domain:web.law.duke.edu
hydroacetylene
2d ago
And my point is mostly that the guy has been waiting for sex will get some on his wedding night and honeymoon, and if the woman doesn't give it to him in short order I'd say that's grounds for annulment
‘We never had sex’ is grounds for an annulment in the RCC. Famously came up in king Henry VIII’s case, where it had been used to posthumously annul Catherine of Aragon’s marriage to his older brother, which otherwise would have made the marriage invalid on incest grounds. The original annulment remained valid and thus Henry didn’t get his.
Coolguy1337
2d ago
I suffered from insane chronic pain for over 10 years. It's largely gone now by simply troubleshooting the problems the same way one would fix a computer/program (and not listening to moronic doctors and woo woo people. "oh man we can't figure out what's wrong, have you considered it might be a mental problem?").
Arthritis is caused by something. It's basically a sign that your body is breaking down in some way. Your body is probably just not producing enough lube for your joints. This causes pain. It has real causes, even if they are difficult to figure out.
Hypermobility is just a catch all term for the body failing to upkeep structures that depend of collagen. Might be purely a genetic defect with no known cure, but is more commonly (in-part) impacted by a broken methylation cycle. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10122021/
In case TMJ is still a problem this has a high probability of helping. https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/media/qcxidm43/69966tmj.pdf (case study) https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1k11yw5/after_5_years_of_jaw_clicking_tmj_chatgpt_cured/
CPTSD is largely a fancy word for the mind being unable to cope with a stressful event. You need energy to deal with stress, lack of energy makes smaller problems overwhelming too.
The reason doctors have not been able to solve this is because their system is build on reducing symptoms. Not solving anything. Not understanding anything. This was fine 50 years ago, but now science has advanced without them. And they don't care because they are making the big bucks. Public knowledge advances a funeral at a time.
If you're eating the SAD, stop doing that. It's basically poison. Eat food that contains nutrients.
Try fasting for ~48 hours. Obviously don't start with 48 hours, but work yourself up. Maybe 18, 24, 36, 48. It's very possible that you are reacting to the food you're eating and this is an easy way to test that.
Try a mitochondrial cocktail. Tends to boost energy production short term. Good way to see if something global is broken.
Take bloodwork for common nutrient deficiencies. But also realize that this might not be enough to catch the problem. https://old.reddit.com/r/B12_Deficiency/comments/1lfyftj/the_problematic_philosophy_behind_b12_serum_tests/
However please note that none of these things are guaranteed to work, your body might just be unfixable, but the odds are high it might be improved somehow. So take your health in your own hands and start learning how the body works. Do some experiments, and see if anything has an impact.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
2d ago
By noting that "childish" isn't "immature" and "gay" isn't "faggotry".
As the post demonstrates, things are just simpler when you're inherently on the same page, but it's also [weirdly] a conservative thing; either of you could have had a more conventionally attractive relationship, but instead you chose this.
It's why the childhood friend never wins in coming-of-age stories.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
2d ago
Nope converts only ;P heh. Just kidding of course.
fmaa
2d ago
The pretense is in ignoring compatibilism. The sole evidence against materialism isn't the experience of free will, which feels the same under materialism (and determinism, for that matter), it is the conscious experience and the hard problem. Which is why all the evidence that conscious experience is materially based is so interesting.
We can work mind-to-mind to communicate, teach or persuade. We cannot work mind-to-mind to read or control.
I am communicating with you right now, and from my perspective no part of this communication is based on assuming non-determinism.
And same as the last time we had this conversation, I genuinely do not care what other people did under the label of capital m Materialism before I was born. Like, you keep going on about this, both with me and other materialists in this thread (Perhaps because your conception of your own Christianity is so deeply based on you feeling like you're continuing millennia of tradition?), but this is not a motte-and-bailey on my part. I'm not trying to be part of a Movement here.
hydroacetylene
2d ago
You can look up traditional Catholic teachings on ‘the marital debt’ if you’d like, quite a bit more nuance than Jim portrays. Pre-Vatican II seminary textbooks are mostly in the library of congress.
That’s probably the closest to how this was supposed to work in practice.
Yeet_far
2d ago
The only way any of those would be relevant would be if parents treat fraternal and identical twins very differently, and in the linked article, Scott discusses why that's probably not the case.
