Aristotle rejects natural selection, and dislikes it's adherents
nando_r...@yahoo.com
superficially acknowledge friendship, strife and mind. His opponents
are the people who describe everything in terms of automatons acting
of neccessity, while Aristotle posits his theory of acting freely by
potential towards an end.
He then posits the concept of natural selection, as what these bad
people who are superficial about friendship/strife and mind are
saying, in order to knock the concept down.
He says that the characteristics of organisms can't be attributed to
coincedence, because the characteristics arise normally, but
coincedences only arise by exception to the norm. Then he goes on to
say the form is the goal for the material to potentially realize.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/physics/book2.html
We must explain then (1) that Nature belongs to the class of causes
which act for the sake of something; (2) about the necessary and its
place in physical problems, for all writers ascribe things to this
cause, arguing that since the hot and the cold, &c., are of such and
such a kind, therefore certain things necessarily are and come to be-
and if they mention any other cause (one his ‘friendship and strife’,
another his ‘mind’), it is only to touch on it, and then good-bye to
it.
A difficulty presents itself: why should not nature work, not for the
sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky
rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is
drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and
descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a
man’s crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall
for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that
result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the
parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the
front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for
grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it
was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which
we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came
about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end,
such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way;
whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as
Empedocles says his ‘man-faced ox-progeny’ did.
Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause
difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the
true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or
normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of
chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or
mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in
summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in
winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of
coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of
coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end;
and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the
theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is
present in things which come to be and are by nature.
Further, where a series has a completion, all the preceding steps are
for the sake of that. Now surely as in intelligent action, so in
nature; and as in nature, so it is in each action, if nothing
interferes. Now intelligent action is for the sake of an end;
therefore the nature of things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g. had
been a thing made by nature, it would have been made in the same way
as it is now by art; and if things made by nature were made also by
art, they would come to be in the same way as by nature. Each step
then in the series is for the sake of the next; and generally art
partly completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and partly
imitates her. If, therefore, artificial products are for the sake of
an end, so clearly also are natural products. The relation of the
later to the earlier terms of the series is the same in both. This is
most obvious in the animals other than man: they make things neither
by art nor after inquiry or deliberation. Wherefore people discuss
whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty that these
creatures work,spiders, ants, and the like. By gradual advance in this
direction we come to see clearly that in plants too that is produced
which is conducive to the end-leaves, e.g. grow to provide shade for
the fruit. If then it is both by nature and for an end that the
swallow makes its nest and the spider its web, and plants grow leaves
for the sake of the fruit and send their roots down (not up) for the
sake of nourishment, it is plain that this kind of cause is operative
in things which come to be and are by nature. And since ‘nature’ means
two things, the matter and the form, of which the latter is the end,
and since all the rest is for the sake of the end, the form must be
the cause in the sense of ‘that for the sake of which’.
---
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aristotle begins ...
<snip>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Human knowledge base has advanced a bit since Aristotle. Or hadn't
you noticed?
Boikat
wf3h
not to a crazed islamist fanatic. his kind still believe murder is the
highest human achievement
nando_r...@yahoo.com
and the knowledge about that is now generally more degraded, instead
of as advanced as it was with Aristotle. So that is why he is still
referenced in modern physics papers, because he is very knowledgeable
about this kind of logic of acting according to the future, for
example: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000517000001000003000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aristotle begins..
I don't need to read this to know you will misrepresent what Aristotle
said, confuse general definition with your own specialist definitions
and switch between them without warning of translation and generally
get many things wrong.
I understand you basic philosophy and why you oppose the idea of
causality, but you're making a big mistake through vastly over
simplifying things in one respect and adding needless complexity
elsewhere. The biggest mistake is trying to integrate human concept
like freedom into the laws of nature. They don't fit no matter how
hard you repeat the claims.
wf3h
yeah when he said electrons had 'smiley faces' on them...i almost fell
off my chair. he wasn't joking
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Aristotle is talking about things acting according to the future,
> and the knowledge about that is now generally more degraded, instead
> of as advanced as it was with Aristotle. So that is why he is still
> referenced in modern physics papers, because he is very knowledgeable
> about this kind of logic of acting according to the future, for
>
aristotle is not referenced in modern physics papers. in fact, an
unquestioning adherence to his 'ancient texts', as was done in western
civilization for a thousand years, delayed the advance of modern
science...not unlike reliance on the bible and the quran does to
christians and muslims.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
is simple even a child can understand it .
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The one who misrepresents what Aristotle says is Darwin, because he
> references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
> fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
That is much like saying Newton rejected Quantum Physics, except
worse. How could Aristotle reject natual selection? Answer - he could
not. You appear to be trying to place a philosophical layer on to
natural selection that does not exist and saying that is what
Aristotle disagreed with. Totaly dishonest rubbish.
> Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
> do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
> is simple even a child can understand it .
The logic a child uses is a very simple human one. Scientists
understand it in the same terms but with more context, esepcially
those who study the workings of the mind.
You undestanding of choosing is different to that a child would use.
You, for some reason, have confused what a child would do with what a
cloud would do - I consider this some kind of mental short circuit on
your behalf because it's not how normal people view the world, which
is far closer to my world view than yours. I make a living by
understanding how people choose things so I know you don't even have
the starting bits of the process real people use in the real world.
The logic is this, the child perceives the world and learns about the
world. Their emotions drive their actions and they choose what they
would like to do based upon what they learn and their current
perception of the world. They are then either free to carry out those
actions or not and those actions may or may not have the results they
expect. Alternatives are what we create in our mind based upon our
perception of the world. Our perception is always limited and can
easily be fooled.
Stew Dean
JohnN
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Aristotle begins by noting his opponents are bad people who only
> superficially acknowledge friendship, strife and mind.
And then he DIED!!! There's a lesson in there for you.
JohnN
Burkhard
> The one who misrepresents what Aristotle says is Darwin, because he
> references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
> fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
>
> Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
> do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
> is simple even a child can understand it .
>
naive picture of the world. When we grow up, we learn to question this
model. Science develops a particularly systematic way of questioning
basic intuitive assumptions, and much what we thought we new as children
turns out to be illusions or oversimplifications.
And then we have a choice: we can start hating science and scream and
yell every time our childhood ideas, from the invisible friend to "free
choice" _seem_ to be threatened.
Or we can grow up, accommodate scientific knowledge, compartmentalise
and use the very different type of knowledge or wisdom that the arts and
humanities offer for a refined and less unstable or contested version
of these childhood notions.
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Aristotle is talking about things acting according to the future,
> and the knowledge about that is now generally more degraded, instead
> of as advanced as it was with Aristotle. So that is why he is still
> referenced in modern physics papers, because he is very knowledgeable
> about this kind of logic of acting according to the future, for
Nando,
You are aware that Dubois says that things can't actually predict the
future? He is just saying that under some circumstances you can do the
maths as if they did and get the right result. If there is ANY
acceleration involved, even if it's something totally predictable like
1m/s^2, this description breaks down.
By the way, you still haven't answered any of my questions from the
previous thread:
*************************************************************************************************
1. Is it your claim that negative social consequences does in fact
make evolution false, or that truth and falsehood don't matter and we
should decide scientific correctness on the basis of social and
ethical considerations? Are you maybe suggesting that we should come
up with some scientifically equivalent theory to evolution in the
manner of your reworking of Aristotelian physics in place of Newton?
2. Perhaps you could link to/quote an explanation of the Information
Interpretation that YOU believe in so that I know at least some of
this isn't just hand waving.
3. Clarification as to whether you really think you could use your
brain like a quantum computer to do card tricks would be nice too. It
really would be worth a million dollars if you can do it.
4. Where and what is the fallacy in the following:
4.1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
4.2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a
finite rate.
4.3) If more than two of the children survive to breed, the population
will increase.
4.4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
4.5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin
to starve.
4.6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to survive.
4.7) Any genetic traits that cause a rabbit to need less food, or be
better at getting food will be more common in the population of
rabbits after the food shortage than before. Traits that cause a
rabbit to require more food or be less good at finding food will be
less common.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Aristotle is talking about things acting according to the future,
Only in a general sense, not in your sense.
> and the knowledge about that is now generally more degraded, instead
> of as advanced as it was with Aristotle.
Is that so? Has he returned from the dead to make a comparison?
< So that is why he is still
> referenced in modern physics papers, because he is very knowledgeable
> about this kind of logic of acting according to the future,
Not that I can see.
> for
> example:http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
The only citation there is for Aristotle's "final cause", which loosly
means "something exists to serve a purpose", or something like that.
But so what? What does that have to do with your claim that Aristotle
rejects NS? (not to mention the fact he was not around when the term
was coined.)
So, how about sticking to the point of your claim?
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The one who misrepresents what Aristotle says is Darwin, because he
> references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
> fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
So what? Aristotle was also a Geocentrist.
>
> Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
> do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
> is simple even a child can understand it .
So, you're saying you have the mind of a child when it comes to your
concept (what ever the hell it is at the moment)?
Boikat
heekster
>The one who misrepresents what Aristotle says is Darwin, because he
>references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
>fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
>
How could Aristoteles reject something that did not exist until
thousands of years after he was dead?
Are you having a Schlachthof Fuenf moment?
>Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
>do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
>is simple even a child can understand it .
Lobgic?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
this thread, right following from the Darwinist Hitler Youth thread..
