(Yesterday at 7:25 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:19 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: I'm not claiming they will. I'm claiming they'll reduce your ignorance of the sciences. I'm not the one who came here to spout silly ideas based at least in part in ignorance of the subject matter.

So you're arguing that science textbooks will reduce a person's ignorance of the sciences.  And you really felt a need to point this out?

In that case you're right - I really did not make a good show of intellectual competence. Seems I will need to do better.

It needed pointing out because you based part of your ideas on shit you simply don't understand, making them self refuting.

Let me put it this way. I know something about coding, mostly in AutoLISP for use in AutoCad and in Python. I know fuck-all about coding in C#. In other words I'm completely ignorant of how to code in C#. You will never find me on a coding forum spouting ideas that require an understanding of C#, but that's exactly what you've done here. If you wan't to base ideas on the sciences, or refute some part of them, you have to understand them first. You clearly don't. It's not an insult, it's an observation based on your own presentations.

(Yesterday at 7:27 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:25 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Hunger does seem like a thing that "domino determinism" explains pretty well, though?  You feel it and you can't help but feel it.  It may not actually help you in a given instance, I walk to the fridge and there's food there...but we're not all so fortunate... but you'll feel it anyway.  Amusingly enough, you'll feel it even if you don't -need- food...and that's not a bug, it's a feature.  If our homestatic strategies were more efficient then we'd only eat when we needed to, like alot of life.  That depends on the regularity of feeding oppurtunities, though.  Hunger sends us off looking for food even when we don't need it, which makes it more robust as a strategy when there is food instability or bottlenecks.  Fat storage is a similar but unconscious strategy.  

So...do I think that for a creature like us living in a world like ours the animals who are more compelled to go in search of food when they need it and when they don't are likely to out-survive and out-reproduce others?  OFC I do.  Seems pretty reasonable, right?

Again,  my primary crux  wasn't to "explain hunger" but to challenge reductionists to explain how it is useful/ relevant in a domino determinism.

Which I have.   Is it because you'd never heard hunger explained as a homeostatic strategy that you wrongly believed what you did, or do you still believe what you did after having hunger as a homeostatic strategy explained to you?

(Yesterday at 7:34 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:25 pm)Jal Wrote: So you're arguing that science textbooks will reduce a person's ignorance of the sciences.  And you really felt a need to point this out?

In that case you're right - I really did not make a good show of intellectual competence. Seems I will need to do better.

It needed pointing out because you based part of your ideas on shit you simply don't understand, making them self refuting.

Let me put it this way. I know something about coding, mostly in AutoLISP for use in AutoCad and in Python. I know fuck-all about coding in C#. In other words I'm completely ignorant of how to code in C#. You will never find me on a coding forum spouting ideas that require an understanding of C#, but that's exactly what you've done here. If you wan't to base ideas on the sciences, or refute some part of them, you have to understand them first. You clearly don't. It's not an insult, it's an observation based on your own presentations.

Your argument seems to compare two people:
1. A doctoral candidate in the sciences.
2. A person who took Philosophy 101, and no science courses. 

Your ASSUMPTION is, the philosophy student cannot reasonably questoin a conclusoin drawn by the doctor in science. 
You're wrong.  I already implied an example. The scientist might conclude, "The physiology of the body (e.g. ATP) is the sole power propelling motility".

Let's think about that. If a domino effect (ATP) is the sole power at work, then I can punch you in the face with impunity. No one has any right to indict me of assault or punish me. 

MY claim is that free will is a self-moving force, which accounts for human accountability, as well as solves the First Mover problem. That scientist is therefore incorrect. 

The point is that you cannot apriori assume, "Only the person who studies and believes the content of science textbooks can rightly opine or comment on material reality".

That's an unwise assumption.

(Yesterday at 7:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:27 pm)Jal Wrote: Again,  my primary crux  wasn't to "explain hunger" but to challenge reductionists to explain how it is useful/ relevant in a domino determinism.

Which I have.   Is it because you'd never heard hunger explained as a homeostatic strategy that you wrongly believed what you did, or do you still believe what you did after having hunger as a homeostatic strategy explained to you?

Ramble on about homeostatic strategies all you want. It fails to explain how hunger can be a decisive change-of-direction factor in a domino-universe oblivoius to your hunger, where directionality is deterministically predetermined by the original alignment of the dominos.