Did you read the linked article?
How do you think a twin study works? How would economic status have any effect on a twin study?
hydroacetylene
2d ago
Thé traditional arrangement is that spouses don’t have the right to say no to each others’s sexual requests absent extenuating circumstances.
sun_the_second
2d ago
I am aware of your gripes about overly optimistic and/or liar proponents of Materialism that were alive a few hundred years ago, and I do not believe they are much relevant to the discourse today. Coincidentally I have not studied them. This appears to me to be a deflection/smear akin to "John Money who coined the term 'gender' was an icky pedo" if taken uncharitably, and if taken charitably it seems that you are arguing with dead wrong Materialists whereas I expect you to be arguing with me.
GBRK
2d ago
I feel like Aella unleashed a sort of Rule 34 for gimmicks: there is no niche so stupid that some e-thot won't try to exploit it.
In a weird way I kind of respect it. Blogging while being an e-thot is an argument from ethos-- it's the opposite of self-censorship, and presents you as someone with no need to tell reputation-preserving lies. Call it the Milo Yiannopoulos phenomenon: being visibly and openly a member of the "outgroup" of a particular ideology makes you that much more credible when speaking about it.
hydroacetylene
2d ago
Yeah, maybe he was actually crazy?
TheThrowaway
2d ago
Are cradle Orthodox accepted? Count me in if so.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
I genuinely can't tell what you mean by this, though I'm assuming it's part of your usual pretense that compatibilism doesn't exist and materialists deny the experience of free will.
I have had materialists very directly deny the existence of free will in extended argumentation with me. I have observed other materialists, here and elsewhere, insist that no evidence against Materialism exists, and also that we know free will cannot actually exist because otherwise it would break materialism. Noting these positions is not a "pretense".
But how can a method of action possibly operate off an untestable assumption?
Things can work without us knowing how they work on a mechanistic level. Starting a fire is mechanistic; people worked with fire long, long before they had a mechanistic explanation of how it worked.
We can work mind-to-mind to communicate, teach or persuade. We cannot work mind-to-mind to read or control.
But we've been over that before and, no, whatever new evidence has appeared since then will not meet your absurd standards (iirc, literally no connection between biochemical processes in the brain and observed or self-reported mindstates counts as evidence until people have fantasy story mind-control).
They are not my absurd standards, they were the absurd claims of the scientists and philosophers who built the paradigm of the material mind. These men claimed their axioms were empirical facts for more than a century, and used those claims to wield vast social, economic and political power while steadily retreating from every scrap of empirical evidence available. It is not my fault that much of the modern world was built by lying to people about empirical fact. I will not stop pointing that the lies were in fact lies, nor tracing the social consequences of those lies down to the present day. Nor will I cease to note the evidence of my own self-reported mind-states, and the ways in which simple observation entirely contradicts the materialist narrative.
Nor will I claim that I have knowledge that I do not, in fact, have. Determinism is a perfectly respectable axiom, and utility can be acquired through its use. but it is an axiom, the utility is acquired strictly through its use as an axiom, and it pays no direct rent at all.
sun_the_second
2d ago
The problem is that people do not appear to understand the difference.
I do not believe this is the problem here - the problem is that your explanations for the current gap in Hard Determinism that is the lack of user-friendly brain interface are, in their structure, no different from explanations that had at various points been raised against other gaps that are resolved by now.
Resolved by you yourself, in the case of comparing LLMs to human brains! We know the building blocks of LLMs, and have the control capacity to inspect and manipulate their state in less complex iterations, but not in more complex ones. We know the building blocks of organic chemicals, which resolve to DNA, which resolve to live cells, some of which are neurons, and the earlier less complex iterations of those structures we can not only predict but manipulate and recreate. Nondeterminism simply does not make a convincing enough case that the latest iteration, the live human brain, is somehow so qualitatively different from a silicon-based neural network that hoping to grasp it with determinism is hopeless hubris.
I disagree with his framing (and yours) that women are just tee-hee frivorce-raping hapless men with the power of the state.
Starting from egalitarianism, I would expect there's likely the same amount of abuse of both processes by their respective bad actors when each was/is the dominant mode of abuse.
