Not really. I asked you for black-on-white proof of the fact that "anyone can lose weight" -- I didn't say it doesn't exist. I was interested in the psychology-related parts of it, because I know that this doesn't exist. The challenge in losing weight is 100% psychological, so it's irrelevant to even discuss physics in here. The only reason I bring it up occasionally is because I know more about the physics of weight loss than you do, so it tends to be amusing to watch you squirm around in your superficial simplifications.

This post was edited by howtodisappearcompletely on Aug 19 2016 10:56am

the common theme of fat acceptance is that it is physically impossible to lose weight for some people, since you're on the side of the fat acceptance advocates i figured you were pedaling more of the same pseudo science

i'd argue losing weight is strictly physical, i'm no physicist but i can tell you it's simply a matter of calories in vs calories out that determines weight and if you think that's not the case feel free to elaborate

keeping the weight off is psychological (life style change is mandatory) and the problems facing western civilization is that obesity isn't seen as shameful anymore and we parade around morbidly obese bodies calling them beautiful

People are right about doctors calling them liars about their diet and exercise when they're not losing weight and being incorrect.

I'm not a dietician but from experience I do know that people might actually gain weight while getting smaller/healthier as their body changes composition and parts of their body with excess fat start to tone. The volume of the body could shrink, and function could increase in all areas, while numbers could stay the same.

Not all bodies are the same and some people have a much harder time losing weight and keeping it off with others. They can eat the same amount of food and do the same exercise and the results would be different. A calorie is not just a calorie, and a pound is not just a pound.

Objectively all people can lose weight. Subjectively it is impossible for some people to lose weight and keep it off. A lot of this stuff is contingent on what a particular culture believes is healthy and attractive, aka value statements.

Also, how can you say something is psychological when you don't believe in the mind?

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2016 11:13am

And that's why your posts contribute nothing. You labeled me as someone who's "on the fat acceptance side" and proceeded to bash arguments frequently used by fat acceptance advocates instead of focusing on the arguments given by the person you were talking to.

In the last 5 or so pages of this thread various people have repeatedly offered counter-arguments to your posts, only to be met with funny images, ad hominems and rants about stuff they didn't even talk about.

This post was edited by howtodisappearcompletely on Aug 19 2016 11:12am

think of it in a hardware/software sense, software is still physical

as for doctors calling people liars, i'd say the doctors are right in that a lot of people do lie about what they eat specifically because they feel ashamed to admit the truth

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 19 2016 11:21am

But in your eyes the hardware controls the software, so problems with the hardware can't be blamed on the software, which is a result in this equation. The output rather than input. Otherwise you are acknowledging free will and you said you don't believe in that.

And in your materialism, you said there is no Software(mind)-Hardware(body) Problem. There is just hardware. So what is it then? I mean you can't make the assertions you've made without a coherent theory of consciousness.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2016 11:26am

it certainly can, you can fry your hardware easily with bad software

im saying both hardware and software are physical, not that there is only hardware

what proof do you have that the mind exists as a non physical entity

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 19 2016 11:40am

You can't point to it within the body. There is no organ that is just the mind like there is a heart or kidney. The body itself is the mind's organ to experience the world.

You can fuck with things on one side to affect the other, and causation is at work, but we have a long way to go with cognitive science and new sciences like ideonomy.

The fact is, for reductionist, if you can't dissect a cat, put it together exactly, and have nothing lost. Some properties are emergent.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2016 02:19pm

it's called a brain here's a picture of one


everything you attribute to a mind can be explained away as the thought processes of of the brain

in order to dissect something and put it back together exactly you need the right tools which we don't have
this gap in technology isn't the place to insert useless philosophical delusions - you can't even define what the mind is can you?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Aug 19 2016 03:01pm