Drastic policy on posts by jillery for the rest of 2021

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Jillery has crossed a Rubicon that I've never seen anyone else cross in almost
three decades of experience on the internet, in the following post:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/a4gmLz_oFQAJ
Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”

The incorrigibility that she flaunts there is something that it is essentially
impossible to counter. And so, for the rest of 2021, I will only address
any content of follow-ups that jillery makes to me after today if they contain scientific statements
having nothing to do personally with me. If such posts contain any
comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
and only the purely scientific comments left in.


This does not apply to posts which jilllery makes in reply to others, or OP's by jillery.
I will explain my policy about those tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

PS the crossing of the Rubicon was figuratively accompanied by an army of posts
spanning a decade featuring thousands of instances of dishonesty,
hypocrisy, cowardice, and trolling in the worst sense of the word. Without
this electronic equivalent of a "paper trail," I would not be taking such drastic
measures.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jillery has crossed a Rubicon that I've never seen anyone else cross in almost
> three decades of experience on the internet, in the following post:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/a4gmLz_oFQAJ
> Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”
>

Will jillery go on to become Emperor? What…too literal?

>
> The incorrigibility that she flaunts there is something that it is essentially
> impossible to counter. And so, for the rest of 2021, I will only address
> any content of follow-ups that jillery makes to me after today if they
> contain scientific statements
> having nothing to do personally with me.

Informal scientific statements or protocol statements? And isn’t merely
using your name as term of address construable as “personal”?

> If such posts contain any
> comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
> and only the purely scientific comments left in.
>

Are you also “anyone”? Are you deleting the entire post and also leaving
the “scientific” (undefined) comments in?

If jillery compliments you that is of a personal nature and must be
deleted.

>
> This does not apply to posts which jilllery makes in reply to others, or OP's by jillery.
> I will explain my policy about those tomorrow.
>

If you make comments of a personal nature about jillery or anyone else
shouldn’t you delete that stuff too (or not hit “send”) so as not to come
across as inconsistent or dare I say a hypocrite? Needless to say, but I
will, you tend to make a shitload of commentary on various posters here. It
permeates your content. Do you have a blindspot? Mote meets beam.

>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS the crossing of the Rubicon was figuratively accompanied by an army of posts
> spanning a decade featuring thousands of instances of dishonesty,
> hypocrisy, cowardice, and trolling in the worst sense of the word. Without
> this electronic equivalent of a "paper trail," I would not be taking such drastic
> measures.
>

Why didn’t you just stop replying to jillery years ago? And will you
refrain from making personal comments about jillery from here on out? If
not that seems to be quite the subjectively partial and asymmetrical policy
you’re hashing out there. Needs more work.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:06:07 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jillery has crossed a Rubicon that I've never seen anyone else cross in almost
> > three decades of experience on the internet, in the following post:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CgjITcZq-AQ/m/a4gmLz_oFQAJ
> > Re: Chez Watt(was Re: A conversation about Fine Tuning”
> >
> Will jillery go on to become Emperor? What…too literal?

Way too literal. Are you really ignorant of the expression's use in normal parlance?
Hint: Alea jacta est [The die is cast].

You crossed a different Rubicon a while back. I used the expression often enough back then.
Do I need to refresh your memory?

> > The incorrigibility that she flaunts there is something that it is essentially
> > impossible to counter. And so, for the rest of 2021, I will only address
> > any content of follow-ups that jillery makes to me after today if they
> > contain scientific statements
> > having nothing to do personally with me.

> Informal scientific statements or protocol statements?

Strictly scientific and on-topic for talk.origins. Astronomy, cosmology, biological and prebiotic evolution, etc.

> And isn’t merely
> using your name as term of address construable as “personal”?

Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.

> > If such posts contain any
> > comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
> > and only the purely scientific comments left in.
> >
> Are you also “anyone”?

Stop playing dumb. I include everyone, even jillery herself.

> Are you deleting the entire post and also leaving
> the “scientific” (undefined) comments in?

I know you are trying to be jocular here, but you aren't doing a good job of it.

> If jillery compliments you that is of a personal nature and must be
> deleted.

Now you are really catching on.


Concluded in next reply to this post, planned for soon after I see that
this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And isn’t merely
>> using your name as term of address construable as “personal”?
>
>Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.

To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
"the peter" in the most literal sense.

I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
particular way, you also choose to get your knappies in a twist over
it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.

I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

A bit later than planned, but here is my second and concluding reply to your post,
Hemi, with three lines of context from the first one at the beginning.

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:06:07 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > If posts [jillery makes in reply to me] contain any

> > comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
> > and only the purely scientific comments left in.

> > This does not apply to posts which jilllery makes in reply to others, or OP's by jillery.
> > I will explain my policy about those tomorrow.
> >
> If you make comments of a personal nature about jillery or anyone else
> shouldn’t you delete that stuff too (or not hit “send”) so as not to come
> across as inconsistent or dare I say a hypocrite?

Your tendency towards ethical nihilism is coming to the fore here. I bet you were bitterly
disappointed when, after weeks of badgering by you to talk about objective morality,
I named "might makes right" as a form of objective morality. And yet that is the main kind of morality
you and jillery and a host of other regulars live by.

Were you expecting me to claim that traditional Judeo-Christian morality is objective?
Were you drooling in anticipation of bringing your arsenal of rebuttals into play?

It was really amusing to watch you and Burkhard try to argue that "might makes right"
is not a form of morality at all. Burk's main attempt to describe what makes a system a form
of morality reminded me of what one Supreme Court justice said about pornography:
"I know it when I see it."

> Needless to say, but I
> will, you tend to make a shitload of commentary on various posters here.

By the same amoral standard, you can also see shitloads of commentary in such diverse places
as the Declaration of Independence, the Communist Manifesto, and
Jesus's "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees" tirade.

> It permeates your content. Do you have a blindspot?

Don't be silly. You've been reading the back-and-forth about my being a "goddamn moralizer"
on the thread where jillery flaunted her incorrigibility, haven't you? I'm anything but blind
to the effect my behavior has on the likes of you and jillery and Mark Isaak.


> Mote meets beam.

My new policy is a case of my mote confronting jillery's beam.

And your use of "mote...beam" is a case of you trying to talk the talk of morality,
combined with an inability to walk the walk.

> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS the crossing of the Rubicon was figuratively accompanied by an army of posts
> > spanning a decade featuring thousands of instances of dishonesty,
> > hypocrisy, cowardice, and trolling in the worst sense of the word. Without
> > this electronic equivalent of a "paper trail," I would not be taking such drastic
> > measures.
> >
> Why didn’t you just stop replying to jillery years ago?

Are you kidding? Didn't you see how my 2019 boycott against Oxyaena and Simpson
was met with drama queen performances by John Harshman, jillery, Mark Isaak, and Oxyaena hirself,
tarring the boycott with brushes that would have badly tarred Burkhard's multi-year killfiling
of me, were not the four of them consummate hypocrites?

And I had really major reasons for doing it, including Oxyaena's crossing a Rubicon
that no other talk.origins poster ever crossed against me, before or since. Can you imagine what
the orgy of posting would have been like if I had stopped replying to jillery without a similarly weighty
reason? Why, you would have been among the first of the drama queens attacking me for it,
if your reaction to my preliminary announcement on Friday of this new policy is any indication.

> And will you
> refrain from making personal comments about jillery from here on out?

No, and I have numerous reasons for that, some of which will accompany
my statement this evening about my policy towards other kinds of posts by jillery.
Meanwhile, jillery will continue to make any personal remarks that suit her fancy when replying to me;
they just won't be kept in any reply by me.

> If not that seems to be quite the subjectively partial and asymmetrical policy
> you’re hashing out there.

There is asymmetry between murder and killing in self-defense, between rape
and punching a would-be rapist, etc. Do you also have a problem with that?


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A bit later than planned, but here is my second and concluding reply to your post,
> Hemi, with three lines of context from the first one at the beginning.
>
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:06:07 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If posts [jillery makes in reply to me] contain any
>>> comments of a personal nature about anyone, they will be deleted
>>> and only the purely scientific comments left in.
>
>>> This does not apply to posts which jilllery makes in reply to others,
>>> or OP's by jillery.
>>> I will explain my policy about those tomorrow.
>>>
>> If you make comments of a personal nature about jillery or anyone else
>> shouldn’t you delete that stuff too (or not hit “send”) so as not to come
>> across as inconsistent or dare I say a hypocrite?
>
> Your tendency towards ethical nihilism is coming to the fore here. I bet you were bitterly
> disappointed when, after weeks of badgering by you to talk about objective morality,
> I named "might makes right" as a form of objective morality. And yet that
> is the main kind of morality
> you and jillery and a host of other regulars live by.
>

It was disappointing. Is it possible for me to be an ethical nihilist and
also to follow an objective morality? Might makes right is all you could
come up with for objective morality? Yikes.