No it's not really alright to mention somebody as a precursor when
they explicitly rejected the idea. Aristotle is a big name, you can't
attach yourself to a big name like Darwin did, when in the context
Aristotle goes as far to imply that the people who adhere to such a
concept are superficial about friendship, strife and mind.
And the rest of the replies is also bullshit. I guess once you
basically forbid yourself to talk about choosing on an intellectual
level, then you have nothing interesting to say when the subject is at
issue. So then you just have to write smart bullshit, corny bullshit,
defensive lawyering bullshit, and all kinds of other bullshit to keep
the pretense going that you have something to say.
eerok
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:56:02 -0700 (PDT),
"nando_r...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time
>> children can do it much better than educated scientists. So
>> the lobgic of choosing is simple even a child can
>> understand it .
> Lobgic?
Sure, you throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
--
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."
Voltaire
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's another truckload of bullshit and dishonesty of Darwinists in
> this thread, right following from the Darwinist Hitler Youth thread..
The only "bullshit" is yours.
>
> No it's not really alright to mention somebody as a precursor when
> they explicitly rejected the idea. Aristotle is a big name, you can't
> attach yourself to a big name like Darwin did, when in the context
> Aristotle goes as far to imply that the people who adhere to such a
> concept are superficial about friendship, strife and mind.
What are you blabbering about now?
>
> And the rest of the replies is also bullshit. I guess once you
> basically forbid yourself to talk about choosing on an intellectual
> level, then you have nothing interesting to say when the subject is at
> issue. So then you just have to write smart bullshit, corny bullshit,
> defensive lawyering bullshit, and all kinds of other bullshit to keep
> the pretense going that you have something to say.
Sorry fool. You're the one who atatched yourself to Aristotle, and
implied his word was, somehow, relevent because you think he was
"correct" about one thing, and therefore, he is correct in everything,
and since, according to you, he "rejects NS", NS is false. I pointed
out he also accepted geocentrism, and you cry "bullshit"?
You poor deluded schmuck.
Boikat
>
> On 24 okt, 01:05, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 6:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The one who misrepresents what Aristotle says is Darwin, because he
> > > references him as a precursor in Origin of Species, while in actual
> > > fact Aristotle rejected natural selection.
>
> > So what? Aristotle was also a Geocentrist.
>
> > > Even children can talk in terms of choosing, many a time children can
> > > do it much better than educated scientists. So the lobgic of choosing
> > > is simple even a child can understand it .
>
> > So, you're saying you have the mind of a child when it comes to your
> > concept (what ever the hell it is at the moment)?
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's another truckload of bullshit and dishonesty of Darwinists in
> this thread, right following from the Darwinist Hitler Youth thread..
I haven't read that thread but I can tell you that Hitler himself was
a creationist who did not like the idea of natural selection. You can
see this in his speeches and in book. He never talked about evolution
- only god and doing gods will.
This is not true for the Nazi party as a whole as many took Darwin's
work and distorted it from natural selection into eugenics - unnatural
selection. Genetics these days do not support the idea of racism as,
fundamentally, we are all genetically so similar that the concept of a
race being genetic is increasingly seen as unsupportable. Race has
become a cultural issue. Right wing idiots still don't get how similar
we are genetically as a species. There is less variation between our
species than you'll find in the members of nearly all species. It is
only because we are tuned so closely to recognising facial features we
spot the slight differences that exist in the genetics that came from
different places on the planet - but these are much smaller than these
appearance differences may indicate.
Like I said I haven't read the thread but linking Darwin and Hitler
can only be done if you're deeply ignorant of what Hitler stood for
and what motivated him - which ultimately was a deep belief in god.
> No it's not really alright to mention somebody as a precursor when
> they explicitly rejected the idea. Aristotle is a big name, you can't
> attach yourself to a big name like Darwin did, when in the context
> Aristotle goes as far to imply that the people who adhere to such a
> concept are superficial about friendship, strife and mind.
What you're doing is using an appeal from authority, that is what you
mean by a big name. I don't think anyone would argue that people
should not be superficial about friendship, strife and mind but I
think the mistake you make is then feel that because people are not
superstitious like you and believe in some kind of supernatural
reality and ultimate absolute truth and meaning that somehow means
they are superficial about human things.
In my view the opposite is true as if you reject religion you tend to
become a humanist and concepts like friendship, strife and mind become
far MORE important than if you are religious.
I suggest you stop being close minded and dismissing other peoples
views as bullshit each time they disagree with you. People are being
open and honest with you and the least you can do is be more human
with them and consider what they are saying to you instead of
dismissing what others say autonomically.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
just think in terms of neccessity you become more manipulative,
addressing people in terms of the causes of their behaviour, instead
of addressing them properly as the owner of their choices.
Every time I think of it that you all basicly deny the simple fact
that I choose, which I directly experience myself, then my reaction is
that you all must be full of bullshit. And it is easily credible to me
that this kind of practice of denying freedom causes the holocaust,
and the evidence supports it in a straightforward sort of way.
Eugenics is flourishing in China, with massive support from the
geneticists there. That's 1/5 of the population of the earth living
under a eugenics regime. So everything you say is basically false, as
usual.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There's another truckload of bullshit and dishonesty of Darwinists in
> this thread, right following from the Darwinist Hitler Youth thread..
well let's see. so far we have the 2 creationsits 'all seeing' and
'spintronics' who think the destruction of the WTC and the murder of
3000 americans was great because the islamists believed god told them
what to do
and we have nando, who IS an islamist, and blieves christianity should
be suppressed so muslims don't 'feel lonely'
IOW creationism is a terrorist movement
>
> And the rest of the replies is also bullshit. I guess once you
> basically forbid yourself to talk about choosing on an intellectual
> level, then you have nothing interesting to say when the subject is at
> issue. So then you just have to write smart bullshit, corny bullshit,
> defensive lawyering bullshit, and all kinds of other bullshit to keep
> the pretense going that you have something to say.
>
says the islamist thug who dismisses einstein's views because einstein
was a 'nerd' (sic)\
creationists are fucking insane
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Eugenics is flourishing in China, with massive support from the
> geneticists there. That's 1/5 of the population of the earth living
> under a eugenics regime. So everything you say is basically false, as
> usual.
and another 1/5 live under the tragedy of islam.
Boikat
I doubt that.
> If you
> just think in terms of neccessity you become more manipulative,
> addressing people in terms of the causes of their behaviour, instead
> of addressing them properly as the owner of their choices.
Word salad.
>
> Every time I think of it that you all basicly deny the simple fact
> that I choose, which I directly experience myself, then my reaction is
> that you all must be full of bullshit.
More word salad.
> And it is easily credible to me
> that this kind of practice of denying freedom causes the holocaust,
> and the evidence supports it in a straightforward sort of way.
If so (whatever it is you're bleeting about", it does not appear to
have anything to do with the ToE, or sience.
>
> Eugenics is flourishing in China, with massive support from the
> geneticists there.
I seem to recall you were whimpering about this a few years ago, too.
Did you ever file a protest with the Chinese government?
> That's 1/5 of the population of the earth living
> under a eugenics regime. So everything you say is basically false, as
> usual.
There you go, blaiming science for man's misuse of science, again. So,
do you blame religion for man's misuse of religion?
Boikat
shuttlt
Your main fallacy here, namely Appeal to Authority, has been pointed
out now more than once. Books could be filled with the stuff it later
turned out Aristotle got wrong. Could you possibly tell us what and
where the fallacy was that you claimed to have spotted in my rabbits
example of evolution?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
things acting freely by potential towards an end. Aristotle merely
presents a calculation scheme of cause and effect by other names,
which can be established by the fact that it can't turn out an
alternative way of itself.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You don't just reject religion, you reject freedom altogether. If you
> just think in terms of neccessity you become more manipulative,
> addressing people in terms of the causes of their behaviour, instead
> of addressing them properly as the owner of their choices.
and then you punch me in the face, or run away crying. My action has a
causal relationship to your action. Or would it just be a coincidence?
At the same time, we are, as you say, the owner of our choices. Why
must we dogmatically choose one other the other position?
> Every time I think of it that you all basicly deny the simple fact
> that I choose, which I directly experience myself, then my reaction is
> that you all must be full of bullshit.
Please explain this in more detail. Presumably you don't mean that you
see a pattern where you intend to do something and then you see it
happen. That is after all perfectly compatible with there being no
uncaused choosing. Please spell out this 'direct experience'.
> And it is easily credible to me
> that this kind of practice of denying freedom causes the holocaust,
> and the evidence supports it in a straightforward sort of way.
Freedom in the sense of individuals being the uncaused cause of
events, or freedom in the sense of not getting locked up without trial
and gassed? They seem different to me.
> Eugenics is flourishing in China, with massive support from the
> geneticists there. That's 1/5 of the population of the earth living
> under a eugenics regime. So everything you say is basically false, as
> usual.
Is anybody here saying that nobody advocates or practices eugenics, or
that China is a blissfully free utopia? Who are you arguing with? The
USSR was keen on all sorts of pseudoscience too, with disastrous
results for their agriculture. To a large part this can be put down to
letting ideological truths dictate science.
shuttlt
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom is real, tend to discount natural selection.
