Cape Cod Institute
 
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Unread August 3rd, 2006, 11:36 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
[Carey to Fred:] Its patently obvious that you don't understand, or don't want to understand, what evolution is . . . I've addressed your misunderstandings time and time again, and all you've done is repeat yourself.

[Tom’s quote from Wiki:] If cosmic expansion were to halt and reverse due to gravity, the temperature of the Universe would once again increase, but it's expected that entropy would continue to increase.
Well Carey, sorry you seem unable to appreciate the various problems and failings in your, IMO, simplistic/superficial and circular understanding of biological evolution, although it does seem to be the currently accepted Darwinian dogma, which is really the only important thing regarding you getting whatever scholastic credentials you’re seeking.

But even Tom, the guy who asserts that we humans are not morally responsible for our behavior, seems to at least have some appreciation for the mystery here regarding the beginning low entropy (which, like it or not, has to be taken into account when attempting to understand and explain life and it’s evolution b/c without that low entropy, there’d be no life, no evolution, no “natural selection”).

Although, admittedly, I do find Tom’s rambling regarding the “fluctuations”—that he declares “we’ve been living off,” claiming that those fluctuations “caused energy to clump due to gravity; those clumps cooled to stars; those stars pressed the energy into the different elements; those elements were spread by novae; those elements made your DNA”—to be somewhat incoherent, not to mention superficial. But then I suppose Tom does often tend to be somewhat incoherent and superficial.

Carey, it may seem that we’ve reached yet another dead-end, but I remain hopeful that eventually you’ll realize that you don’t know nearly as much as you think you know. And always remember Fred’s theorem—Randomness is an illusion, but ignorance, unfortunately, is rampant.

All the best,
Hugs and kisses,
Fred
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread August 3rd, 2006, 12:09 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Question Re: Selling Evolution, anything gained, JimB?

From JimB’s opening post on “Selling Evolution”:
Quote:
Darwinians fight a two-front battle: traditions to the left reject the notion of human instinct, those to the right dislike our skepticism about top-down designers….

Not to worry!

Nature and Discovery Channels already converted our kids [to the current Darwinian doctrine]….
Yeah, that Carey sure is a true believer.

Nevertheless Jim, I think that you started a good thread here. At times it seemed that Carey might actually have started thinking for himself, but, alas, the pull of the current dogma, and the admittedly compelling circularity of it all, apparently is still too strong in his life. Plus, let’s face it, getting whatever scholastic credentials Carey’s seeking probably pretty much requires him to buy into the current doctrine, so God bless the lad.

But did you, Jim, get anything out of the thread?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Unread August 3rd, 2006, 12:10 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Alright - my patience with you has finally, at long last, run out. Good luck with your future exploits, Fred.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread August 3rd, 2006, 12:39 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
Tom, the guy who asserts that we humans are not morally responsible for our behavior
We're responsible to our social instincts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
Tom’s rambling...to be somewhat incoherent, not to mention superficial.
You need to look up 'incoherent' in the dictionary. Plus, I intentionally keep things simplistic so you can't misrepresent my terms and create diversions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
ignorance, unfortunately, is rampant.
Your philosophy is based on an Intelligent Designer, to whom everything you're ignorant of is assigned, of whom you will always be ignorant. That's why ignorance is rampant. And, with that, I'll agree.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread August 4th, 2006, 08:10 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
Alright - my patience with you has finally, at long last, run out. Good luck with your future exploits, Fred.
Yes, Fred has no intention of understanding your points and it can get pretty aggravating. But the rest of us benefit from your clear posts. It's just best to throw up your hands and accept Fred as Fred and keep making your points for our benefit, without worrying whether Fred can be turned to the truth. He can't.

Last edited by TomJrzk; August 5th, 2006 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread August 4th, 2006, 11:48 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Carey: Good luck with your future exploits, Fred.
I’d not be too cynical Carey. (And BTW, good luck in your future exploits too). I think that we can both find at least some consolation in that in this discussion we’ve managed to more or less agree that “natural selection” can select only from what is already available; and that what is available, the so-called mutations, aren’t necessarily intrinsically “random,” but rather just seem to be unpredictable, at least currently by us humans based on our current knowledge. And additionally when you wrote, “a quick glance at the adaptive complexity of any biological entity, or the complexity of other non-biological phenomena (earth or non-earth-bound), pretty conclusively reveals that,” such things could not be the result of random or effectively random things, I am certainly inclined to agree.

