(August 30, 2026 at 7:25 pm)Jal Wrote:

(August 30, 2026 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.

(August 30, 2026 at 7:27 pm)Jal Wrote:

(August 30, 2026 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?

(August 30, 2026 at 7:34 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(August 30, 2026 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.

(August 30, 2026 at 7:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(August 30, 2026 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.

(August 30, 2026 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.

(August 30, 2026 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.