The logical error was that you fundamentally considered reproduction
as causing death instead of causing life. You have since rather
corrected the error, but not very much, because you still implicitly
refer to reproduction as causing death by talking about survival. Why
don't you just incorporate the obvious fact that all organisms die,
which is certainly true. The reason you don't incorporate this fact
goes to directly address the issue of a false formulation of choosing
as calculating an optimum that Darwinists commonly use.
For example a population that happens to be uniform may go extinct if
the environmental conditions change. Reasonably the organisms can then
be said to be less fit, or unfit, in relation to their environment.
However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
differing organisms in a population. So the Darwinian concept of
fitness simply does not apply to a population that is uniform.
The logic of reproduction is that the organisms are the same, and that
therefore in principle they have an equal chance of reproduction. When
the limit of resources is reached, then logically, it becomes a matter
of choice which organisms gets to reproduce, because force logically
dictates that one or the other reproduces, but there is no logical
progression of force which of the organisms get's to reproduce. So
generally by choice from alternative organisms the next generation is
produced, based on the organisms being the same. That is how nature
actually functions.
And I leave for you to figure out the rest when you introduce
differences in a population based on the more fundamental logic of
reproduction.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
even in theory, which way a decision turns out prior to it being
made.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
dogmatically rejects cause and effect, they use it on a practical
basis in their science also. Creationists also use explanations in
terms of freedom, which is the superior way of explaining over cause
and effect. With explaining in terms of freedom you can fully exhaust
the information found in nature, or so to say, in principle make a
full copy of a phenomenon.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was appealing to the fact that people who tend to acknowledge
> freedom is real, tend to discount natural selection.
It's hard to stell, since you ae apparently use a non-standard,
context shifting, definition of "freedom".
>
> The logical error was that you fundamentally considered reproduction
> as causing death instead of causing life.
If something is alive, it will eventually die.
> You have since rather
> corrected the error, but not very much, because you still implicitly
> refer to reproduction as causing death by talking about survival. Why
> don't you just incorporate the obvious fact that all organisms die,
The important point, is that soem do live ot rerocuce before they die,
while other die before they reproduce.
> which is certainly true. The reason you don't incorporate this fact
> goes to directly address the issue of a false formulation of choosing
> as calculating an optimum that Darwinists commonly use.
My, that was meaningless.
>
> For example a population that happens to be uniform may go extinct if
> the environmental conditions change. Reasonably the organisms can then
> be said to be less fit, or unfit, in relation to their environment.
> However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
> relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
> differing organisms in a population. So the Darwinian concept of
> fitness simply does not apply to a population that is uniform.
That's because it would be very rare for a purely uniform population
to exist (no variations). It's called *reality*, and you should try it
some time.
>
> The logic of reproduction is that the organisms are the same, and that
> therefore in principle they have an equal chance of reproduction.
However, that is not what happens in the real world.
> When
> the limit of resources is reached, then logically, it becomes a matter
> of choice which organisms gets to reproduce, because force logically
> dictates that one or the other reproduces, but there is no logical
> progression of force which of the organisms get's to reproduce.
That verges on gibberish, But in that examply, using your conditions,
successful reproduction might as well be considered random luck. In
reality, there is usually some variation within the population
involved, which may, or may not aid in reproductive success.
> So
> generally by choice from alternative organisms the next generation is
> produced, based on the organisms being the same. That is how nature
> actually functions.
No, since in nature, there is variation within the population.
>
> And I leave for you to figure out the rest when you introduce
> differences in a population based on the more fundamental logic of
> reproduction.
Do tell.
Boikat
Boikat
It was the geocentrism thing, wasn't it. My, how soon ancient
philosophers fall out of favor....
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You dogmatically reject choosing. There isn't a single creationist who
> dogmatically rejects cause and effect, they use it on a practical
> basis in their science also.
"Creation science" is pseudo science.
> Creationists also use explanations in
> terms of freedom, which is the superior way of explaining over cause
> and effect.
Yes, but that "cause" is "Goddidit", and since they do not feel
compelled to provide evidence to support "Goddidit", they arenot
conducting science.
> With explaining in terms of freedom you can fully exhaust
> the information found in nature, or so to say, in principle make a
> full copy of a phenomenon.
Only if you use "freedom" in some non-standard and context free
manner.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
increase or decrease due to environmental changes, that have nothing
to do with differences within the population.
I never produce such stupid bullshit garbage, while you all produce it
on a constant basis.
Burkhard
The majority of creationists (or more generally religious folks in the
judeo-christian-islamic tradition) through the centuries had much
greater problems with the concept of freedom than atheists. After
all.. they have to accommodate the notion of an all-knowing being with
the concept of freedom, which then gets them inevitably into all
sorts of conceptual sophistry. Atheist compatibilist theories are
much more straightforward and less contrived, after all they only have
to deal with our in practical terms considerable ability to predict
things, which nonetheless remains in principle limited and
falsifiable, and carries much less ontological commitment
Burkhard
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was appealing to the fact that people who tend to acknowledge
> freedom is real, tend to discount natural selection.
>
> The logical error was that you fundamentally considered reproduction
> as causing death instead of causing life. You have since rather
> corrected the error, but not very much, because you still implicitly
> refer to reproduction as causing death by talking about survival. Why
> don't you just incorporate the obvious fact that all organisms die,
> which is certainly true. The reason you don't incorporate this fact
> goes to directly address the issue of a false formulation of choosing
> as calculating an optimum that Darwinists commonly use.
>
> For example a population that happens to be uniform may go extinct if
> the environmental conditions change. Reasonably the organisms can then
> be said to be less fit, or unfit, in relation to their environment.
> However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
> relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
> differing organisms in a population. So the Darwinian concept of
> fitness simply does not apply to a population that is uniform.
And what sort of population would that be? Why do you think e.g. DNA
identification is the main forensic tool for identification purposes?
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was appealing to the fact that people who tend to acknowledge
> freedom is real, tend to discount natural selection.
>
lovers of freedom
>
> For example a population that happens to be uniform may go extinct if
> the environmental conditions change. Reasonably the organisms can then
> be said to be less fit, or unfit, in relation to their environment.
> However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
> relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
> differing organisms in a population. So the Darwinian concept of
> fitness simply does not apply to a population that is uniform.
so nando thinks he's identical to his parents. interesting.
>
> The logic of reproduction is that the organisms are the same
i'm a man. my mother is a woman. nando seems to have forgotten that
most children are of a different sex than one of their parents.
oh well, creationists just aren't that bright
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was appealing to the fact that people who tend to acknowledge
> freedom is real, tend to discount natural selection.
evidence to support this, or is this just your personal impression?
> The logical error was that you fundamentally considered reproduction
> as causing death instead of causing life.
I consciously avoided the word 'cause'. It's loaded and open to
interpretation. My example was phrased in terms of 'if this, then
that'.
> You have since rather corrected the error, but not very much, because
> you still implicitly refer to reproduction as causing death by talking
> about survival.
The first instance of survive was part of the phrase "survive to
breed". Are you talking about the second instance then in 4.6? How
about if we replace that with "survive to breed also"?
> Why don't you just incorporate the obvious fact that all
> organisms die, which is certainly true.
It is so obviously true that I hadn't thought it necessary to spell it
out? Did you think that my argument depended on the rabbits who didn't
starve being immortal?
> The reason you don't incorporate this fact goes to directly address
> the issue of a false formulation of choosing as calculating an optimum
> that Darwinists commonly use.
The reason I didn't address it was because I foolishly thought it went
without saying. My mistake.
> For example a population that happens to be uniform may go extinct if
> the environmental conditions change.
Theoretically, yes. In the unlikely event that a uniform population
exists it may go extinct for the reasons you suggest. A non-uniform
population may go extinct for the same reason.mm
> Reasonably the organisms can then be said to be less fit, or unfit, in relation to their > environment.
Less fit than what? Less fit with respect to their environment than
they were? Sure, that makes sense.
> However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
> relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
> differing organisms in a population.
Do they? If so, I am unaware of this. It strikes me that if this is
the case then it is minor quibbling over technical definitions. I
doubt very much that anybody is going to argue with that in a general
sense that population is indeed less fit with respect to their
environment.
> So the Darwinian concept of fitness simply does not apply to a
> population that is uniform.
I fail to see that this is the case. A non-uniform population can
become extinct in exactly the same way that you describe a uniform one
going extinct. Your argument does not work regardless of the technical
definition of 'fitness'.
> The logic of reproduction is that the organisms are the same, and that
> therefore in principle they have an equal chance of reproduction.
The logic of reproduction is therefore wrong in almost every case.
Certainly in the case of the rabbits, or people.
> When the limit of resources is reached, then logically, it becomes a matter
> of choice which organisms gets to reproduce, because force logically
> dictates that one or the other reproduces, but there is no logical
> progression of force which of the organisms get's to reproduce.
Ignoring other objections for the moment, this can only true if all
the organisms are the same, which they aren't.
> So generally by choice from alternative organisms the next generation is
> produced, based on the organisms being the same.
But they aren't the same, so that's not how they're produced.
> That is how nature actually functions.
No it isn't because members of a population differ.
> And I leave for you to figure out the rest when you introduce
> differences in a population based on the more fundamental logic of
> reproduction.
But everything you've said so far assumes that all members of a
population are the same, which they aren't.
shuttlt
> However Darwinists do not use this concept of fitness, they use a
> relative concept that only applies to relative frequencies of
> differing organisms in a population.