>
> Were you expecting me to claim that traditional Judeo-Christian morality is objective?
> Were you drooling in anticipation of bringing your arsenal of rebuttals into play?
>

I was hoping for a better defense of objective morality. To what extent is
morality mostly achieving consensus of informed opinion based on personal
subjective views that mesh and are at best intersubjective? Objective
knowledge comes in to bring a better understanding of facts but people put
this into a context of values. So facts are used in moral decisions but are
a portion of the pending decision. Morality is informed but not objective.

This stance is far from either nihilism or objective morality. Personal
subjectivity plays a role, so do facts, and so do values and moral
reflections gained from experience and gleaned from texts and interaction
with others. Morality seems more mutually constructed than discoverable as
are rocks and water.

[snip rest]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Turnabout is fair play. If you are burying your head in the sand about
where I deal with your main arguments against my new policy, you can expect no response to your
ramblings above.

IOW, thanks for not wasting my time.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

So you don’t feel like defending an objective morality then.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.

You don't understand what intelligent design vs evolution is about. It's about evolutionists not acknowledging people's emotions and personal character.

The evolutionists don't acknowledge the intelligent decisionmaking processes by which the organisms were formed, but really they do not acknowledge the subjective human spirit making choices either, people's emotions and personal character. Evolution scientists are alligned with total evil.

Nobody I have seen, who acknowledges people's emotions and personal character, on a properly subjective basis, supports evolution theory. All who accept choice is actually real, as a matter of physics, support some form of intelligent design theory. All evolution scientists are hellbent. And generally all scientists who support evolution theory.

That the Hitler Youth were taught selection and evolution, in explicit reference to Charles Darwin, is a meaningful sign. The feeling of total evil, in relation to the nazi's, is a true feeling.

You cannot say the nazi's were really evil, but it is okay for these scientists to just deny choice is real, and redefine emotions and personal character as objective, instead of subjective. That this would just be intellectual banter, and not total evil.



Op woensdag 30 juni 2021 om 03:26:07 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

No scientific comments. Since the actual comments were in direct reply to me, the policy I announced in my OP applies,
so that nothing of them remains here.

As for posts by jillery in reply to others, or future OPs by her, I will go on replying to them as I see fit.
I don't think any new policy on them is called for at the present time. But at a later date I might
see a reason for a new policy on them, too.

My preference, though, is for posts like the one I did in reply to Öö Tiib today on the thread
"Re: A riposte of fine-tuning" where some words of jillery are still kept in, and I discuss them
with the other person along with the other person's own comments. Given jillery's attitude,
that is preferable to direct replies to jillery, which are less likely to elicit responses from reasonable participants.


One more thing: I will, from time to time, reply to direct replies by jillery that occurred before this policy took effect;
but any replies by jillery to these posts will fall under the new policy.
With so many people willing to take up the cudgels for her, this probably won't alter her behavior.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

Did you say something, Peter? I couldn't hear you with your head so
deep in the sand.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 9:41:06 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.

I can still do that without responding to the wrong she does in direct reply to me. In fact,
I think it will be more effective that way, at least for the rest of this year, because it will take up
less of my time. See what I wrote about twenty minutes ago about how I will handle things.

> You don't understand what intelligent design vs evolution is about.

I understand that it is serious business apart from interpersonal conflicts. Do you?

I see it as the conflict between people who insist that unintelligent forces
are enough to account for the life around us, and those who either believe otherwise
or have an open mind about that, like I do.

I think the despicable behavior of a lot of the former kind of people here is due to their insecurity: they
know they can't refute an intelligent presentation of the case for ID, and that forces
them to try to discredit them personally, by hook or crook. When you use the term
"evolution people" and "evolution scientists" below, I interpret it as referring to these kinds of people.

> It's about evolutionists not acknowledging people's emotions and personal character.

That's true here for the most part here in talk.origins. However, there are exceptions, of whom Öö Tiib is one,
with whom I've found it possible to conduct a reasonable discussion.

> The evolutionists don't acknowledge the intelligent decisionmaking processes by which the organisms were formed,

Well, I'm agnostic about that; but unlike almost all regulars here, I'm keeping a very open mind on it.


Peter Nyikos

PS I've left in the rest of what you wrote below, in case you might like me to comment on some of it.
But I hope you will also try to think about what I've written above.

[Oxyaena]

On 6/29/2021 9:22 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jillery has crossed a Rubicon that I've never seen anyone else cross in almost
> three decades of experience on the internet, in the following post:

You say that like fifteen times each month. How many Rubicons have been
crossed by now?

[Oxyaena]

Mark's reply to this was perfect. What we have here is a clear example
of a pot calling the kettle black.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>>> “personal”?
>>
>> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
> name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
> "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>
> I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
> nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
> particular way, you also choose to get your knappies

Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
"nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
heard.

> in a twist over
> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>
> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.


--

Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:29:32 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>>>> “personal”?
>>>
>>> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
>> name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
>> "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>>
>> I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
>> nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
>> particular way, you also choose to get your knappies
>
>Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
>origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
>"nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
>can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
>heard.

Since you mention it, you raise a pendantic point. I am well aware of
the conventional spelling. "knappies" is a neologism, a mashup of
nappies and the more usual knickers, which is particularly appropriate
to apply to the peter's spamming and utterly irrelevant rants that
build delusional moutains out of imagined molehills.

>> in a twist over
>> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>>
>> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.

--

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.

Wow, Nando giving Peter advice on how to handle jillery. jillery
feels so.... special.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:56:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> posted no scientific comments:


<snip all of the peter's mindless made-up crap>

Did the peter's spam bragging say that he would continue to spam brag
his mindless made-up crap?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'm sure Hemidactylus appreciates your blatant favoritism towards him here, Mark:

> Did you say something, Peter? I couldn't hear you with your head so
> deep in the sand.

Why didn't you show your solidarity with Hemidactylus during his recent disputes with jillery?
Conflict of interests?


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:56:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>No scientific comments. Since the actual comments were in direct reply to me, the policy I announced in my OP applies,
>so that nothing of them remains here.

An irony here is, the peter's post to which jillery replied also
contains no scientific comments. If the peter applied his policy to
his own posts, almost all of them would be blank.

That the peter demands scientific comments about his non-scientific
comments demonstrates the peter's self-serving hypocrisy, a classic
case of "do as I say not as I do".

Since the peter is likely to claim the above is a lie, the following
is a link to the post to which jillery replied, so those who enable
the peter's spam trolls have no excuse to not prove it for themselves:
******************************
Subject: Re: Drastic policy on posts by jillery for the rest of 2021
Message-ID: <a3470a20-6df0-472d...@googlegroups.com>

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

*******************************

Not sure how anybody gives the peter any credibility.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:31:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
> >>> “personal”?
> >>
> >> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
> > name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
> > "the peter" in the most literal sense.
> >
> > I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
> > nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
> > particular way, you also choose to get your knappies

> Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
> origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
> "nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
> can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
> heard.

While you were at it, Athel, why didn't you also point out that the correct
way to convey what jillery claims to be about here is to write The Peter, or THE Peter?

These uses of capitalisation [British Commonwealth spelling?] is standard. For instance,
there is a US Congressman named John Kennedy, but if you write "John Kennedy" with
intent to discuss the former President, and someone asks you "Which John Kennedy?"
one way of making it clear is to write, "I mean THE John Kennedy."

Jillery gave her disingenuous game away years ago when I called attention to this
uncapitalized version she kept using, writing,

The next thing you know, you will be referring to John Harshman as "the john."

Opting for the more innocent meaning of "the john," jillery responded with something like,
"Don't let the door hit you on the way out."



After that disingenuous "knappies" mountain-out-of-molehill ploy, jillery milked it for all that
it was worth, and then some:

> > in a twist over
> > it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.

It might seem, Athel, that jillery's "knappies" crack is what is typical here of sanctimonious jerks,
but I can understand why you didn't get into this rough-and-tumble, nor into jillery's self-serving
use of the inappropriate "acknowledge" below, so I close here.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

From your POV, sure. That's because you are hopelessly biased towards Hemidactylus AND Mark.
As I told Mark scant minutes ago:

___________________________ excerpt ____________________________________________

I'm sure Hemidactylus appreciates your blatant favoritism towards him here, Mark:

> Did you say something, Peter? I couldn't hear you with your head so
> deep in the sand.

Why didn't you show your solidarity with Hemidactylus during his recent disputes with jillery?
Conflict of interests?

=================================================================

I'm not even asking the same question of you, Oxyaena. The real question is why you
didn't show your solidarity with *jillery* during those disputes. Could there possibly
have been a conflict of interests there too?

>What we have here is a clear example
> of a pot calling the kettle black.

Are you sure you want to risk antagonizing Hemidactylus by comparing him to a black kettle?


Peter Nyikos

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote
(in article<02crdgdud9fh48aa1...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:56:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> posted no scientific comments:
>
> <snip all of the peter's mindless made-up crap>
>
> Did the peter's spam bragging say that he would continue to spam brag
> his mindless made-up crap?