And then there's the illegibility of what that being a possible outcome actually does to the average citizen's behavior under that law; men talk about it all the time, so do women. (So do responsible parents when the topic of CPS comes up- same kind of chilling effect.)
I don't think one or other gender holds a monopoly on that evil (and am not really willing to consider it, because DreadJimming/DreadJilling is inevitably where that ends up). If both are permitted, each can check the other, but more total abuse then occurs at the margins.
it's not by listening to people who, frankly, hate the other sex.
Yeah, but arbitration and spending hours trying to pass the Turing Test for the interested parties is boring, I'd much rather complain about how cokes that have had 40 penises inside them are spiritually degraded or whatever instead.
TIRM
2d ago
Is he a boy and is fucking any significant part of the motivation for his actions? >He's a fuckboy.
Sure, but then fuckboys are everywhere. Given a broad enough understanding of "significant part of the motivation", most men are.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
He must have been working on it a while. Feels like it's been actually over a month since we had an actually good post? Maybe it's just me
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
2d ago
Any number of things, thats the point. Social status, economic status, family dynamics, cultural affiliation, level of interest, environmental factors (hot/cold, wet/dry, average exposure to sunlight).
We know this because we can, in fact, point to the gears in CPUs and RAM and do gear things with them, and this is in fact the best, most efficient way to manipulate and interact with them. This is not the case for minds: every workable method we have for manipulating and interacting with human minds operates off the assumption that the human mind is non-deterministic, and every attempt to develop ways to manipulate and interact with minds deterministically has utterly failed. There is no mind-equivalent of a programming language, a compiler, a BIOS, a chip die, etc.
The computer analogy is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but it's carrying more weight than it can bear. Yes, if you take a soldering iron to your CPU, you'll break it. But the reason we know computers are deterministic isn't because we can point to individual transistors and say "this one controls the mouse cursor." It's because we built them from the ground up with deterministic principles, and we can trace the logical flow from input to output through layers of abstraction.
Compare that to any more tangled, yet mechanistic naturally occurring phenomena, and you can see that just knowing the fundamental or even statistical laws governing a complex process doesn't give us the ability to make surgical changes. We can predict the weather several days out with significant accuracy, yet our ability to change it to our benefit is limited.
The brain is not a tool we built. The brain is a three-pound lump of evolved, self-organizing, wet, squishy, recursively layered technology that we woke up inside of. We are not engineers with a schematic, I'd say we're closer to archaeologists who have discovered an alien supercomputer of terrifying complexity, with no instruction manual and no "off" switch.
The universe, biology, or natural selection, was under no selection pressure to make the brain legible to itself. You can look at our attempts at making evolutionary algorithms, and see how the outputs often appear chaotic, but still work.
Consider even LLMs. The basic units, neurons? Not a big deal. Simple linear algebra. Even the attention mechanism isn't too complicated. Yet run the whole ensemble through enormous amounts of data, and we find ourselves consistently befuddled by how the fuck the whole thing works. And yet we understand it perfectly fine on a micro level! Or consider the inevitable buildup of spaghetti code, turning something as deterministic (let's not get into race-conditions and all that, but in general) as code into something headache inducing at best.
And LLMs were built by humans. To be legible to humans. Neuroscience has a far more uphill struggle.
And yet we've made considerable progress. We're well past the sheer crudeness of lobotomies or hits on the head.
fMRI studies can predict with reasonable accuracy which of several choices a person will make seconds before they're consciously aware of the decision. We've got functional BCIs. We can interpret dreams, we can take a literal snapshot of your mind's eye. We can use deep brain stimulation or optogentics to flip individual neurons or neural circuits with reproducible and consistent effects.
As for "determinism of the gaps". What?
Two hundred years ago, the "gap" was the entire brain. The mind was a total mystery. Now, we can point to specific neural circuits involved in decision-making, emotion, and perception. We've moved from "an imbalance of humors causes melancholy" to "stimulating the subgenual cingulate can alleviate depressive symptoms." We've gone from believing seizures were demonic possession to understanding them as uncontrolled electrical storms in the cortex. The gaps where a non-material explanation can hide are shrinking daily. The vector of scientific progress seems to be pointing firmly in one direction. At this point, there's little but wishful thinking behind vain hopes that just maybe, mechanistic interpretation might fail on the next rung of the ladder.