I realize I can't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean
by organisms? If you mean an individual, then the frequency is 1. If
you mean different species, then I don't think they are normally
described as being part of the same population. You don't surely mean
that we count the number of ants and the number of whales and work out
their relative frequency to see which is the most 'fit'?
What do you mean?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why are you stupid?
I don't know. Why are you stupid?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
understandable. It's certainly difficult to be spontaneous, to keep
enthusiasm going, so always there is the seduction to make a
calculation of it instead.
But you are dogmatically opposed to acknowledging freedom is real, you
fight it tooth and nail. That is a whole different attitude. The
compatibilist approach is based on defining freedom to mean like
calculating an optimum, it is not compatible with things being able to
turn out one way or another. The optimum takes the place of the
spiritual, so then you have objectified good and evil. That is just
wrong.
When somebody defines beauty in terms of a calculation, then the word
loses it's spiritual meaning. I think this is what happening in
society now. First the people spontaneously think of something
beautiful, some fashion or whatever. So then this fashion is still
regarded subjectively, by decision. Then the people in the media
exploit this notion of beauty by objectifying it.They make money of
objectifying beauty, because they don't have to do the work of keeping
the enthusiasm going. But now the people are also wise to how the
media exploits them, so now instead of people producing beauty, they
just produce more extreme things. That is because beauty has become a
calculation, so then you just need higher numbers of what beauty
happens to be objectively defined as. So you see it isn't only nazism
and eugenics what the Darwinist denial of freedom leads to, it leads
to many other bad things as well. So the rule is that you may only say
something is beautiful if that information comes from the result of a
decision of yourself there and then. And you can stretch that rule
somewhat, but you are breaking this rule, ruining it, thereby ruining
beauty in society.
shuttlt
Was that last post an admission that the population is not uniform? If
it was, the we would all be equally beautiful, surely?
Burkhard
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sure a creationist might be confused about freedom, that is
> understandable. It's certainly difficult to be spontaneous, to keep
> enthusiasm going, so always there is the seduction to make a
> calculation of it instead.
That was not quite my point. The problem creationists have with
freedom is not just a problem of "slack", it is systemic.
Once you believe in an all knowing being, you have _somehow_ to
explain how freedom is possible. And tht is of corse what christian
theologians and philosophers have tried to do for centuries. At their
best, these theories are still much less convincing than even Dennet's
version of compatibilism (which I don't share, as I said before)
simply because atheists don;t have to deal with such an all knowing
entity.
>
> But you are dogmatically opposed to acknowledging freedom is real, you
> fight it tooth and nail. That is a whole different attitude. The
> compatibilist approach is based on defining freedom to mean like
> calculating an optimum, it is not compatible with things being able to
> turn out one way or another.
As so often, you start with an unsuported dichotoly that then leads to
massive and unsuported claims just to make reality fit your worldview.
the position has little or nothing to do with compatibilist theories.
> The optimum takes the place of the
> spiritual, so then you have objectified good and evil. That is just
> wrong.
>
> When somebody defines beauty in terms of a calculation, then the word
> loses it's spiritual meaning. I think this is what happening in
> society now. First the people spontaneously think of something
> beautiful, some fashion or whatever. So then this fashion is still
> regarded subjectively, by decision. Then the people in the media
> exploit this notion of beauty by objectifying it.They make money of
> objectifying beauty, because they don't have to do the work of keeping
> the enthusiasm going. But now the people are also wise to how the
> media exploits them, so now instead of people producing beauty, they
> just produce more extreme things. That is because beauty has become a
> calculation, so then you just need higher numbers of what beauty
> happens to be objectively defined as.
I don't understand at all what you mean with that. There is a problem
of the perception of beauty, which is structurally similar to that of
freedom, but it has nothing to do with either the media or
evolutionary biology. It is indeed much older. People realised very
early that our aesthetic reactions are to a certain extend
predictable. That ideas is as old as "arts and crafts" (and I don't
mean the 20th century movement) Aesthetic theories tried to account
for this as far back as Plato (read his ideas on music, e.g). So you
then need to account for the idea tha something can on the one hand be
entirely subjective, persona an spontaneous, and yet from an outsider
perspective predictable. Which inevitably needs to either reductionism
or compatibilism.
shuttlt
Nando gets out of the omniscient God/freedom dilemma by denying that
God is omniscient.
shuttlt
4.1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
4.2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a
finite rate.
4.3) If more than two of the children breed, the population will
increase.
4.4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
4.5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin
to starve.
4.6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to be the ones who
eventually go on to breed.
4.7) Any genetic traits that cause a rabbit to need less food, or be
better at getting food will be more common in the population of
rabbits after the food shortage than before. Traits that cause a
rabbit to require more food or be less good at finding food will be
less common.
Nando, where does it go wrong?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
spontaneity from calculation objectively, both in theories and in
reality. So you have no argument. You are still just denying my direct
experience that I choose, so its bullshit. Do you agree or not that in
principle words such as beautiful should be used spontaneously, by
choice. Yes then beauty is beyond science, no then we have a science
of objective beauty, and objective good and evil.
Burkhard schreef:
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sure a creationist might be confused about freedom, that is
> understandable.
you mean other than the fact they've never supported freedom?? your
fellow creationists here support terrorism and the murder of
homosexuals
So you see it isn't only nazism
> and eugenics what the Darwinist denial of freedom leads to, it leads
> to many other bad things as well.
funny, then, that christians were murdering jews for a thousand years
before darwin came along
and the greatest threat to world peace today is from islam
shuttlt
4.1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
4.2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a
finite rate.
4.3) If more than two of the children breed, the population will
increase.
4.4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
4.5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin
to starve.
4.6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to be the ones who
eventually go on to breed.
4.7) Any genetic features that are associated with the rabbits needing
less food, or being better at getting food will be more common in the
population of rabbits after the food shortage than before. Traits that
cause a rabbit to require more food or be less good at finding food
will be less common.
By "associated" I just mean that there is a statistical association
between the genetic feature and the food requirements, or whatever, of
the rabbits.
Ernest Major
<308ca7ef-50b7-43c4...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>> Sure a creationist might be confused about freedom, that is
>> understandable. It's certainly difficult to be spontaneous, to keep
>> enthusiasm going, so always there is the seduction to make a
>> calculation of it instead.
>
>That was not quite my point. The problem creationists have with freedom
>is not just a problem of "slack", it is systemic. Once you believe in
>an all knowing being, you have _somehow_ to explain how freedom is
>possible. And tht is of corse what christian theologians and
>philosophers have tried to do for centuries. At their best, these
>theories are still much less convincing than even Dennet's version of
>compatibilism (which I don't share, as I said before) simply because
>atheists don;t have to deal with such an all knowing entity.
I've told him several times that if he is worried about free will that
he ought to be addressing his complaints to priests, philosophers and
physicists, and not to evolutionary biologists.
I note also that he seems to be a contradiction in his position. He
seems to be equating freedom with spontaneity, or just going with the
flow, rather than making decisions ("calculation"), or indeed exercising
free will. And yet he accuses others of denying the existence of
decisions.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
Good for him - but it still makes his claim that "creationists" in
this group have no problems with freedom a non starter ;o)
shuttlt
> I note also that he seems to be a contradiction in his position. He
> seems to be equating freedom with spontaneity, or just going with the
> flow, rather than making decisions ("calculation"), or indeed exercising
> free will. And yet he accuses others of denying the existence of
> decisions.
physical cause... something in other words whose cause is spiritual.
It need not be associated with a mind, hence rocks and photons may
make choices and decisions. His definition of freedom likewise reduces
down to this claim that the final cause of things is spiritual and non-
deterministic and hence things "can turn out one way or another".
shuttlt
don't believe in an omniscient God.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is stupid bullshit garbage. It is not rare that populations
> increase or decrease due to environmental changes,
I never said an increase or decrease of a population due to
environmental conditions, was a rare event. I said that a population
without variation within the species is rare.
> that have nothing
> to do with differences within the population.
But in your example, there was no variation within the population.
Now, suddenly, you are red-faced, and apparently honked off, claiming
there is, as if I denied that simple fact, Please make up your mind.
>
> I never produce such stupid bullshit garbage, while you all produce it
> on a constant basis.
Sorry, but you are apparently imagining things.
Boikat
>
> On Oct 24, 3:49 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's because it would be very rare for a purely uniform population
> > to exist (no variations). It's called *reality*, and you should try it
> > some time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You don't just reject religion, you reject freedom altogether. If you
> just think in terms of neccessity you become more manipulative,
> addressing people in terms of the causes of their behaviour, instead
> of addressing them properly as the owner of their choices.
I don't understand what you mean. What do you mean by 'term of
necessity?'. In what way am I denying that people own their
choices?
> Every time I think of it that you all basicly deny the simple fact
> that I choose, which I directly experience myself, then my reaction is
> that you all must be full of bullshit. And it is easily credible to me
> that this kind of practice of denying freedom causes the holocaust,
> and the evidence supports it in a straightforward sort of way.
You need to be able to explain what you mean here as I am not denying
freedom, freedom is real. BUT you have to be aware of the true nature
of freedom and how it's limited. If you think choices happen without
constraints and influences you are would be deluded.
I certainly see no link and consider it bad taste to say that because
I don't agree with your vague but unrealistic version of freedom that
I am in anyway out to limit the freedoms of others.