It looks to me as though you dug out your microscope, found ol’ Petey’s
balls, and handed them to him in a paper sack, and he’s pissed at you
rather than being grateful.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Op donderdag 1 juli 2021 om 04:26:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

> I see it as the conflict between people who insist that unintelligent forces
> are enough to account for the life around us, and those who either believe otherwise
> or have an open mind about that, like I do.

Wrong. It's between people who accept subjective things are real, and people who don't.

The subjective things choose which way the objective things turn out. That is creationism.

And then intelligent design is, the subjective things choosing by way of sophisticated decisionmaking processes, the way the objective things turn out. Intelligent design is a subset of creationism. There are simple decisions, and sophisticated decisionmaking processes, they are all decisions just the same.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

What is in category 1 is identified with a chosen subjective opinion, what is in category 2 is identified with an objective fact forced by evidence.

The evolutionists reduce that scheme to:

1. material / objective / fact
2. see one

So then evolutionists generally ignore emotions and personal character, which are properly in category 1.

Or the evolutionists redefine emotions and personal character, redefine them as being material, objective and factual. Like nazi's do.

And the evolutionists generally deny choice is real, call free will an illusion, or redefine choice as it meaning like a chesscomputer calculating a move, in a forced way. Compatibilism.

And the evolutionists reject the whole concept of a chosen subjective opinion. As Harry Krishna calls it unintelligble.

The power of choice is that in principle it can deal with a zillion DNA configurations in one step, by having all the DNA configurations as possiblities in a decision on them. Although this is not complete theory, it is very obvious that this would be part of the solution to surmounting the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism. That is why all who accept choice is real, accept some form of intelligent design theory.

So then why would any scientist, deny choice is real, reject intelligent design, while it is such an attractive scientific explanation?

It's because people like to conceive of making a choice in terms of figuring out the "best" option. In life there is just enormous psychological pressure to do your best, so that the good advice to think about what is best before making a choice, is conflated into the fundamental definition of making a choice. And because there is no physics of "the best", then choice becomes to be understood as being a cultural fantasy, and is thrown out as a scientific hypothesis.





.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote

(in article<t2crdg5njs1okadsm...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.
>
> Wow, Nando giving Peter advice on how to handle jillery. jillery
> feels so.... special.

Well... both of them _are_ insane.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

What part of "Turnabout is fair play" didn't you understand?


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are you engaging in an attempt at divide and conquer, playing feelings of
individuals off against each other? If so, weird, just weird.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote
> (in article<t2crdg5njs1okadsm...@4ax.com>):
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> > <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.
> >
> > Wow, Nando giving Peter advice on how to handle jillery. jillery
> > feels so.... special

> Well... both of them _are_ insane.

I see you are back to using generic insults against me, Wolfie.

I told you several years ago that I had decided that you haven't got what it takes to be in the same league
as jillery and Oxyaena. After I explained my reason, the two of them left you in the lurch,
and you disappeared from the thread and didn't try to interact with me for at least a year.

The explanation was that, with only one exception that I could recall, all your insults against me
were generic insults, and that generic insults only convey the information that you dislike me.
This is summed up in the "nursery rhyme,"

I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
Why this is, I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.

The only time I could recall you being specific with your insults was something I recalled for you
on that same occasion, referring to myself as "Dr. Fell" in a poem you could have written:

I wrote that thou wert outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.
How or where or when this might have happened, I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I wrote that thou wert outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.

I'm curious to know what sort of specific falsehood you will cook up about me
if you ever stop using generic insults against me.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

> I'm not even asking the same question of you, Oxyaena. The real question is why you
> didn't show your solidarity with *jillery* during those disputes. Could there possibly
> have been a conflict of interests there too?
>
>
> >What we have here is a clear example
>> of a pot calling the kettle black.
>
> Are you sure you want to risk antagonizing Hemidactylus by comparing him to a black kettle?
>

Are you trying to play Oxy and I off against each other in some bizarre
divide and conquer scheme? Are we warlords of smaller Italian cities while
you try to improve morale amongst the Condottieri aligned against us?

[*Hemidactylus*]

More miscellaneous asides…

[Oxyaena]

No, I'm only hopelessly biased against trolls like yourself.

> As I told Mark scant minutes ago:
>
> ___________________________ excerpt ____________________________________________
> I'm sure Hemidactylus appreciates your blatant favoritism towards him here, Mark:
>
>> Did you say something, Peter? I couldn't hear you with your head so
>> deep in the sand.
>
> Why didn't you show your solidarity with Hemidactylus during his recent disputes with jillery?
> Conflict of interests?
> =================================================================
>
> I'm not even asking the same question of you, Oxyaena. The real question is why you
> didn't show your solidarity with *jillery* during those disputes. Could there possibly
> have been a conflict of interests there too?

Maybe because I have a life outside of Usenet?

>
>
> >What we have here is a clear example
>> of a pot calling the kettle black.
>
> Are you sure you want to risk antagonizing Hemidactylus by comparing him to a black kettle?

Is that a tacit admission that you are the pot? I think so.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Oxyaena]

Divide et impera.

[Oxyaena]

On 7/1/2021 12:36 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote
>> (in article<t2crdg5njs1okadsm...@4ax.com>):
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.
>>>
>>> Wow, Nando giving Peter advice on how to handle jillery. jillery
>>> feels so.... special
>
>> Well... both of them _are_ insane.
>
> I see you are back to using generic insults against me, Wolfie.
>
> I told you several years ago that I had decided that you haven't got what it takes to be in the same league
> as jillery and Oxyaena.

I'm curious to see what "league" you are talking about, Peter. How come
I haven't gotten my medal yet?

>
> The explanation was that, with only one exception that I could recall, all your insults against me
> were generic insults, and that generic insults only convey the information that you dislike me.
> This is summed up in the "nursery rhyme,"

I mean, he's not wrong. This entire thread is one big temper tantrum
courtesy of yours truly, the Professor Nitwit himself.

[snip idiocy]

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 08:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote no scientific comments:


Is anybody surprised.

>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:31:06 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>> >>> “personal”?
>> >>
>> >> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>> >
>> > To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
>> > name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
>> > "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>> >
>> > I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
>> > nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
>> > particular way, you also choose to get your knappies
>
>> Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
>> origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
>> "nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
>> can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
>> heard.
>
>While you were at it, Athel, why didn't you also point out that the correct
>way to convey what jillery claims to be about here is to write The Peter, or THE Peter?

I bet 100 Quatloos you don't write The hospital or THE park.

More to the point, my claim is there are multiple meanings of the
phrase while you presume only one of them. If you're going to post
non-scientific mindless made-up crap, try to be less obvious about it.

>These uses of capitalisation [British Commonwealth spelling?] is standard. For instance,
>there is a US Congressman named John Kennedy, but if you write "John Kennedy" with
>intent to discuss the former President, and someone asks you "Which John Kennedy?"
>one way of making it clear is to write, "I mean THE John Kennedy."

False equivalence. In your anecdote above, the purpose is to clarify
an ambiguity. My use is merely a label which gets your knappies in a
twist.

>Jillery gave her disingenuous game away years ago when I called attention to this
>uncapitalized version she kept using, writing,
>
> The next thing you know, you will be referring to John Harshman as "the john.
>
>Opting for the more innocent meaning of "the john," jillery responded with something like,
>"Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

I recall no such discussion. And the most recent post with a similar
riposte was not from me:
************************
Subject: Re: WHY I KEEP POSTING TO TALK.ORIGINS
Message-ID: <srednXj-zLw1gX7C...@giganews.com>
On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 04:32:08 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>nyik...@gmail.com <nyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> PS I think THIS will be my last 2020 post to talk.origins.
>
>Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
*************************

So cite your asinine allusion or stop spamming your non-scientific
mindless made-up crap.

>After that disingenuous "knappies" mountain-out-of-molehill ploy, jillery milked it for all that
>it was worth, and then some:

So "disingenuous" is *still* another word to which you don't know the
meaning.

>> > in a twist over
>> > it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>
>It might seem, Athel, that jillery's "knappies" crack is what is typical here of sanctimonious jerks,

Only to you. Even so, you don't even try to show a correlation. This
suggests you know you can't and are just spamming more non-scientific
made-up crap. That's what sanctimonious jerks do.

>but I can understand why you didn't get into this rough-and-tumble, nor into jillery's self-serving
>use of the inappropriate "acknowledge" below, so I close here.

And "self-serving" is *still* another word to which you don't know the
meaning.

>Peter Nyikos
>
>
>> > I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>> > spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>> > the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>> > veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>> > relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[jillery]

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 11:50:44 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

And the bag was recyclable too. Some people have no appreciation.

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 08:06:08 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote no scientific comments:

<snip for focus>

>Why didn't you show your solidarity with Hemidactylus during his recent disputes with jillery?
>Conflict of interests?

