world truly had innate categories then machine learning would be insanely simple. It wouldn't be a matter of teaching bots how to categorize. Things would just come with easy labels you could tell the machine to read.

You can read about these things in pretty much any psychology book as well. How our brain comes up with categories and imposes them on the external world is a pretty big field of study. You won't find those researchers talking about "nature created categories".

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Mar 31 2022 11:40am

Sure it is. Youre classifying that one thing is different than the other.
e/ hell im sure a bear classifies thigns as "I can eat it" or "I cant eat it", deer classify things as "It will fucking kill me" or "It wont fucking kill me"
Primates classify other primates as being part of their troop or not.


Your argument really is stupid. Youre basically saying that because humans recognize the differences in the world and we came up with a way to express those differences to other sentient beings that everything we express is a social construct.

If I deconstruct your argument its that "Humans invented words, therefore society"
In which case the answer is "Yes" and yet ENTIRELY useless to any form of rational or intelligent discussion and you would have made a better argument by not saying anything at all.

This post was edited by ChronFather420 on Mar 31 2022 11:45am

If you really believed this then you would be insisting all categories only contain a single object.

anecdotal evidence isnt a counter its just an outlier.



you just keep telling me i either disagree with or dont understand what you're saying. ive responded enough times that its not relevant to my base argument you havent responded to, so i dont know what to say.

i took enough 100 and 200 level psych courses in college to know all of this, and i dont in broad strokes disagree with what you're saying factually.

it's not relevant to my point, it can be true and still not relevant. maybe instead of restating 100 level psych for the 5th time you could instead better spend your time explaining why it is relevant to my argument about downstairs bits corresponding to brain chemistry corresponding to behavioral patterns. maybe?