> Eugenics is flourishing in China, with massive support from the
> geneticists there. That's 1/5 of the population of the earth living
> under a eugenics regime. So everything you say is basically false, as
> usual.
What has this last paragraph got to do with anything I've said? The
answer is nothing. Therefore the 'so' bit has no relevance. Please go
back and read what I wrote again as you do not understand what I wrote
at the moment.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What you say is obviously false. We can distinguish choosing /
> spontaneity from calculation objectively, both in theories and in
> reality.
That is where you are deeply wrong. You've created two fake concepts.
One of 'spiritual' choice that works through what I can only describe
as magic and the other concept is unthinking calculation that follows
a predetermined path.
Neither of these are how we make decisions and choices. We know that
through our understanding of how the mind works. It does not work like
a computer, nor does it work through channeling some other realm to
make it's decisions.
We think through a massive number of interconnected neurons but we are
not just a bunch of connections as the human brain uses the power of
emergence - that is when the end result is more than the sum of the
parts. But without the parts then you get no emergence.
You've fallen into the trap of thinking because others say the brain
is a machine that means we must be like proprogrammed robots and you
simply don't feel like that, so you reject the idea. Just as well as
that idea is not what we are.
ir you understood the way the brain works a bit better you would not
feel that the physical reality of it is in anyway limiting and would
not feel the need to have some magical spiritual input into it.
In my view you don't understand freedom and are denying the knowledge
that others have about it because you don't understand it. In return
you offer no answers when questioned and accuse others of bullshit.
Don't you find it strange that many totally independent people all
have much the same views on freedom? Could it be that it's common
knowledge?
shuttlt
> We think through a massive number of interconnected neurons but we are
> not just a bunch of connections as the human brain uses the power of
> emergence - that is when the end result is more than the sum of the
> parts. But without the parts then you get no emergence.
rather than decision making?
> You've fallen into the trap of thinking because others say the brain
> is a machine that means we must be like proprogrammed robots and you
> simply don't feel like that, so you reject the idea. Just as well as
> that idea is not what we are.
Of course we don't know what a robot that was as complex as us would
feel (if anything). In any case, contrary to what Nando thinks there
is no externally observable behavior the he, you, me, or a bunch of
rabbits exhibit that couldn't result from us being preprogrammed
robots.
stew dean
> On Oct 25, 1:31 am, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:> We think through a massive number of interconnected neurons but we are
> > not just a bunch of connections as the human brain uses the power of
> > emergence - that is when the end result is more than the sum of the
> > parts. But without the parts then you get no emergence.
>
> Isn't emergence a hypothesis to explain a consciousness (as in qualia)
> rather than decision making?
Emergence does explain consciousness but it also results in lower
level though as well, even recognising a face is emergent to some
degree.
> > You've fallen into the trap of thinking because others say the brain
> > is a machine that means we must be like proprogrammed robots and you
> > simply don't feel like that, so you reject the idea. Just as well as
> > that idea is not what we are.
>
> Of course we don't know what a robot that was as complex as us would
> feel (if anything). In any case, contrary to what Nando thinks there
> is no externally observable behavior the he, you, me, or a bunch of
> rabbits exhibit that couldn't result from us being preprogrammed
> robots.
This is true but it may confuse Nando as he'll think preprogrammed is
akin to computer programming. Preprogramming in your terms would be
effectively setting up a brain to either be able to think like a human
or, in a limited way, act like the 'chinese room' where the
intelligence lies outside of the system but all predicted responses
are programmed into the system. The chinese room acts like a proxy for
intelligence but is the product of intelligence and consciousness, it
also is limited in that it can only handle predicted situations -
great for chess computers - not so good if you want real intelligence.
shuttlt
> Emergence does explain consciousness but it also results in lower
> level though as well, even recognising a face is emergent to some
> degree.
would we describe face recognition as an emergent property of a
computerized face recognition system?
> This is true but it may confuse Nando as he'll think preprogrammed is
> akin to computer programming. Preprogramming in your terms would be
> effectively setting up a brain to either be able to think like a human
> or, in a limited way, act like the 'chinese room' where the
> intelligence lies outside of the system but all predicted responses
> are programmed into the system.
I don't think I explained myself very well. I just meant to observe
that there is no external way to tell the difference between a model
of consciousness where we are just hardware running software from his
spiritual model. By preprogrammed, I didn't mean to imply a
programmer, though of course it's possible.
Maybe Nando will clarify if he believes he can do his quantum card
trick, in which case his spiritual model does offer something
additional
> The chinese room acts like a proxy for
> intelligence but is the product of intelligence and consciousness, it
> also is limited in that it can only handle predicted situations -
> great for chess computers - not so good if you want real intelligence.
The Chinese room is somewhat limited, unless the occupant of the room
is given a pencil and an eraser and instructions regarding their use.
In that case I deny that it could only handle predicted situations.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
hide in complexity. Your ideas don't work with 1 neuron, 2, 3, a
thousand, or a billion. They just don't work at all. The input
neccessary for free will, is that it must be able to create
information from nothing. That is the magic, it can turn out one way
or another, and the information which way it goes is created on the
spot. And furthermore, everything is create in like manner, every
specie, and every rock, from nothing.
> > of objective beauty, and objective good and evil.- Hide quoted text -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
have to show something right, and show something wrong in what you
say. You are also incorrect that creationists don't understand
freedom, because regardless of whether your argument is true or not
about omniscience, that still leaves God as perfectly free, so it
would still be based on freedom, namely God's freedom, that people's
freedom would be disregarded does not mean that freedom is
disregarded.
Again, a few years ago John Cleese of monty python was on tv with
Elizabeth Hurley in a science show, talking about how beauty had some
objective parts, and some subjective parts. So then the objective part
was explained, facial features etc. the ideal structure etc. But the
subjective part was not explained. And by not explaining the
subjective part then the tendency is like science partly explains
beauty now, and in the future we will explain it whole.
So it is just a fact that Darwinists do this, they objectify beauty.
It is the core business of Darwinists to deny origins as a matter of
choosing, to defend the theory of natural selection, and the denial of
choosing in terms of origins directly leads to the objectification of
beauty.
So again I ask you, ought in principle the word beauty to be used
spontaneously by choice or not?
On Oct 24, 11:48 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Burkhard
Really, why?
> I don't have to explain everything,
but maybe somthing?
> I only
> have to show something right, and show something wrong in what you
> say.
which so far you really haven't
>You are also incorrect that creationists don't understand
> freedom, because regardless of whether your argument is true or not
> about omniscience, that still leaves God as perfectly free,
Possibly, really depends which specific version of creationism you
mean. There are/have been of course numerous creationist theories that
were much less demanding of their deities than the judeo-Christian
version. Bumba for instance did not create in an exercise of freedom,
quite on the contrary.
And even within the tradition most represented here, god is frequently
constrained to some extend, e.g. by the laws of logic, or possibly
even by his own nature - to avoid the problem that a totally free god
means moral relativism. Be this as it may, even if god is totally
free but the only such entity, your idea about freedom even for rocks
would be untenable
>so it
> would still be based on freedom, namely God's freedom, that people's
> freedom would be disregarded does not mean that freedom is
> disregarded.
>
Unsure what this means.
> Again, a few years ago John Cleese of monty python
While i love him to bits, he is not necessarily the first authority I
would go for for theories of science and/or aethetics.
> was on tv with
> Elizabeth Hurley in a science show, talking about how beauty had some
> objective parts, and some subjective parts. So then the objective part
> was explained, facial features etc. the ideal structure etc. But the
> subjective part was not explained.
And quite logically so, no? It is in the nature of the term
"explanation" that it is in the form of general, law like statements
(cf Hempel-Oppenheimer scheme) So as soon as they would even try to
explain this aspect, the subjectivity and individuality of it woud be
taken away.
>And by not explaining the
> subjective part then the tendency is like science partly explains
> beauty now, and in the future we will explain it whole.
>
> So it is just a fact that Darwinists do this,
A fact? So far at least something you haven't established (I don;t
think Cleese has published in biology)
I'm actually not aware of that may evolutionist theories of
aesthetics, at best they are a side issue in biology. It is sometimes
used for motivational explanations, but not as far as I know in any
systematic way, or with the claim to have a fully fledged theory of
aesthetics.
>they objectify beauty.
> It is the core business of Darwinists to deny origins as a matter of
> choosing, to defend the theory of natural selection, and the denial of
> choosing in terms of origins directly leads to the objectification of
> beauty.
Not as far as I can see, and you certainly haven't given any evidence
or argumentative support for it.
>
> So again I ask you,
Again? You haven't asked me that before I'm sure
> ought in principle the word beauty to be used
> spontaneously by choice or not?
>
I do not even understand that sentence. My best approximation of an
answer would be: it depends. I can sometimes purely intellectually
understand why people do/have considered something as beautiful even
if the object in question leaves me personally stone cold. In this
case, it seems neither spontaneous nor by choice. Similarly, people
have for a long time described from an outsider perspective how a
specific time or culture perceived beauty - as any art historian would
tell you, and of course long before Darwin. Finally, the better you
know a person, the better you get to predict what they are likely to
find beautiful - as far as I can tell from reaction to Christmas
presents, I've become reasonably good at it. In this usage too, it si
neither choice nor spontaneous but rational.