I don't think you can reasonably question natural selection if you didn't know that natural selection has a very well researched and practically applied explanation for hunger. As for my rambling....it's another one of those things where the simple fact of you saying that is deleterious for your position. Do you have a theodicy for this too? A reason that hunger only seems decisive....when its really the hand of god groping his reluctant boybride?

I see another explosive mistake. You think that determinism and predeterminism are the same thing. Have you considered that it could only be the case that predeterminism were true if a conscious agent worked all day every day everywhere to make it so, fixing little rips and rifts in casaulity? You;re objecting to fate my man, not atheism, or natural selection. I don't believe in fate anymore than I believe in gods or that consciousness is a fundamental unit.

And...wait for it...here comes Bel. Right on cue.

(Yesterday at 7:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think you can reasonably question natural selection if you didn't know that natural selection has a very well researched and practically applied explanation for hunger.  As for my rambling....it's another one of those things where the simple fact of you saying that is deleterious for your position.  Do you have a theodicy for this too?  A reason that hunger only seems decisive....when its really the hand of god groping his reluctant boybride?

(Sigh). Again, you keep raising a strawman. My main focus isn't to explain hunger but to argue it's useleness in a domino effect. If the dominos are falling rightward, it doesnt' matter if some of them HUNGER to go left. They will still fall rightward.


"When its really the hand of god groping his reluctant boybride?" Are you making some kind of homosexual insinuation here? Surely you're not too small-minded to look beyond sexual gender in a divine-human relationship? Please broaden your horizons a little.

(Yesterday at 7:08 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:06 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: What you've actually done is demonstrate an utter lack in ability to read for comprehension and put on a showcase of ignorance of the sciences. That ignorance can be fixed by reading some science books and maybe attending some courses, but first you must address that inability to read for comprehension.

More insults,  and no substance. Yawn.

As you can see, it's not possible to discuss theology or philosophy on this forum.

This is an insult forum. They want to use you as a "chew toy" and then make you leave, either by making you mad so you leave on your own or finding a reason to ban you.

You might have better luck at 

https://www.religiousforums.com/

At that forum they are willing to discuss different topics without requiring total conformity, and the moderators encourage discussion. Several people who used to post here have moved over there so they can discuss things.

As for the idea that natural selection is not sufficient to explain evolution, this is an idea that several prominent scientists currently agree about. I first heard of it from Denis Noble, who did research in biology at Oxford for 20 years, and has about as distinguished a career as a biologist can have. He knows more about evolutionary biology than you or I or anyone posting here. He also says that our current model of how evolution functions is mistaken and needs a major overhaul. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

I don't know whether he and his colleagues are correct about this or not. He knows more than I do. 

His ideas have no relation to religion and do not draw on any supernatural or theological arguments.

(Yesterday at 7:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I don't think you can reasonably question natural selection if you didn't know that natural selection has a very well researched and practically applied explanation for hunger.  As for my rambling....it's another one of those things where the simple fact of you saying that is deleterious for your position.  Do you have a theodicy for this too?  A reason that hunger only seems decisive....when its really the hand of god groping his reluctant boybride?

I see another explosive mistake.  You think that determinism and predeterminism are the same thing.  Have you considered that it could only be the case that predeterminism were true if a conscious agent worked all day every day everywhere to make it so, fixing little rips and rifts in casaulity?  You;re objecting to fate my man, not atheism, or natural selection.  I don't believe in fate anymore than I believe in gods or that consciousness is a fundamental unit.

Determinism and predeterminism are either the same, or at least of sufficient affinity to be a moot distinction in this debate.

(Yesterday at 8:06 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:08 pm)Jal Wrote: More insults,  and no substance. Yawn.

As you can see, it's not possible to discuss theology or philosophy on this forum.

This is an insult forum. They want to use you as a "chew toy" and then make you leave, either by making you mad so you leave on your own or finding a reason to ban you.

You might have better luck at 

https://www.religiousforums.com/

At that forum they are willing to discuss different topics without requiring total conformity, and the moderators encourage discussion. Several people who used to post here have moved over there so they can discuss things.

As for the idea that natural selection is not sufficient to explain evolution, this is an idea that several prominent scientists currently agree about. I first heard of it from Denis Noble, who did research in biology at Oxford for 20 years, and has about as distinguished a career as a biologist can have. He knows more about evolutionary biology than you or I or anyone posting here. He also says that our current model of how evolution functions is mistaken and needs a major overhaul. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

I don't know whether he and his colleagues are correct about this or not. He knows more than I do. 

His ideas have no relation to religion and do not draw on any supernatural or theological arguments.

Thanks for the head's up.