There were no recent disputes. Hemidactylus completely convinced
jillery he actually believes jillery is to blame for making T.O. a
Hellhole.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Evolutionists support a culture where emotions and personal character are ignored, because emotions and personal character are inherently subjective.

It is quite obvious ALL the evolutionists have decrepit personalities. None of them cherish either human spirit, or God the holy spirit.


Op donderdag 1 juli 2021 om 18:41:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 01, peter2...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<b925b989-f422-4be7...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:56:06 AM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote
> > (in article<t2crdg5njs1okadsm...@4ax.com>):
> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:38:37 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> > > <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's stupid. If Jillery does wrong, then you need to totally kick her ass.
> > >
> > > Wow, Nando giving Peter advice on how to handle jillery. jillery
> > > feels so.... special
>
> > Well... both of them _are_ insane.
>
> I see you are back to using generic insults against me, Wolfie.

That would be all that you deserve, Petey.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote

(in article<900sdg1qvbh0ltr0u...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 11:50:44 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2021 Jul 01, jillery wrote
> > (in article<02crdgdud9fh48aa1...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:56:21 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> > > <peter2...@gmail.com> posted no scientific comments:
> > >
> > > <snip all of the peter's mindless made-up crap>
> > >
> > > Did the peter's spam bragging say that he would continue to spam brag
> > > his mindless made-up crap?
> >
> > It looks to me as though you dug out your microscope, found ol’ Petey’s
> > balls, and handed them to him in a paper sack, and he’s pissed at you
> > rather than being grateful.
>
> And the bag was recyclable too. Some people have no appreciation.

Petey’s just, well, Petey. That is, nuts.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Don't be daft. I know the lot of you -- and that includes Oxyaena -- cannot be influenced
in your attitudes towards each other by anything I do or say. You are all incorrigible,
but you don't flaunt your incorrigibility the way jillery did.

> If so, weird, just weird.

The purpose is completely different. Thread after thread is full of people like the
four of you attacking me and others (especially Glenn) at the same time in various hypocritical and unfair ways,
but if anyone dares to accuse y'all of "having each other's back", he is pounced on
with great gusto and accused of being "paranoid" or "a conspiracy theorist".

However, the way Mark breezed past the "Turnabout is fair play" clearly marks him
as having your back, and my "conflict of interests" question is meant to suss out
how afraid he is of crossing jillery.


There are other uses to which I am thinking of putting the evidence here to use,
but they involve individuals not participating on this thread yet, so I'm not talking about these uses now.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 1 juli 2021 om 04:26:06 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

> > I see it as the conflict between people who insist that unintelligent forces
> > are enough to account for the life around us, and those who either believe otherwise
> > or have an open mind about that, like I do.

> Wrong.

This isn't a case of either/or. It is a case of both/and.

>It's between people who accept subjective things are real, and people who don't.
>
> The subjective things choose which way the objective things turn out. That is creationism.

I think I see now what you are talking about. It is the distinction in the Philosophy of Mind between what
is there called "subjects" and "objects." Subjects have an inner life that goes beyond a state of
complete oblivion, and objects are in a state of oblivion. I am a subject, and I make the assumption
that my fellow humans, including you, of course, are all subjects except while in dreamless sleep.

[I should qualify that: I don't think my fellow humans who have been gestating for two weeks or less
have passed the state of complete oblivion, but by 8 weeks past fertilization, there is some grounds
for thinking they have passed it at some point.]

> And then intelligent design is, the subjective things choosing by way of sophisticated decisionmaking processes, the way the objective things turn out. Intelligent design is a subset of creationism. There are simple decisions, and sophisticated decisionmaking processes, they are all decisions just the same.
>
> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
> What is in category 1 is identified with a chosen subjective opinion,

This is a different meaning of the word "subjective," the one I assumed you meant in
your back-and-forth with "Harry Krishna."

> what is in category 2 is identified with an objective fact forced by evidence.

This comes under a different branch of philosophy, known as epistemology.

> The evolutionists reduce that scheme to:
>
> 1. material / objective / fact
> 2. see one
>
> So then evolutionists generally ignore emotions and personal character, which are properly in category 1.

I don't know where you get this idea. Most of the evolutionists in talk.origins are skilled at
eliciting emotions [1]. "Harry Krishna," for instance, probably got a lot of amusement from eliciting anger in you.
He also got a lot of mileage out of how foul-mouthed you were. On the other hand, I do believe he is quite OK
with the dirty-mindedness of jillery and Oxyaena. He might even enjoy reading how they express it.

[1] There are exceptions, like the stupid, unimaginative "Wolffan".

> Or the evolutionists redefine emotions and personal character, redefine them as being material, objective and factual.

Gilbert Ryle, in the ridiculously over-rated book, _The_Concept_of_Mind_, did that, and, I believe, Daniel Dennett
has done it more recently in the book _Consciousness_Explained_. Applying the redefinition your describe, the title
is an example of megalomania. More common-sensically, one review of the book concluded, "Dennett
tries not so much to explain consciousness, but to explain it away."


This is the only post I am doing to this thread today, but I'll be back here on Monday. If you stick around here for a while,
you will learn a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the people posting to this thread, except for Athel.
I've seen too little of Athel, who only [re?]appeared on talk.origins a few months ago, to form any firm conclusions
about him.


Peter Nyikos

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Harry Krishna got much more fury than he bargained for. As shown by that he wanted to stop debating.

The evolutionists throw out all what is inherently subjective, reject all emotions, personal character, God, the soul, the spirit, the whole lot.

That is by any reasonable judgement, total evil. So how do you deal with total evil? Any number of ways. But the more convient way is to unleash fury. And because it is really just a very reasonable judgement that it is total evil, I can unleash the fury endlessly.

You have emotions, you need to stick up for your emotions. Someone got some arbitrary intellectual idea, such as evolution theory, which throws out acknowledgement of your emotions, then you need to totally crush that theory. Annihilate them. Kill, kill, kill. Rip them a new asshole. Tear into them. etc. etc.



Op zaterdag 3 juli 2021 om 03:01:07 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

[Joe Cummings]

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:29:32 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>>>> “personal”?
>>>
>>> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
>> name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
>> "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>>
>> I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
>> nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
>> particular way, you also choose to get your knappies
>
>Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
>origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
>"nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
>can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
>heard.

Well;well." I agree, no "k".
Possibly from French - "nappe de table" table cloth.
In our part of the world we used to call them "hippings."

>> in a twist over
>> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>>

>> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.

Have etymological fun,

Joe Cummings

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:17:15 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Harry Krishna got much more fury than he bargained for. As shown by that he wanted to stop debating.
>
>The evolutionists throw out all what is inherently subjective, reject all emotions, personal character, God, the soul, the spirit, the whole lot.
>
>That is by any reasonable judgement, total evil. So how do you deal with total evil? Any number of ways. But the more convient way is to unleash fury. And because it is really just a very reasonable judgement that it is total evil, I can unleash the fury endlessly.
>
>You have emotions, you need to stick up for your emotions. Someone got some arbitrary intellectual idea, such as evolution theory, which throws out acknowledgement of your emotions,

Where did you get that from? The same place you got place you got

1. crackpottery/nonsense/rubbish/idiocy/choice?

[jillery]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 22:23:07 +0200, Joe Cummings
<joecu...@hoosegow.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:29:32 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>>>>> “personal”?
>>>>
>>>> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
>>> name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
>>> "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>>>
>>> I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
>>> nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
>>> particular way, you also choose to get your knappies
>>
>>Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
>>origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
>>"nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
>>can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
>>heard.
>
>
>Well;well." I agree, no "k".

You can spell your neologisms the anyway you want, and so can I.

>Possibly from French - "nappe de table" table cloth.
>In our part of the world we used to call them "hippings."
>>> in a twist over
>>> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>>>
>>> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>>> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>>> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>>> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>>> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.
>Have etymological fun,
>
>Joe Cummings

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Creationism validates emotions, evolutionists reject creationism.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Emotions would be in category number 1.


Op zaterdag 3 juli 2021 om 23:26:06 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 03, Vincent Maycock wrote
(in article<85l1egp455kdau2lp...@4ax.com>):

He’salmost as nuts as Petey der Gross.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 17:36:58 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

Almost as nuts and half as smart!

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 14:39:00 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Creationism validates emotions, evolutionists reject creationism.
>
>1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
>2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
>
>Emotions would be in category number 1.

What about

1. Evolution/evolves/emotions/subjective/opinion

and then another one for the more objective side of evolution.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 03, Vincent Maycock wrote

(in article<77s1egth5rv1ci8a1...@4ax.com>):

Well, Petey’s not stupid. Crazy, yes, stupid, no.

Nando is crazy _and_ stupid.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

That doesn't mean anything.

A creator creates, by choice, which is the mechanism of creation, how a creation comes to be.

The substance of a creator is called spiritual.
The substance of a creation is called materail.

A creator is subjective, meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion
A creation is objective, meaning it is identified with a fact, forced by the evidence of it.