So there are various things that we’ve more or less managed agree on, while our primary disagreement seems to boil down to the to ultimate circularity in the notion of Darwinian top-down “natural selection” and that such a notion ultimately doesn’t really explain or predict all that much—I think that that is a very significant factor in evaluating the validity/usefulness of “natural selection” as being a legitimate force/theory/whatever; whereas you, as you’ve stated, indicate that the “apparent circularity just isn't important at all.” (And I’d bet my left testicle that, assuming you live a full life, you’ll eventually agree with me that Darwinian top-down natural selection, as it is currently “explained”/“understood,” is indeed merely a circular notion that ultimately doesn’t really explain or predict all that much.)

Nevertheless, be that as it may, our discussion/debate, I think, was actually reasonably honest and rigorous and I think we both were reasonably consistent in how we see and explained things; certainly more so than in how Tom and MM tend to behave in their various ramblings, and certainly we weren’t so unnecessarily longwinded as Alex tends to be in some of her posts.

And finally, where one stands on these issues seems to depend on how one sees the big picture. Some of us sees things as Roger Penrose—the eminently qualified Oxford mathematician and physicist, who recently also wrote The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, “the most complete mathematical explanation of the universe yet published”—sees things: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." While the rest see things primarily as being random and/or “effectively random”; or perhaps blindly, mindlessly, algorithmically deterministic (essentially effectively random), as Tom claims to see things.

Everyone here should consider buying Penrose’s book—it is undoubtedly the best book on physics and a mathematical explanation of the universe ever written.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread August 4th, 2006, 12:58 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
aren’t necessarily intrinsically “random,”
This is exactly why Carey threw up his arms and signed off. Leave it to you to blast one last parting shot.

You and he DO NOT agree. You're view of non-random is "Oh, then there MUST be some imaginary friend who imparts some intelligence" while his is like my "there are no external guiding forces (even us) so everything is non-random; it's all deterministic".

Yes, I know that you intentionally didn't let that sink in.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Unread August 5th, 2006, 08:59 AM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Tom: You and he DO NOT agree. [Blah, blah, blah, blah] . . . it's all deterministic.
Well, since Tom is convinced that we humans are not morally responsible for our behavior, that any free will is an illusion, that it’s all deterministic, then if in fact Carey and I do not agree, then it is and always was inevitable (deterministic) that Carey an I would not agree. So what’s Tom’s beef? If it’s all deterministic, then it’s all deterministic, period, the end.

Oh, that’s right—that Tom would have a beef is/was itself deterministic. Period. The end.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread August 5th, 2006, 12:14 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred H.
If it’s all deterministic, then it’s all deterministic, period, the end.
Yet again, you miss the point that we still make choices, though it's all deterministic. And surely by now I've said this enough that you actually know that you're intentionally misrepresenting my philosophy:

We all have decision machines in our brains that affect the future. Those decisions that we make are deterministic but we still have to make them. If we don't, a different result would occur.

To illustrate: I could have decided not to correct your misinterpretation of Carey's point; others reading this thread could more likely, then, decide that you and he actually agreed and follow your ridiculous philosophy to its incorrect end. The decision engine in my brain wanted a better future so I took the time to send the post. My brain was compelled by its nature and condition to make exactly this decision.

You are you and I am me. What we are is determined by our genes and environment but what we do is not meaningless in a deterministic universe, it IS the deterministic universe. People that understand that point will not fall into hopelessness, as you seem to think you would. Only we can create a better deterministic future, and it sure would help if people didn't think some supernatural imaginary friend will bail them out after the last human dies.

I feel much more in control of a deterministic universe than I ever did in a universe at the mercy of the whims of something I can't see or touch or even be sure exists.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Unread August 6th, 2006, 08:20 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Selling Evolution

Quote:
Tom: I feel much more in control of a deterministic universe….
Bingo! The “control” Tom claims to “feel” is also known as free will, choice, moral responsibility. But, unfortunately, such things seem to be fully available only to sane, rational adults able to comprehend and acknowledge that they do indeed have at least some choice and that they do indeed have moral responsibility. Therefore, I suspect that whatever “control” Tom thinks he “feels,” much or all of it may be an illusion. Nevertheless, I still think he has to be held accountable for the incoherent illogical crap that he posts here.

Perhaps someone else here would care enough to call Tom on his nonsense?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.