I am frankly flabbergasted that anyone could come away with the opposite takeaway. It's akin to claiming that progress from Newton's laws to the Standard Model has somehow left us in more ontological and epistemic confusion. It has the same chutzpah as a homeopath telling me that modern medicine is a failure because we were wrong about the aetiogenesis of gastric ulcers.
This is not the case for minds: every workable method we have for manipulating and interacting with human minds operates off the assumption that the human mind is non-deterministic, and every attempt to develop ways to manipulate and interact with minds deterministically has utterly failed.
Citation needed? I mean, what's so non-deterministic about the advances I mentioned? What exactly do you think are the "non-deterministic" techniques that work?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
Can you give me a quick summary of your understanding of Materialism and Determinism in the scientific era, and also your understanding of when Materialism, Determinism and Atheism began being taken seriously as workable axioms?
My concern is that I’ve never really heard of a secular society with those kinds of restrictions on sexuality
Every society everywhere on Earth for all history up to the 20th century exerted sufficient intrasocietal controls on male avarice and female caprice or else it collapsed. Religious language framed what they already knew, now we don't know and today it's framed purely religiously. Christianity has kept record of its inspired line on biotruths and their peculiarities -- non-consanguineous marriage for life with many children -- you'll see certain lifestyles were discussed from frame of their harms being known in common wisdom. The lecher or the whore were already seen as contemptible, moral lessons weren't "It's bad to be a whore," everybody knew that, so they were "Divorcing your wife makes whores of both of you."
Our connection with this common wisdom withered and died in the age of rapid modernization and individualization, so some Christians, already on the fool's errand of attempting to reconcile their faith with society, could only present their opposition in heavily religiously connoting or outright religious terms. It's bad because God says it's bad, true, but that's at the top. At the bottom is "You'll sleep around in your 20s, get married in your thirties, have one kid, maybe two if you're really lucky, not deeply love your husband, divorce him when your kids are out of the house, and every cold night in your lonely bed be unwarmed by the memories of the dalliances of your youth." It will ruin your fucking life, that's why you don't do it.
Secular society moving past these doesn't come from science. If anything the scientific paradigm should be hyperfixated on healthy, responsible human sexuality. Creatures have reproduced sexually for a billion years, mammals diverged 300 million years ago, 100 years of sexual insouciance might as well not exist on the epochal timeframe yet here we are. Looking down from a period of .0000003% of the history of our biological class and with absolute sincerity and absolute lack of any awareness these people say "Yeah sex doesn't mean anything, it can just be for fun." We feel this dissonance cognitively and viscerally, it's part of the constant psychic background radiation driving everyone crazy, we engage in behavior we know instinctively as destructive and then throw cash at our best so they target their tremendous mental faculties at justifying what we can conclude from intuition and pure reason as wrong. I can only wonder what sort of writing Scott would be putting out if he'd moved to a small Jewish community in New England and married a sensible reformed girl who wanted lots of kids. I can only wonder how much of his tremendous brainpower is sequestered in its quiet battle against a billion years of evolution screaming NO NO NO NO NO!
But it's not about science, it's about greed. It's about the money and power drawn from a destabilized society, and you bet your ass it's about top-% men being able to have sex with whichever beautiful commoners they want, using them up and discarding them. I'll use the socialist's most apt phrasing, it's history's true and greatest transfer of wealth, a self-sustaining fire consuming each new generation.
SkoomaDentist
2d ago
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
2d ago
It matters because if "spooky undetectable woo" or even "ordinary detectable woo" such as cultural affiliation, economics, or social status can be demonstrated to have an effect, it will (at a bare minimum) weaken the genetic hypothesis, and if the effec sizes are large enough wreck it outright.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
2d ago
Wanting attention and desiring to be seen but also feeling revulsion at the disgusting old men seems to be the go-to outward facing stance for any girl in Japan who's asked off the clock. Any cursory browsing of reddit will reveal people who hate their jobs and everyone at their jobs and all their customers, but they still want that paycheck.
There's a twisted logic to it. Or per @Sloot 's thesis, substitute imaginary for twisted.
That said, I am not sure there's more logic in imagining a call girl who just loves men to pieces.
The purpose of inventing the term "emotional labor" is to justify why nurses etc. deserve more wages or more status. It would be strange for them not to be complaining about it
More options
Context Copy link