That makes perfect sense. While you are obviously just a lying asshole, who does not accommodate subjectivity at all intellectually.


Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 01:31:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Carefull buddy. You don't seem like someone who can take it, although you dish it out.

Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 01:41:06 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 17:58:49 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That doesn't mean anything.
>
>A creator creates, by choice, which is the mechanism of creation, how a creation comes to be.

Evolution creates by natural selection, which is the mechanism of
evolution, which is how life's diversity comes to be.

>The substance of a creator is called spiritual.

"Spirituality" is just a fashionable buzz word which has nothing to do
with what we're discussing here.

>The substance of a creation is called materail.

Same with evolution.

>A creator is subjective,

Not necessarily.

> meaning it is identified with a chosen opinion

Or not.

>A creation is objective, meaning it is identified with a fact, forced by the evidence of it.

So you're saying a creator is subjective while a creation is not? Why
one and not the other?

>That makes perfect sense.

Only to you. Why are your ideas so weird and idiosyncratic?

> While you are obviously just a lying asshole, who does not accommodate subjectivity at all intellectually.

No, you lying asshole, I have absolutely no problem with
subjectivity.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

My scheme is consistent with subjectivity as it is in common discourse.

Choices are made out of emotions and personal character, therefore emotions and personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

To say, Hitler was a kind man, then that statement says more about the one saying it, than it does about Hitler, because the opinion is chosen. The opinion identifies the personal character of Hitler, out of which character Hitler made his decisions.

To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is chosen by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. The opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks.

It is shown that subjective opinion is based on the logic, that an opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice.

So, you are ignorant about subjectivity, you do have problems with it. Very severe problems.

How do you expect the logic of subjectivity to function, with everything in reality being objective? Obviously doesn't work. You obviously require the 2 categories of creationism. One category for what is subjective, and one category for what is objective, in order to validate both subjecitivity and objectivity, each in their own right.

Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 05:21:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[Joe Cummings]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 17:27:29 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 22:23:07 +0200, Joe Cummings
><joecu...@hoosegow.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:29:32 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>><acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2021-06-30 19:41:48 +0000, jillery said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:35:50 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>>>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And isn’t merely>> using your name as term of address construable as
>>>>>> “personal”?
>>>>>
>>>>> Calling me "the peter" certainly qualifies.
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, you are the only T.O. poster with that
>>>> name. There are certainly no others currently active. That makes you
>>>> "the peter" in the most literal sense.
>>>>
>>>> I acknowledge "the peter" can be understood other ways. That is the
>>>> nature of English. Just as you choose to interpret "the peter" in one
>>>> particular way, you also choose to get your knappies
>>>
>>>Sorry to introduce a pedantic point that has nothing to do with
>>>origins, but this is not the first time you've used that word: it's
>>>"nappies", with no k, being derived from "napkins". If you want a k you
>>>can say "get your knickers in a twist", which is the usual version I've
>>>heard.
>>
>>
>>Well;well." I agree, no "k".
>
>
>You can spell your neologisms the anyway you want, and so can I.
>

Neologisms, yes, but leave nappies alone. They may be soiled.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 03, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<81ade312-172a-4473...@googlegroups.com>):

> Carefull buddy. You don't seem like someone who can take it, although you
> dish it out.

yep. Nando’s crazy and stupid... and keeps on confirming both things.

[gets popcorn] this should be good...

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, Joe Cummings wrote
(in article<6hv2egh24lr08nb4v...@4ax.com>):

especially ifNando’s been wearing ‘em.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:44:09 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My scheme is consistent with subjectivity as it is in common discourse.

Which is not difficult to achieve.

>Choices are made out of emotions and personal character,

Or just facts.

> therefore emotions and personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Not necessarily.

>To say, Hitler was a kind man,

Which can be disproved with a dictionary defiling the word "kind" and
a historical record of his behaviors.

>then that statement says more about the one saying it,

Right.

> than it does about Hitler, because the opinion is chosen.

Sometimes it's just emotions that lead to an opinion, not some
"chosen" behavior.

>The opinion identifies the personal character of Hitler, out of which character Hitler made his decisions.

So?

>To say a painting is beautiful, the opinion is chosen

Or it might be just an emotional reaction without anything being
chosen.

> by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

An expression of emotion isn't always associated with a choice.

>The opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks.

And love is not necessarily a choice.

>It is shown that subjective opinion is based on the logic,

Which is not a choice.

> that an opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice.
>
>So, you are ignorant about subjectivity, you do have problems with it. Very severe problems.

No, your rantings about Hitler do not identify anyone as having a
problem with subjectivity.

>How do you expect the logic of subjectivity to function, with everything in reality being objective?

Subjectivity can develop from objectivity.

>Obviously doesn't work. You obviously require the 2 categories of creationism.

No, that's you that "requires" that -- and I do mean*only* you, since
no one shares your ideas about categories of creationism.

> One category for what is subjective, and one category for what is objective, in order to validate both subjecitivity and objectivity, each in their own right.

I don't see much of a problem with that.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

I am just tearing the people who reject subjectivity a new asshole. Harry Krishna wanted to stop debating. Abner Mitnz complained I was getting under his skin. The truth can hurt. The truth can be very embarassing.

It is the truth that the creationist conceptual scheme accurately explains the difference between matters of opinion, and matters of fact.

It is true that emotions and personal character are identified with a chosen opinion, and that choices are made out of emotion and personal character.

My feeling is, that you have a weak character. I identifiy your personal character with a chosen opinion, based on feeling it. The personal character out of which you make your decisions, choosing to write what you do.

It is pefectly functional logic.

Yet you reject it. And then ofcourse we get to the question, whether you are a nazi, who pretends to be able to identify personal character as a matter of scientific fact of biology.

We should learn something from the holocaust. Learn what went wrong, how we could have avoided it. Some people say that we should learn from it to not make hateful comments about groups of people. So then they curtail free speech, and make anti-hatespeech laws.

It doesn't seem sensible to me. Free speech is the most central thing in a free democracy, while in a totalitarian state, such as nazi germany was, free speech is outlawed.

Anti-hatespeech is like saying a painting cannot be said to be very ugly.

And if you are not allowed to dislike a group identity, then people rather not comment on the group identity at all, except make vacuous comments. Then the group identity dies out.

It is better to learn from the holocaust, that personal character can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and cannot be established as fact. So then it is understood that when someone says they dislike Jews, Jews are greedy and selfish, or whatever, then that statement just as well says something about the one choosing that opinion, as it says something about Jews.

So then instead of that the lesson of the holocaust would be to curtail free speech, outlaw hatespeech, then the lesson would be to fundamentally support free speech, by validating the whole concept of a chosen personal opinion.

Validate it with the creationist conceptual scheme.



Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 16:16:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It is very clear, you do have very severe problems with subjectivity.

Love is not chosen, but the word love is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

On the one side is the emotion, on the other side is the expression of the emotion, identifiying the emotion.

Emotions do not come with labels attached. You just make the call, that it is love.

Subjectivity functions by rules. You present no rules. You say this and that, maybe somtimes, and whatever, no rules. You cannot get subjectivity to function in a universe based on rules, with laws of physics, if subjectivity does not have rules. And the rules are that an opinion is chosen, and an opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

So everywhere in the universe that a decision is made, then a chosen subjective opinion supplies the answer to the question, of what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did. You feel what it was, and then you express your feelings, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

And you cannot get the logic of choice to function, without subjectivity in regards to the decider. Without the decider being inherently subjective. For it to be true that A is chosen, and the decision could have turned out B, then the decider can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

If the decider is made out to be some definite factual X, then we get the logic that X forced A, and B could not have been chosen, so the logic of choice collapses.

Which is why generally all materialists deny free will is real.




Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 16:46:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<1cb91bd3-b1a5-4c1e...@googlegroups.com>):

> I am just tearing the people who reject subjectivity a new asshole.

no, you’re not.

You’re flailing. And failing. And you’re being very amusing while
you’re at it. Keep it up.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Hmm. Nando's nappies are not something I want to think about.



--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:02:06 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is very clear, you do have very severe problems with subjectivity.

No, there's nothing wrong with subjectivity.

>Love is not chosen, but the word love is chosen, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

Right, and actions are more important than words.

>On the one side is the emotion, on the other side is the expression of the emotion, identifiying the emotion.

No, they're pretty much the same thing.

>Emotions do not come with labels attached.

And yet we can still understand them.

> You just make the call, that it is love.

So?

>Subjectivity functions by rules. You present no rules.

The "rules" are the laws of nature.

>You say this and that, maybe somtimes, and whatever, no rules.

Nonsense.

>You cannot get subjectivity to function in a universe based on rules, with laws of physics, if subjectivity does not have rules.

No, the laws of physics can survive quite well without subjectivity.

> And the rules are that an opinion is chosen, and an opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

No, not all opinions are chosen.

>So everywhere in the universe that a decision is made, then a chosen subjective opinion supplies the answer to the question, of what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did.