However, this leaves open the question if any of this would fully
describe the qualia that I experience when exposed to what I
subjectively experience as beauty. Only if you subscribe to "greedy
reductionism" the answer is yes, and my own one most certainly is no.
So I'd say that there is something irreducibly non-physicalist and
spontaneous in that experience. Having said that, I would most
certainly not describe it as "chosing" or "freedom", quite on the
contrary. Experience of beauty in my experience is exactly when your
mind and soul is captured and overwhelmed by an outside force that you
might even on an intellectual level resent - that is why say Yeats
could write about a "terrible beauty" that was born. None of this baby-
theorizing in aesthetics of mine is of course in any way connected to
the theory of evolution or my opinion that it provides the best
available theory for species diversity.
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That is besides the point. I don't have to explain everything, I only
> have to show something right, and show something wrong in what you
> say. You are also incorrect that creationists don't understand
> freedom, because regardless of whether your argument is true or not
> about omniscience, that still leaves God as perfectly free, so it
> would still be based on freedom, namely God's freedom, that people's
> freedom would be disregarded does not mean that freedom is
> disregarded.
>
> Again, a few years ago John Cleese of monty python was on tv with
> Elizabeth Hurley in a science show, talking about how beauty had some
> objective parts, and some subjective parts. So then the objective part
> was explained, facial features etc. the ideal structure etc. But the
> subjective part was not explained. And by not explaining the
> subjective part then the tendency is like science partly explains
> beauty now, and in the future we will explain it whole.
so john cleese is an evolutionary biologist?
i guess if you're an islamist fanatic who believes christianity must
be destroyed, this makes sense
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are just a fraud, you talk about a massive number of neurons to
> hide in complexity. Your ideas don't work with 1 neuron, 2, 3, a
> thousand, or a billion. They just don't work at all. The input
> neccessary for free will, is that it must be able to create
> information from nothing.
information theory definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#Quantities_of_information
shuttlt
shuttlt
I mean, is this information:
0101010001101000011001010111001001100101001000000110100101110011001000000110111001101111001000000110011101101111011001000010000001100101011110000110001101100101011100000111010000100000011001100110111101110010001000000100000101101100011011000110000101101000001000000110000101101100011011110110111001100101
How about this:
malkjdljajdkskd
Or this:
1+1=2
Which contains the most information?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Not by itself.
>How about this:
>malkjdljajdkskd
Not by itself.
>Or this:
>1+1=2
One could argue that this is, though it still relies on external
understanding of the symbols.
shuttlt
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT), shuttlt <shut...@live.co.uk>
> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >On Oct 25, 4:13 pm, shuttlt <shut...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Oct 25, 12:08 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > You are just a fraud, you talk about a massive number of neurons to
> >> > hide in complexity. Your ideas don't work with 1 neuron, 2, 3, a
> >> > thousand, or a billion. They just don't work at all. The input
> >> > neccessary for free will, is that it must be able to create
> >> > information from nothing.
>
> >> Could you define information here? You clearly don't mean the
> >> information theory definition:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#Quantities_of_informa...
>
> >I mean, is this information:
>
> >0101010001101000011001010111001001100101001000000110100101110011001000000110111001101111001000000110011101101111011001000010000001100101011110000110001101100101011100000111010000100000011001100110111101110010001000000100000101101100011011000110000101101000001000000110000101101100011011110110111001100101
>
> Not by itself.
is information, but not in the sense of information theory. I want to
know the definition of information he is using.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
knowledge about freedom. And regardless of understanding how, it is a
demonstrated fact that Darwinists do generally deny freedom. The
Darwinists have already destroyed everything in terms of freedom
outside of people. And now, once again, they are coming after beliefs
like your own that there is something irreducibly non-physical. And
your belief will likewise be destroyed, just lik the belief of many in
God creating was destroyed, and that is payback for when you destroyed
the beliefs of others. So you will just end up with a collection of
sarcasms, and ironies, that really it is all psychological mechanism,
genetic mechanism and whatever, and that what people say is true is
not true, but just a consequence of that. They will simply insist on
you to objectify your non-physical thingy, and you will insist on it
yourself why not, because you insisted on it for others.
> > > this group have no problems with freedom a non starter ;o)- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
He's free to disagree with me, but my experience with him is that he
will not explain anything at all.
Burkhard
> I already explained many times how natural selection theory surpresses
> knowledge about freedom.
No, you _claimed_ it several times, which is not quite the same thing
And regardless of understanding how, it is a
> demonstrated fact that Darwinists do generally deny freedom.
And the response always was that a) denying _you_ notion of freedom is
by far not the same as denying freedom and b) one philosopher who is
influenced by Darwin and writes about _philosophical_ topics is not the
same as "Darwinists", a meaningless term anyway, or evolutionary biologists
The
> Darwinists have already destroyed everything in terms of freedom
> outside of people. And now, once again, they are coming after beliefs
> like your own that there is something irreducibly non-physical. And
> your belief will likewise be destroyed, just lik the belief of many in
> God creating was destroyed, and that is payback for when you destroyed
> the beliefs of others. So you will just end up with a collection of
> sarcasms, and ironies, that really it is all psychological mechanism,
> genetic mechanism and whatever, and that what people say is true is
> not true, but just a consequence of that. They will simply insist on
> you to objectify your non-physical thingy, and you will insist on it
> yourself why not, because you insisted on it for others.
>
The majority of people I interacted with on TO were far from that,
really with only one notable exception. Some of the others agree with
me, others disagree, but it is always clear that the disagreement is
outside the scope of evolutionary biology (on which we do agree)
shuttlt
Darwinist?
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are just a fraud, you talk about a massive number of neurons to
> hide in complexity. Your ideas don't work with 1 neuron, 2, 3, a
> thousand, or a billion. They just don't work at all.
How about you start trying to be a nice human being and attempt to
understand what I wrote? At least make some effort.
I don't like being called a fraud when I'm being open and honst. I
don't think you are a fraud but simple do not understand things in the
same way as I or others do.
> The input
> neccessary for free will, is that it must be able to create
> information from nothing.
Information is not created from nothing.
> That is the magic, it can turn out one way
> or another, and the information which way it goes is created on the
> spot. And furthermore, everything is create in like manner, every
> specie, and every rock, from nothing.
Information is not created from nothing. The closet you would get
would be information from static - that is information in one sense of
the word as chaotic patterns contain more information in broadcast
sense, but the opposite in other senses.
Data is created from how the universe works - the location of a comet
is data. Only when that data is put into context do we start getting
informaiton - for example it's locaiton needs to be put into context
fo us to understand where it is - for example how far away from Earth
it is. This is data being turned to information.
Information, in many respects, follows the same rules as energy and
other elements of science. There is also information theory which has
many uses and explains how to effectively broadcast information.
I'm not sure where to start to try and explain it to you but
information realy never comes from nothing - it is always a
combination of or caused by something else.
michiel...@gmail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
......
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
If this is a truthful translation of Aristotle, it is an interesting
historical piece of reading. It is always good to know the history of
ideas. Of course, we have advanced a long way since and we know things
which Aristotle couldn't have. So I don't suppose that Mohammad,
despite his name, wants us to take for truth a writing of 2000 years
ago....
Regards, Michiel
nando_r...@yahoo.com
is, and if I only knew how. You have nothing, and I have consistent
logic, and observation.
As before, no matter what you say, no logic of choosing that is based
on going an alternative way, can function without the reference to
nothing as where the new information comes from which alternative is
realized. So that means it isn't even possible to formulate a theory
consistently without it.
You say emergence is when the end result is more than the sum of the
parts. So where is the difference coming from then? From nothing.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You always refer to the massive number of neurons, and how complex it
> is, and if I only knew how. You have nothing, and I have consistent
> logic, and observation.
No. You consistantly shift context, have private definitions, wheich
also seem to be made of jello, and you do not have any valid
observations that can be tested objectively.
>
> As before, no matter what you say, no logic of choosing that is based
> on going an alternative way, can function without the reference to
> nothing as where the new information comes from which alternative is
> realized.
That's a lot of words to say nothing.
> So that means it isn't even possible to formulate a theory
> consistently without it.
Without what? Your brand of jibberish?
>
> You say emergence is when the end result is more than the sum of the
> parts. So where is the difference coming from then? From nothing.
No, it's coming from the sum of the parts.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
behaves freely, not in my definition, and not in any other. So the
evidence is, you destroy it.
On 25 okt, 18:25, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Except you have zero knowledge about how people or any organisms
> behaves freely, not in my definition,
Nobody knows what your definition is.
> and not in any other. So the
> evidence is, you destroy it.
Bull. You've never demonstrated or explained how science destroys
freedom.
Boikat
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You always refer to the massive number of neurons, and how complex it
> is, and if I only knew how. You have nothing, and I have consistent
> logic, and observation.
If you have either of those you choose not to share it. You
observations on common knowledge have been consistantly at odds with
reality.
> As before, no matter what you say, no logic of choosing that is based
> on going an alternative way, can function without the reference to
> nothing as where the new information comes from which alternative is
> realized. So that means it isn't even possible to formulate a theory
> consistently without it.
There is no logic here. Nothing is just that - nothing. It can have no
effect on anything because it does not exist. It is nothing. You
cannot reference nothing because there is nothing to reference. It's a
self defeating argument.
You already know that we choose between perceived alternatives, not
real world actual alternatives. We've gone other this many times.