Why would that question be important?

> You feel what it was, and then you express your feelings, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on it.

No, like I said, not all opinions are chosen.

>And you cannot get the logic of choice to function, without subjectivity in regards to the decider.

No, logic is not dependent on choice. It exists on its own.

>Without the decider being inherently subjective. For it to be true that A is chosen, and the decision could have turned out B, then the decider can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

So what?

>If the decider is made out to be some definite factual X, then we get the logic that X forced A, and B could not have been chosen, so the logic of choice collapses.

So what?

>Which is why generally all materialists deny free will is real.

Quantum mechanics allows free will to exist because it describes
systems based on probabilities, from which free will can emerge over
time.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote
(in article <ike1n7...@mid.individual.net>):

He changes them every week whether they need changing or not.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

When you say sometimes an opinion is chosen, sometimes not, that is no rules. That is no functional logic of subjectivity. That is arbitrary whatever wordsoup.

You present no logic of subjectivity. You just make arbitrary statements that you fantasize while you write it, without a care to get any functional concept.

- an opinion is sometimes chosen, sometimes forced
- an emotion is the same as the expression of the emotion

It is just totally meaningless. How does this not say that you have very severe problems with subjectivity?

Love is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and choices can be made out of love.

That logic functions perfectly in common discourse, on a practical basis.

If the emotion would be the same as the expression of emotion, then for instance, for the husband to take out the garbage would be an expression of love. Then taking out the garbage is what love consists of. But then it is objectively just, taking out the garbage.

Obviously, the decision to take out the garbage, may be said to be made out of love. That logic works pefectly.

Now how can you construe it, that anyone would be forced to the opinion that the decision was made out of love? That logic does not function. It suggests there is some material thing called love in the brain, which forces the husband to take out the garbage, not choosing it. If we could see the love in the brain, with an mri, then we would be forced to the conclusion that it is in fact love. Facts are forced, by evidence.

You say an opinion is sometimes chosen, that is partial agreement with creationism. Do you then also partially agree, that sometimes these chosen opinions express what it is that makes a choice? That they answer a question of what made the decision turn out A, instead of B, like choosing to take out the garbage, or not?





Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 17:41:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Oh it's all so amusing, says the atheist stereotype.

There is nothing much amusing about being called an asshole.

You choose not to make any meaningful comment. I guess you are frightened. I guess you are justified to be afraid.


Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 17:11:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<4c4bd189-e4af-49bd...@googlegroups.com>):

> Oh it's all so amusing, says the atheist stereotype.
>
> There is nothing much amusing about being called an asshole.

You, Nando, are amusing. And you’re crazy. And you’re stupid. And...
you’re an asshole. There is, therefore, something amusing about you being

called an asshole.

>
>
> You choose not to make any meaningful comment. I guess you are frightened. I
> guess you are justified to be afraid.

You’re so cute when you’re being idiotic.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<292fac87-e20f-47c2...@googlegroups.com>):

> When you say sometimes an opinion is chosen, sometimes not, that is no rules.
> That is no functional logic of subjectivity. That is arbitrary whatever
> wordsoup.

Among Nando’s many problems is that he’s functionally illiterate in
English. He may well be functionally illiterate in other languages, but
there’s no doubt about his manifold deficiencies in Ye Englishe As She Be
Wrytten.

[popcorn! popcorn! I must have more popcorn!]

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Ah. So that's all right then.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Calling people an asshole, the opinion is chosen, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, and the opinion expresses what the personal character of someone is, the personal character out of which someone makes decisions.

It is creationist logic. But you don't do creationism, so the opinion does not apply to me as choosing to write what I do, nor have you chosen it.

It doesn't make any sense how you use subjective words. So what is the point of it?

I guess actually, the insult asshole, might be construed as people literally making decisions from their asshole. A decision just makes one of alternative futures the present, it does not require any sophistication. Any calculations done in the brain, could be made subservient to the decision made by the asshole. And the asshole has much feeling associated to getting rid of the waste the body produces. So then to say someone is an asshole, is to say someone literally makes decisions from the feelings in their asshole. As all decisions, by logic, can only be made by feelings, emotions, something inherently subjective.

I guess you have no sense how your decisionmaking is organized, because you have no comprehension of it. You would not keep an order to the organization of your decisionmaking, because you have no clue that there is any ordering to it.

In any case, obviously anyone who goes out of his way to destroy subjectivity with science, is rightly called an asshole. That is just so sick, that also ruins science. It takes all the charm out of science, the charm that was certainly very present when the creationists did science. The emotional credibility of science, is all the time reaching new lows. While the worst might have been with the holocaust, to see the Chinese scientists with their new eugenics, seem to be just doing it all over again.



Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 18:51:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<8c17e3a1-c4d1-49ad...@googlegroups.com>):

> Calling people an asshole, the opinion is chosen, by spontaneous expression
> of emotion with free will, and the opinion expresses what the personal
> character of someone is, the personal character out of which someone makes
> decisions.

Nah. Keep on trying, one day you may learn to communicate in English. Maybe.
If you try hard enough. In the meantime, you’re funny.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

But obviously you denying that, and you being an evolutionary biologist, then it means that you pretend that personal character can be established as a matter of fact of biology.

As evolutionary biologists have always done.

Which is ofcourse total racism. The Jew has this personal character, the Aryan that personal character, established as a matter of biological fact.

And then you can be more sophisticated about it with variations, that 26.4 percent of Jews has personal characteristic X, and 33,8 percent of Aryans have personal character X.

It's still basically racist shit, because of it making a factual issue.

If someone doesn't like Jews, then whatever, people like and don't like, it is just a bad opinion. But to say as scientific fact what the personal character of someone is, that is very racist.


Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[jillery]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 11:26:29 +0200, Joe Cummings

>>You can spell your neologisms anyway you want, and so can I.

>>
>Neologisms, yes, but leave nappies alone. They may be soiled.

I don't touch nappies or "nappies".

>>>Possibly from French - "nappe de table" table cloth.
>>>In our part of the world we used to call them "hippings."
>>>>> in a twist over
>>>>> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>>>>> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>>>>> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>>>>> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>>>>> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.
>>>Have etymological fun,
>>>
>>>Joe Cummings

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:02:06 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>

[snip]

>
>> Which is why generally all materialists deny free will is real.
>
> Quantum mechanics allows free will to exist because it describes
> systems based on probabilities, from which free will can emerge over
> time.
>

How so? The subjective experience of predicting and controlling one’s
actions are a result of macrolevel brain activity. Wouldn’t quantum level
events cancel out? Besides tossing a coin or rolling dice can be addressed
with probability but neither is a matter of deliberative choice.

If probability and magical emergence are solid buttresses for free will,
why are hard determinists so hard set against it having salience.

Free will could be nothing more than a trick of your brain activity in
relation to perceptual awareness of a decision process taking place but
which originates outside awareness.

The Dennett approach involves catching up to yourself long enough to allow
for rumination and reasons responsiveness and countering impulsivity. No QM
or probability emergence there. Still deterministic.

Buridan’s ass shows value in impulsivity and downside of paralysis by
analysis. If it existed free will could represent a burdening encumbrance
of signing off on every action taken by your brain. Too much distracting
paperwork that could be a hazard on the freeway.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<0ddbc7fe-a6b0-4a74...@googlegroups.com>):

> But obviously you denying that,

nope. you’re funny.

> and you being an evolutionary biologist,

nope.

> then
> it means that you pretend that personal character can be established as a
> matter of fact of biology.

nope

>
>
> As evolutionary biologists have always done.

as I’[m not a biologist...

>
>
> Which is ofcourse total racism.

nope.

> The Jew has this personal character, the
> Aryan that personal character, established as a matter of biological fact.

keep it up. perhaps one day you’ll learn to produce something which
actually makes sense.

>
>
> And then you can be more sophisticated about it with variations, that 26.4
> percent of Jews has personal characteristic X, and 33,8 percent of Aryans
> have personal character X.
>
> It's still basically racist shit, because of it making a factual issue.
>
> If someone doesn't like Jews, then whatever, people like and don't like, it
> is just a bad opinion. But to say as scientific fact what the personal
> character of someone is, that is very racist.

I’m qu ite sure that most people can tell who’s the racist...

>
>
> Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 20:21:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:
> > On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
> > (in article<8c17e3a1-c4d1-49ad...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > Calling people an asshole, the opinion is chosen, by spontaneous expression
> > > of emotion with free will, and the opinion expresses what the personal
> > > character of someone is, the personal character out of which someone makes
> > > decisions.
> > Nah. Keep on trying, one day you may learn to communicate in English. Maybe.
> > If you try hard enough. In the meantime, you’re funny.

he still is.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, jillery wrote
(in article<la14egtgnb51hrtiu...@4ax.com>):

Surely you can make an exception for poor dear Nando. He badly needs someone
who can explain written English to him. His box of nappies said ‘good up to
six pounds’, but he knows that evolutionists lie, so he’s going for at
least eight pounds. He needs someone to explain what the box really meant.
Please hurry, the smell is beginning to affect his neighbors.

[jillery]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:00:34 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

Their capacity is even less when they get in a twist.

>> > > > Possibly from French - "nappe de table" table cloth.
>> > > > In our part of the world we used to call them "hippings."
>> > > > > > in a twist over
>> > > > > > it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>> > > > > > spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>> > > > > > the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>> > > > > > veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>> > > > > > relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.
>> > > > Have etymological fun,
>> > > >
>> > > > Joe Cummings
>

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

But it doesn't add up.

We had the nazi evolutionary biologists in Germany, establishing as fact what the personal charater of people is, and then you deny that personal character is a subjective issue, a matter of chosen opinion. Yet you claim not to be a racist.

How do you make of it, that choosing a personal opinion on what the personal character of someone is, is racist? It says the personal character is spiritual and not material, subjective and not objective. So then how could what is spiritual, be material and heritable? That doesn't make any sense.

Obviously you are full of shit.

You have no functional logic of how subjectivity functions. We know that evolutionary biologists have been racists. It can only mean, you are a racist just as well.

As the racism of evolutionary biology is thriving in China, with over a billion people in the population. That is more than 15 times the number of people in nazi Germany, meaning evolutionary biological racism is the biggest that it ever has been.

Op zondag 4 juli 2021 om 21:56:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Vincent Maycock]

From a Newtonian perspective, if you know the initial conditions of a
system in nature then all future outcomes can be predicted exactly;
this would include the behavior of human beings, since humans are a
part of nature.

But quantum mechanics tells us that you can't know the initial
conditions with 100% accuracy, which leaves the conclusion that we
can't predict human behavior exactly -- i.e., we have free will.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

As much as you would like to accept free will is real, you cannot, because creationism is just free will writ large, over reality in it's entirety. Creationism basically splits reality into 2 categories, what chooses, and what is chosen, creator and creation. It is all just choice.

And if you would accept the actual reality of choice, as a matter of physics, then the obvious question would be, what is all this freedom doing in relation to the forming of new organisms? Is it doing nothing much, arbitrarily throwing the atoms about here and there?

It does not seem very likely that a resource in nature would not be meaningfully used.

Choice means that many possible dna configurations can be dealt with in one step, by having all the DNA configurations as posssiblities in a decision on them.

Then you would only need to combine these possibilities to a sense mechanism, to rationally find viable possible DNA configurations.

So all people who accept free will is an actual physical reality, believe in some form of intelligent design, because it is such an obvious solution to surmounting the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organisms.

So I think, you don't really accept free will is real, you just like the sound of saying it.






Op maandag 5 juli 2021 om 01:16:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As much as you would like to accept free will is real, you cannot, because creationism is just free will writ large,

Only according to you.

> over reality in it's entirety. Creationism basically splits reality into 2 categories, what chooses, and what is chosen, creator and creation.

Only according to you.

> It is all just choice.

No, choice is not always needed.

>And if you would accept the actual reality of choice, as a matter of physics, then the obvious question would be, what is all this freedom doing in relation to the forming of new organisms?

Nothing. New organisms have nothing to do with choice or freedom.

>Is it doing nothing much, arbitrarily throwing the atoms about here and there?

No, not arbitrary; they follow the laws of physics.

>It does not seem very likely that a resource in nature would not be meaningfully used.

What does that have to do with choice?

>Choice means that many possible dna configurations can be dealt with in one step, by having all the DNA configurations as posssiblities in a decision on them.

How would choice imply those things?

>Then you would only need to combine these possibilities to a sense mechanism, to rationally find viable possible DNA configurations.

Which has nothing to do with choice.

>So all people who accept free will is an actual physical reality, believe in some form of intelligent design, because it is such an obvious solution to surmounting the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organisms.

No, free will is not needed to form viable organisms.

>So I think, you don't really accept free will is real, you just like the sound of saying it.

I don't think you really accept the half-baked nonsense you post; you
just like how it sounds.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<cdee2554-c102-4c2b...@googlegroups.com>):

> But it doesn't add up.

That you’re funny? One reason why you’re funny is that your posts make no
sense. By definition what you post doesn’y add up.

Don’t worry, one day you will manage to make sense. Keep trying.

[popcorn! more popcorn!]

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:15:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>:

Sounds right to me, in addition to the fact that the energy
levels at which the brain operates are said to be small
enough to be subject to quantum effects. Of course, there's
essentially zero probability of a definitive answer, so it's
good for unending bull sessions after the keg is
broached...;-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

So basically you are saying free will is real, but everything follows the laws of nature in a completely forced way.

It doesn't make any sense.

Why would the atoms not be thrown about here and there, if the quantum mechanics really did incorporate freedom, as you say?

You don't make any sense.

And how is there freedom without possibilities? You accept free will, you just do not accept possibilities are real.

Makes no fucking sense.

All what you write is total bullshit, and no way do you actually accept the fact that free will is real. This is just more of the same of that compatibilist bullshit. Where the evolutionists like to say free will is real, but then make the concept of choice use the logic of being forced.

And you sound like a goddamn delusional socialist also. Talking the party line. Authoritarian bullshit.

Op maandag 5 juli 2021 om 02:51:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Oh so amusing am I, atheist stereotype.

Not really getting at the emotion are you? That is because I own the emotion. The emotion is classified in category 1 of the creationist conceptual scheme, which you reject.

Certainly love the idea of it, is not actually a discovery of modern science. It is ancient, and the logic in regards to it, is ancient. Yet you only use the logic of modern science, the laws of nature. And then you are so superior with the modern science, and then you laugh. Because those anicent things are all so anitquated.

Obviously foolish. And a kind of foolishness that was known prior to modern science. Because ancient people also were inclined to just say, oh I cannot see it, then it's not real. Disregarding all what is subjective, including emotions, and God. Just the same as you.

To reject the entire creator categroy, the entire spiritual and subjective category. Your emotions are in it, as well as your personal character, and you as being a decisionmaker. Thrown the fuck out.

I wonder how does that works in the organization of decisionmaking processes of a person, when basically the top level in the decisionmaking processes, doesn't acknowledge his own reality? Which is what you are doing.

You say, the subjective and spiritual making decisions, is all bullshit, at the conscious level. So how does that relate to more instinctive levels of decisionmaking, when the conscious level doesn't acknowledge himself?

Are the lower levels of decisionmaking then going to say, been great, goodbye, and go their own way? Disconnect from the conscious level of decisionmaking processes.

You use common discourse, yet you say it is wrong. You use subjective words, yet you say it is wrong. Total fucking mess.



Op maandag 5 juli 2021 om 03:16:07 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote

(in article <ike7vm...@mid.individual.net>):

As long as you stay upwind from him...

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 05, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<dfd919cf-763b-4b1b...@googlegroups.com>):

> Oh so amusing am I, atheist stereotype.

yes, you’re amusing. no, I’m not an atheist.

Keep trying. Some day you may be able to communicate in English. It won’t
be at any time soon, but if you work hard you may, just may, achieve the
communication skills of an autistic nine-year-old. But you’ll have to work
very hard to get to that level.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 04, jillery wrote

(in article<kb64eghtsm651t1n8...@4ax.com>):

The more they’re twisted, the funnier he gets.

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 05, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<a67249a7-67f3-42b5...@googlegroups.com>):

> So basically you are saying free will is real, but everything follows the
> laws of nature in a completely forced way.

nope. Your grasp of Ye Englishe As She Be Spoke lacks opposable thumbs. You
really need to improve your communication skills. At present, all you’re
good for is to amuse. You actually are quite funny. It is a pity that you
don’t intend to be funny, and that everyone (even Petey der Gross...) is
laughing at you rather than with you, but, hey...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No children, I suppose?

>
>
>>>> Possibly from French - "nappe de table" table cloth.
>>>> In our part of the world we used to call them "hippings."
>>>>>> in a twist over
>>>>>> it. That is characteristic of sanctimonious jerks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also acknowledge that I address you as "the peter" to highlight your
>>>>>> spamming comments on other posters' personal characteristics, which to
>>>>>> the best of my recollection have never had anything to do with the
>>>>>> veracity of anything anybody posted. But limiting yourself to
>>>>>> relevant comments isn't something you know how to do.
>>>> Have etymological fun,
>>>>
>>>> Joe Cummings


--

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 22:17:50 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So basically you are saying free will is real, but everything follows the laws of nature in a completely forced way.

No, I was saying quantum mechanics allows us to bypass that.

>It doesn't make any sense.

Maybe some day you'll get it.

>Why would the atoms not be thrown about here and there, if the quantum mechanics really did incorporate freedom, as you say?

I don't think that follows from what I said, but atoms can be found
being thrown around in nature (especially if you include atoms found
in molecules, or noble gases, or ionized atoms in plasmas).

>You don't make any sense.

Maybe some day you'll get it.