> You say emergence is when the end result is more than the sum of the
> parts. So where is the difference coming from then? From nothing.
It's coming from the combination of elements being more than what
those elements would by by themselves. Here's the easiest way I can
describe how emergence works.
Take three lines. By themselves they are just three lines but if you
organise them in the right way you get a triangle. Take one line away
and you no longer have the triangle. This is an overly simplified
version of emergence. The triangle exists when the three lines are
there but three lines not organised are not a triangle. The triangle
is the three lines.
One key thing here is related to the organisation of those triangles -
that requires someone or something to put those into the right place
and that activity usualy takes energy. Therefore there is an energy
cost associated with organising the lines into a triangle.
Scale this up and you have how the brain works - it's about making
connections and we we require energy to make those connections. New
information is the combination of existing ideas and that combination
is done through the organisation of the brain.
At no point does anything come from nothing. In no form of logic do
you get something from nothing, as nothing is nothing - it is
something that does not exist and cannot affect something.
Unless you have a new definition of nothing that is, which knowing you
is fairly likely.
You are looking for the elusive magic element and I've seen you jump
from point to point, name to name to try and find it. You last and
latest effort is nothing. You have nothing left.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
problem is that you are a liar and a fraud. You simply states lies
over and over again, all kinds of dishonesty, any stupidity you can
lay your hands on if it seems to go against what I say, then you posit
it as an argument.
The logic to have something new come from nothing is by all acconts
reasonable. Then you throw your stupidity against it that because
nothing is nothing that therefore it doesn't exist. What about the
zero in mathematics, is that allowed? You do this kind of thing over
and over and over. You have ALL been making various proclamations,
like that decisions occur in brains and whatnot, but there was never
any argument of any substance. Why do you fight tooth and nail against
this particular idea about freedom, that things can turn out an
alternative way, if you would be for knowledge about freedom? So there
is just bullshit, lies, stupidity and proclamations because you hate
freedom.
And I am at liberty to speak in such terms because still my direct and
common experience of choosing is denied, and the reasonable human
reaction to that is that you all must be full of bullshit.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem is not that I haven't given you any explanation, the
> problem is that you are a liar and a fraud. You simply states lies
> over and over again, all kinds of dishonesty, any stupidity you can
> lay your hands on if it seems to go against what I say, then you posit
> it as an argument.
Nando, I am being 100% honest with you. I am expressing my views and
have no need or desire to lie to you. I am who I say I am and don't
hide behind any fake name.
I am telling you what I think is the truth. It does not mean that I am
right, I may be wrong, and I feel that you are saying what you feel,
but I cannot see why you feel I am being dishonest with you. I have no
reason to be dishonest and I don't want to be.
What reason would I have to lie to you?
> The logic to have something new come from nothing is by all acconts
> reasonable.
It is not reasonable by any accounts. You don't get something from
nothing in any logical way. You really must think about this - how can
you get something from nothing. If you do then you can throw all logic
out fo the window because, if you want 1 + 1 can equal anything you
want it to be.
>Then you throw your stupidity against it that because
> nothing is nothing that therefore it doesn't exist. What about the
> zero in mathematics, is that allowed?
Zero is nothing. Multiply anything by nothing and you end up with
nothing.
> You do this kind of thing over
> and over and over. You have ALL been making various proclamations,
> like that decisions occur in brains and whatnot, but there was never
> any argument of any substance.
What substance do you need - hard objective evidence? That's available
if you want it. You can watch decisions happening in the brain though
various scanning methods.
> Why do you fight tooth and nail against
> this particular idea about freedom, that things can turn out an
> alternative way, if you would be for knowledge about freedom?
Its BECAUSE I and others like knowledge about freedom and don't like
your made up ideas. I know you believe them but you must realise that
to anyone other than you they make very little sense. I have explained
to you what I feel freedom is and, if you have been paying attention,
you'll notice no one has disagreed with me. That's because I use a
definition that is fairly well accepted by anyone - you could say it's
almost common knowledge.
No one here owes me anything or is part of any club or organisation
that I am a member of. They are all independent people from around the
globes of different backgrounds YET there no one finds my views far
enough from their own to correct me. This may not make me right, but
it does tell me I'm not very wrong.
You, on the other hand, don't appear to agree with anyone and then
accuse everyone of being against freedom when they are just against
your ideas. You then accuse everyone of lying and bullshitting you
when people are telling you what they feel to be true.
> So there
> is just bullshit, lies, stupidity and proclamations because you hate
> freedom.
This is not true. I do not hate freedom. I love freedom. It's just I
don't think you know what freedom is.
> And I am at liberty to speak in such terms because still my direct and
> common experience of choosing is denied, and the reasonable human
> reaction to that is that you all must be full of bullshit.
Your experience - which is not common in anyway - is a very internal
view. You want to feel like you have total control over your thoughts
and are totally free from anything that may influence you. This is
called egotism. Reality is that you have limits on what you can do.
You have freedom but not total freedom.
Worse still if you are not aware of what influences you to do what you
do chances are there are many who will be manipulating you to buy
things and do things you may not have done if they had not influenced
you. Put it like this - your religion. Would you have the same
religion if you where not brought up where you are with the people you
have around you?
I think you need to start being honest with yourself as everyone else
is already being honest with you.
Stew Dean
shuttlt
I realize that you are being pulled in many directions at once on this
thread, but I wonder if you could address two outstanding points:
1. What do you mean by information? Is a record of the heads and tails
produced by a drunk tossing a coin in an Amsterdam doorway information
in the same sense that the text of the Koran is, or a Physics textbook
is, or a peom is? I guess what I'm asking is, by information, do you
mean meaningful information? or would it just be a question of how
many times the drunk tossed the coin before there was more information
in the list of heads and tails than in the Koran?
2. Could you point to any logical, or factual errors in the rabbits
example of natural selection, or do you accept it as a factual
description of what happens in nature?
2.1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
2.2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a
finite rate.
2.3) If more than two of the children breed, the population will
increase.
2.4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
2.5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin
to starve.
2.6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to be the ones who
eventually go on to breed.
2.7) Any genetic features that are associated with the rabbits needing
less food, or being better at getting food will be more common in the
population of rabbits after the food shortage than before. Traits that
are associated with a rabbit to requiring more food or being less good
at finding food
will be less common.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
against me, and seem to write in favor of mainstream science. But what
you write is just bullshit, to the point that you totally ignore the
objective evidence of things turning out one way or another, like with
the photons in the bomb experiment. You completely disregard this
logic which is demonstrated to be true to fact, in favor of some
whatever.
The reason you hate the knowledge about freedom must be because you
are some kind of atheist. You cannot stand it going one way or
another, because then it means there is nothing forcing a result. And
when nothing is forcing a result, then it becomes a matter of emotion,
rather then fact, why the particular alternative is realized, and not
any other alternative. And this emotional way is the same way all
spiritual matters are regarded, by faith, not fact. So you hate that.
And this has been said to you many times, but you continue to be a
liar and a fraud. What you assert you can find with brainscans, is the
same kind of thing anthropologists used to pretend to find with skull
measurements and so on. It's just pseudoscience, you can't attribute
emotions to electrons, you must attribute it to the spiritual in terms
of why the one alternative is chosen instead of another. Otherwise
your pseudoscienc brainscance=science of good and evil, just the way
it was with the skull measurers.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
fitness, instead of relative fitness. It is prejudicial to focus on
comparitive differences in a population in disregard of the actual
relationship of organisms to their environment. If the proportion
increases then the real number of organisms may go down. The real
numbers should have preference in a basic theory.
wf3h
>
> The reason you hate the knowledge about freedom must be because you
> are some kind of atheist.
'there was never a 'christian country' which protected the rights of
jews'...said by rabbi and historian arthur hertzberg
and today the leading persecutor of jews are muslims.
you were saying?
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I already told you that I prefer measurements in terms of absolute
> fitness, instead of relative fitness.
population as a whole. Do they increase, do they decrease. That's
fine, but it's a different question. I understand it's a question
you're more interested in. But it's not a question about evolution.
Surely all this talk of Darwin is about evolution?
> It is prejudicial to focus on comparitive differences in a population in disregard of the actual
> relationship of organisms to their environment.
It's not prejudicial if you are explicitly interested in differences
within a population and how they increase/decrease within that
population. This is what evolution is about. Are you saying that your
objection to evolution is that your aren't interested in it and would
rather talk about something else?
> If the proportion increases then the real number of organisms may go down.
This is perfectly possible.
> The real numbers should have preference in a basic theory.
That really depends on what our basic theory is a basic theory of,
doesn't it? If it's about how differences within a population
propogate, then we're really more interested in the proportion of the
population that has a particular genetic feature and what their
relative breeding success is when compared members of the population
that do not have that genetic feature than we are in the population as
a whole.
Could you please explain where my error is in the example of the
rabbits:
1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a finite
rate.
3) If more than two of the children breed, the population will
increase.
4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin to
starve.
6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to be the ones who
eventually go on to breed.
Burkhard
Hrrrumph. Almost everything that exists is made from nothing ;o):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_hierarchy
shuttlt
1) Every member 's' of a species 'S' has zero or more offspring.
2) Genetic features randomly come into the population via mutation.
3) If member of 'S' with a genetic feature 'X' and a member without
breed there is a 50:50 chance for each of their offspring that they
will have 'X' (I know this is a simplification).