>And how is there freedom without possibilities? You accept free will, you just do not accept possibilities are real.

I've never said that possibilities don't exist.

>Makes no fucking sense.

You idiot.

>All what you write is total bullshit, and no way do you actually accept the fact that free will is real.

Then what was I talking about when I mentioned quantum mechanics?

> This is just more of the same of that compatibilist bullshit.

No, remember I mentioned that determinism in nature is inconsistent
with quantum mechanics.

> Where the evolutionists like to say free will is real, but then make the concept of choice use the logic of being forced.

So are you being "forced" to fall to the ground off a high cliff?

>And you sound like a goddamn delusional socialist also. Talking the party line. Authoritarian bullshit.

What do I supposedly have in common with socialism and
authoritarianism??

[*Hemidactylus*]

Unpredictability is not volition. If even you cannot predict what you will
do how could you be held responsible for the outcome? Sounds like the
impulsive berserker argument for free will. Wind him up and see where he
goes…oops over a cliff since he couldn’t anticipate his actions.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Appeal to quantum effects to ground free will is handwavy at best and at
worst as bad as New Age woo. Not an argument.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Which leaves us with what per ruminating alternative courses of action at
the macro level of brain states? Acausality? Uncaused cause? Prime mover?

As Owen Flanagan discusses in *The Really Hard Problem* we at best are
acquainted with our more proximal downstream causes of thought and behavior
and not with the distal antecedents.

Free will is an after the fact (mis)attribution of agency to downstream
elements.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:52:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:15:43 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 14:01:45 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:02:06 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why generally all materialists deny free will is real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quantum mechanics allows free will to exist because it describes
>>>>> systems based on probabilities, from which free will can emerge over
>>>>> time.
>>>>>

>>>> How so? The subjective experience of predicting and controlling one?s
>>>> actions are a result of macrolevel brain activity. Wouldn?t quantum level

>>>> events cancel out? Besides tossing a coin or rolling dice can be addressed
>>>> with probability but neither is a matter of deliberative choice.
>>>>
>>>> If probability and magical emergence are solid buttresses for free will,
>>>> why are hard determinists so hard set against it having salience.
>>>>
>>>> Free will could be nothing more than a trick of your brain activity in
>>>> relation to perceptual awareness of a decision process taking place but
>>>> which originates outside awareness.
>>>>
>>>> The Dennett approach involves catching up to yourself long enough to allow
>>>> for rumination and reasons responsiveness and countering impulsivity. No QM
>>>> or probability emergence there. Still deterministic.
>>>>

>>>> Buridan?s ass shows value in impulsivity and downside of paralysis by

>>>> analysis. If it existed free will could represent a burdening encumbrance
>>>> of signing off on every action taken by your brain. Too much distracting
>>>> paperwork that could be a hazard on the freeway.
>>>
>>> From a Newtonian perspective, if you know the initial conditions of a
>>> system in nature then all future outcomes can be predicted exactly;
>>> this would include the behavior of human beings, since humans are a
>>> part of nature.
>>>
>>> But quantum mechanics tells us that you can't know the initial
>>> conditions with 100% accuracy, which leaves the conclusion that we
>>> can't predict human behavior exactly -- i.e., we have free will.
>>>
>> Sounds right to me, in addition to the fact that the energy
>> levels at which the brain operates are said to be small
>> enough to be subject to quantum effects. Of course, there's
>> essentially zero probability of a definitive answer, so it's
>> good for unending bull sessions after the keg is
>> broached...;-)
>>
>Appeal to quantum effects to ground free will is handwavy at best and at
>worst as bad as New Age woo. Not an argument.
>

I only agreed that we seem to have free will (at least, I
think so) and noted what I've read on the subject, that the
energy levels on which the brain operates are low enough for
quantum effects to be of at least *some* significance (*).
And my final statement still holds.

(*) No, I don't recall where, but since I don't read "New
Age woo" it wasn't there.

[broger...@gmail.com]

If your decision to do X rather than Y is the result of a purely random quantum event in your brain, then in what sense can you be responsible for it? Quantum mechanics might possibly get you to non-deterministic behavior, but random behavior for which you cannot be held responsible does not seem like much of an improvement over deterministic behavior for which you cannot be held responsible.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:48:32 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 14:01:45 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:02:06 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Which is why generally all materialists deny free will is real.
>>>>
>>>> Quantum mechanics allows free will to exist because it describes
>>>> systems based on probabilities, from which free will can emerge over
>>>> time.
>>>>

>>> How so? The subjective experience of predicting and controlling one?s
>>> actions are a result of macrolevel brain activity. Wouldn?t quantum level

>>> events cancel out? Besides tossing a coin or rolling dice can be addressed
>>> with probability but neither is a matter of deliberative choice.
>>>
>>> If probability and magical emergence are solid buttresses for free will,
>>> why are hard determinists so hard set against it having salience.
>>>
>>> Free will could be nothing more than a trick of your brain activity in
>>> relation to perceptual awareness of a decision process taking place but
>>> which originates outside awareness.
>>>
>>> The Dennett approach involves catching up to yourself long enough to allow
>>> for rumination and reasons responsiveness and countering impulsivity. No QM
>>> or probability emergence there. Still deterministic.
>>>

>>> Buridan?s ass shows value in impulsivity and downside of paralysis by

>>> analysis. If it existed free will could represent a burdening encumbrance
>>> of signing off on every action taken by your brain. Too much distracting
>>> paperwork that could be a hazard on the freeway.
>>
>> From a Newtonian perspective, if you know the initial conditions of a
>> system in nature then all future outcomes can be predicted exactly;
>> this would include the behavior of human beings, since humans are a
>> part of nature.
>>
>> But quantum mechanics tells us that you can't know the initial
>> conditions with 100% accuracy, which leaves the conclusion that we
>> can't predict human behavior exactly -- i.e., we have free will.
>>
>Unpredictability is not volition.

Right, but unpredictability allows for volition -- e.g., compare with
predictability, which doesn't to allow for volition.

> If even you cannot predict what you will
>do how could you be held responsible for the outcome

Let's say the initial conditions are quantum mechanical, yielding a
70% chance that you'll behave one way and a 30% chance that you won't.
So all that's left to you there is use your free will to go with
whichever choice strikes your fancy. Compare that with Newtonian
physics, where we can know with 100% certainty that you'll behave one
way and 0% chance that you won't, leaving no room for free will.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's just that authoritarian nonsense, that sounds so socialist.

Compatibilists actually also support indeterminacy, they just don't accept that it is choice. They figure choice is like the chesscomputer calculating a move, in a forced way. Then they figure on occasion there may be indeterminacy in what options are thrown up to calculate with.

So the compatibilist has divorced real freedom from the concept of choice, and then sometimes there is freedom in a choice, in what options are thrown up.

Basically compatibilists tear the whole concept of free will to shreds.

Obviously you require the subjective spirit doing the choosing, to make a meaningful concept of choice.

There is some indeterminacy, which indeterminacy is the actual choice. Then you feel what it was that made the decision turn out the way it did, and express a chosen opinion on what it was, based on that feeling.

So then what is objectively random, is understood as meaningful choices with subjectivity. Objectively the thing turns out either A or B randomly, A is chosen. Subjectively, A was chosen out of love, a meaningful choice.

And because it is subjective, there would not be any objective evidence whatsoever for this love. What is subjective, is just really subjective, and not objective. To say a painting is beautiful, is categorically a subjective statement. The love for the way the painting looks, cannot be objectively seen in any way whatsoever.

See that logic works perfectly. 2 fundamental categories of reality, creator and creation, subjective and objective.

Op maandag 5 juli 2021 om 15:36:07 UTC+2 schreef maycockv...@gmail.com:

[Abner Mintz]

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> Right, but unpredictability allows for volition -- e.g., compare with
> predictability, which doesn't to allow for volition.

Just to throw another complication into the works, not everyone agrees that predictability is incompatible with free will. Most Christians, for example, believe that their deity has perfect knowledge of everyone's future actions as part of being omniscient, *and* that people have free will. They just believe that you make your decisions freely and that their deity knows what you are going to freely decide even before you do so - indeed, even before you exist, or even before the universe existed. Which means, somehow, that people can believe simultaneously in free will and in some level of determinism.

IMO free will is a matter of being able to think about the various options available to you and decide which option you are going to take. Even if someone who knows me well knows that I will choose eating chocolate ice cream instead of eating broken glass, and that would happen 100% of the time given that particular choice of two options ... I still had free will if I thought it out and decided which option to take, even if someone else was able to predict the outcome of that particular decision reliably.

IMO something incapable of thought does not have free will, even if it has an unpredictable outcome. Predictability and free will are decoupled IMO.

[jillery]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2021 13:24:25 -0400, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>

Complex and nonlinear systems like the brain are deterministic but not
precisely predictable. Given that the human brain is designed to
dynamically program itself aka learn, it's unsurprising that the
decisions which come from brains are consistent with the expected
outcomes of free will.