4) Let 'i' be the average number of offspring of members of 'S' with
'X' (i could be zero since the rabbits might not live long enough to
breed). Let 'j' be the average number of offspring of a member of 'S'
without 'X'. If i>j then 'X' will tend to become relatively more
common in the population.
5) Unless j is less than 2 it is unlikely that 'X' will become
universal.
6) External stresses to the population, like environmental changes,
new predators etc... may change the value of j so that X becomes
universal.
7) The success of 'X' may in and of itself cause j to drop below 2.
I've tried to universalise the previous rabbit example. It seems to me
that both are examples of evolution and I would be grateful for your
reasons for disagreeing with them. The rabbit example has had more
work and is more finessed. It may be that revisions will be required
to make this new example acceptable.
shuttlt
reproductive success tend to become more common within the population,
while genetic features that are associated with lack of reproductive
success (less than two offspring that themselves go on to breed) tend
to become less common within the population.
Do you accept, or reject this?
This is the most basic description that I can think of for evolution.
I'm not claiming right now that the genetic features cause the level
of reproductive success. I'm not claiming right now that an eye, or
some other complex thing can come about in this way. Do you accept, or
reject it?
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People have no idea about what you write, other then that you write
> against me, and seem to write in favor of mainstream science.
I know that not to be true. I would not get a good google rating if
people did not in part agree with me.
>But what you write is just bullshit, to the point that you totally ignore the
> objective evidence of things turning out one way or another, like with
> the photons in the bomb experiment.
You misunderstood the bomb experiment - that's a matter of record. I
tried to explain it to you but you appeared not to understand. It's a
simple experiment that shows that the photons act as both particles
and waves. The objective evidence does not support anything you wrote.
> You completely disregard this
> logic which is demonstrated to be true to fact, in favor of some
> whatever.
You failed to grasp the logic of the bomb experiment and I'm not going
to bother explaining it to you again just for you to not understand it
again. You even thought you needed a bomb to make it work at one
point (the bomb is just a detector).
> The reason you hate the knowledge about freedom must be because you
> are some kind of atheist.
Would you please stop repeating that utter bullshit? I have explained
to you what freedom is in ways most folks on the planet more or less
agree with. You have your own personal definition of freedom no one
else shares (not even other creationists) - it's not knowledge you
have but misunderstanding.
Also I amnot some kind of atheist I am an atheist. That means I don't
believe in any kind of god. That's all it means - what else I believe
is outside of being an atheist.
> You cannot stand it going one way or
> another, because then it means there is nothing forcing a result.
If nothing 'forces' a result then it is totally random. We know there
is nothng truly random in this universe outside of some quatum events
- and even they get smoothed out at a scale that makes a difference to
us.
That is knowledge you can uncover yourself. By the way 'forcing' is a
weasel word, cause is the right term as forcing implies inttent or
determination. Neither are right in this context.
> And
> when nothing is forcing a result, then it becomes a matter of emotion,
You're doing it again, just throwing words in that are meaningless in
this context.
You are saying if something is random then it becomes a matter of
emotion? That's complete rubbish.
> rather then fact, why the particular alternative is realized, and not
> any other alternative.
Sigh - you get harder to decode as you go along. How about using the
same words in the same way as the rest of the human race. Even school
children have a better understanding of the meaning of English words
than you do.
> And this emotional way is the same way all
> spiritual matters are regarded, by faith, not fact. So you hate that.
I can't hate someting that makes no sense. Have you noticed that
everyone keeps on trying to get you to explain what you mean - you
just string a bunch of words together and refuse to add any context,
any evidence, any meaning or any logic.
> And this has been said to you many times, but you continue to be a
> liar and a fraud.
Even if I wanted to agree with you and take your point of view on life
I can't as you are incapable of explaining what you mean.
You appear to want a decision to happen but for that decision to come
from nothing, nowhere. If that was the case then you are talking about
a random decision. It would make more sense for you to say that
decisions are guided by some spiritual force, something supernatural.
That's what other religious folks do. They are of course wrong but at
least they have a logical theory.
> What you assert you can find with brainscans, is the
> same kind of thing anthropologists used to pretend to find with skull
> measurements and so on.
Nope.
> It's just pseudoscience, you can't attribute
> emotions to electrons,
You can attribute emotions to brain activity. You can even stimulate
emotions by stimulating parts of the brain. We even understand that
there are layers of emotions, with primary emotions and secondary
emotions being based in different parts of the brain.
I am not making stuff up here, before you start thinking this is
bullshit, google primary emotions and brain and see what I mean.
> you must attribute it to the spiritual in terms
> of why the one alternative is chosen instead of another.
You've never explained what you mean by spiritual nor are you likely
to. I'm also highly unlikely to follow your advice on anything to do
with how we think, make decisions and choose between alternatives as
you don't have the first idea about what decisions, choosing or
freedom is. You've made up your own pet theory based on a high level
of ignorance. Have you not noticed that anyone else who has had some
kind of education does not agree with you. Even the creationists view
you as some kind of weirdo.
> Otherwise
> your pseudoscienc brainscance=science of good and evil, just the way
> it was with the skull measurers.
'Science of good and evil' ? Seriously? So, just to get a straight
answer from you for once, do you consider the concept to good to be
absolute or relative? I know you don't like to answer questions but at
least we can start on some well trodden philosophical ground and use
the same language for once. I'm a relativist for example.
In general, if you stopped making stuff up and making false claims
that others support your view (ranging from kids to creationist) or
that your ideas where in any shape or form common knowledge then you
might be able to make some progress.
The cold reality of your situation is that YOU want to be in control
of every decision you make. YOU don't want anything telling you what
to do and YOU deny that anything can alter the decisions you make. YOU
want to believe you have complete and utter free will and that and
that only is what freedom is.
That is, to use your terms, complete and utter bullshit. You ego rules
your head like a spoilt child.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
should use the real fitness, and not the relative fitness. Because
with real fitness the choices become more apparent, and only choices
refer to real origins, because only in choices is information
created.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
actual decisions made in history by which the species came to be.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
read the rest, and nobody else has. Why would they, there is no
science paper that establishes free will, they know nothing about it,
they only want to hide, they certainly have no interest in what a
religious denier like you has to say about it.
stew dean
Oh yes you did, and probably still do. Answer this if you do. What was
the unusual finding of the experiment? It related to the top two
sensors.
> I didn't read the rest, and nobody else has.
I know at least one other person read it all. Anything else you want
to be wrong about?
> Why would they, there is no
> science paper that establishes free will,
Correct. For a very good reason. Can you guess what it is?
> they know nothing about it,
Who are they? You mean the denizens of this group or some mythical
scientific conspiracy you have in mind?
> they only want to hide, they certainly have no interest in what a
> religious denier like you has to say about it.
Seriously, who are 'they'? Makes no sense unless you explain.
Also if you ever want to know what people think then one way is to
check out the ratings on google groups. It's by no means hard
scientific evidence but it's a sign. After 1222 ratings you score -
one star - which is as low as you can go.
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have indeed succeeded in showing how boring evolution really is.
to find out whether you have any actual objection to evolution. So far
all I've been able to discover is that you don't like it, you find it
boring and you'd rather talk about something else.
Now, I hope I'm not repeating myself when I ask:
Could you please explain where my error is in the example of the
rabbits:
1) Rabbits have a high birth rate.
2) The resources available to the rabbits are replenished at a finite
rate.
3) If more than two of the children breed, the population will
increase.
4) If the population increases they will eventually exceed the
available resources.
5) If the rabbits exceed their available resources they will begin to
starve.
6) If the rabbits begin to starve those who require less food, or
those who are better at getting food will tend to be the ones who
eventually go on to breed.
7) Any genetic features that are associated with the rabbits needing
less food, or being better at getting food will be more common in the
population of rabbits after the food shortage than before. Traits that
are associated with a rabbit to requiring more food or being less good
at finding food will be less common.
Why is the nature of your disagreement with evolution a secret? I know
you have moral objections, but you won't say whether you moral
objection makes evolution false.
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As if it these relative proportions mean something more than the
> actual decisions made in history by which the species came to be.
results of all those decisions and their results, yes. What's wrong
with that?
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If your pretension is to use the theory to explain origins, then you
> should use the real fitness, and not the relative fitness. Because
> with real fitness the choices become more apparent, and only choices
> refer to real origins, because only in choices is information
> created.
left or right was information? Would the sequence ATGCTAGGC changing
to ATGCAAGGC not be a change in information?
Please define what you mean by 'information'.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
independently predicted you could make a password breaker based on the
logic of the bomb-testing experiment, and some months ago I found the
scientist responsible for the database searching experiment based on
the bomb experiment saying the same thing. So there is no
misunderstanding of these things on my part I can run with the logic.
It's the same kind of thing with Dubois. I found that paper,
referenced it, then you all say I misunderstood, but then later I find
a paper based on Dubois talking about evolution proceeding by reasoned
and informed decisions.
You are just a liar, who continuously lies, just so to completely
avoid talking about freedom in the sense of alternatives to be real,
because of your intelllectual commitments that exclude the spiritual.
What deceptive bullshit it is when describing choosing, to talk about
billions of connections in the brain, about brainscans proving what
you say is real, and then when it comes to things turning out one way
or another, no that is not part of choosing at all!
shuttlt
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nando,
I don't suppose you could:
1. Respond to the rabbit example.
2. Define "information".