BTW, defaming Newton for his practice of alchemy strikes me as a possible cheap shot. Back in his day, various principles of applied science were not well established.

(August 31, 2026 at 9:12 pm)Jal Wrote:

(August 31, 2026 at 8:16 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: @Jal

To continue with what may be or at least could be a useful discussion for you......when you use the phrase "in an atheistic reductionism" and then comment on hunger not actually doing anything...you're not referring to an atheistic reductionism.  The term for that content group is epiphenomena.  To continue using the domino analogy...and in the strongest terms....in that kind of world (or with that kind of mind) hunger is not in the chain of dominos but is a domino off to the side of the chain.   It falls, but does not cause any other dominos to fall.  They still fall how they were going to.  Terrible...terrible place.  

OFC, it might also be the case, as Angrboda pointed out, that hunger is in that chain rather than or in addition to being off to the side.  Think of the domino falling off to the side that then starts a new cascade leading back to some prior point in the domino chain.  If you think that's wholly implausible - then you would have a hard time understanding how feedback loops work.  Thermostats, refrigerators, and air conditioners all rely on feedback loops.  Cruise control, auto dimming mirrors, and fuel gauge lights.  Coffee makers, toasters, and sump pumps.  Your toilet.  Street lights.  Circuit breakers.  

Obviously this does not explain the existence of consciousness....but I'll put it to you like this-  If an "atheistic reductionist" world is - to you, a world where hunger and brains and all that seeming are just falling domino style feedback loops...like the ones in appliances..that's exactly the kind of world where natural selection has the greatest explanatory power.  Where it would be maximally potent to possess those traits or structures.

Epiphonema versus reductionism?  Potato-potaaaato as far as I'm concerned, for purposes of this discussion. Essentially emergent in both cases, rather than innate.

No, no no no.  Consciousness could be innate and also be an epiphenomenon.  As in it's something everything has, and maybe some things have it in more degrees or whatever terminology you like...but it doesn't do anything in the world. It's the last domino in it's branch with no dominoes to push and/or no way to push them. It would be very hard to explain that by way of natural selection. If it doesn't do anything how can it increase (or decrease) fitness?

Quote:Feedback loops? Unless you can convince me they are driven by hunger, I can't see myself spending time to investigate the relevance. 

Hunger -is- a feedback loop... in any explanation where hunger causes action...whether consciousness is innate or not, whether gods exist or not.  

Quote:In a domino-effect, hunger is superfluous. Which is not a realistic picture of the world.

I find it hard to believe you've never seen dominoes branch off.  What kind of psycho watches single lines of dominoes?

(August 31, 2026 at 9:35 pm)Jal Wrote: Back in his day, various principles of applied science were not well established.

Much like your intellect today. 

No facade (false front), I've repeatedly stated I'm here for the LOLs, and you provide them in spades!

Quote:Reductionistic atheism is too philosophically deficient to be plausible. If merely dead particles exist:
- How did consciouness arise? Inconceivable.
- What was the first mover that got the ball rolling? Inconceivable.
- What is the nature of all the so-called "forces" such as gravity - what causes them? Inconceivable.
- How did natural selection occur? Inconceivable

To steer it back. Your inability to conceive a notion does not make it inconceivable.

Tangent: Are you related to Vinzzini by any chance?

(August 31, 2026 at 9:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:     No, no no no.  Consciousness could be innate and also be an epiphenomenon.  

I think I am using the term differently than you. I clarified my usage to someone else a few posts back.

Quote:    Hunger -is- a feedback loop... in any explanation where hunger causes action...whether consciousness is innate or not, whether gods exist or not.  

Ok is this an attempt to resolve the allegations of the OP? In a domino context, hunger is not going to "cause" satiation. Consider a stream of flowing water, and let's pretend it hungers to move in a particular direction. So turns out that it's in luck, because nature happens to flow that way consistently. There is no such consistency in food consumption. By day and hour, food availability varies in location, abundance, barriers, competition. The problem is that blind causality is indisposed to accommodate these aberrations on the consumer's behalf.

Quote:    I find it hard to believe you've never seen dominoes branch off.  What kind of psycho watches single lines of dominoes?

You're so funny.

(August 31, 2026 at 8:52 pm)Jal Wrote:

(August 31, 2026 at 5:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @Jal


And yet light from the Sun (one body) acts upon the Earth (another body) at a distance without the mediation of anything else.

Looks like Newton was wrong. Maybe you should take everything he said as authoritative or apodictic.  

Boru

Knowing full well that I am not well-versed in science, you try to deceive me by appealing to a false example. Shame on you.  

The truth is that photons impact the earth. This is not a legitimate example of the magic/sorcery/wizardry that Newton was objecting to (i.e. the idiocy of believing that immaterial forces magically push or pull distant objects). 

Again, shame on you.

The Sun emits light in the form of photons. The mass of a photon is zero. Therefore, photons - being massless - are an immaterial force than can push a distant object (look up 'LightSale2').

Gravity is a function of mass - this is so well supported by theory and evidence that to deny it is intellectually perverse. Gravity is the distortion of spacetime by mass. Therefore, all massy objects are gravity-producing objects. Newton's formula for gravitational attraction



when solved for distance shows that while gravity weakens with distance, it never disappears entirely. Therefore, EVERY object in the universe is pulling on you, all the time and without execption.

If, as you say, you're not well-versed in science, the shame is yours for not being better prepared before engaging in a discussion about scientific topics.

I'm not trying to deceive you. I'm trying to educate you.

Boru

Quote:Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

To return to our muttons, this is actually correct. While natural selection drive it, evolution is also affected by mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, selection pressures, population size, and mating patterns.

None of which require God.

Boru

(August 31, 2026 at 7:59 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Practical question: Wasn't this thread supposed to be about natural selection?

Practical answer: he either is already living proof, or soon is going to be, that it works, if you know what I mean.

Oh and elections do have mass, just no resting mass, but would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay above guys head. In fact, .2+2 already is.

What was particularly amusing is: not only does he suffer from incredulity, he is trying to force it on others wrt to space-time Quite impressive.

(Yesterday at 5:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'm not trying to deceive you. I'm trying to educate you.

Ok thanks for the physics lesson.

(Yesterday at 5:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Sun emits light in the form of photons. The mass of a photon is zero. Therefore, photons - being massless - are an immaterial force than can push a distant object (look up 'LightSale2').

Probably no point in further debating this issue. Your claim violates a metatphysical axiom that I acquired during my PHL 101 class many years back. No version of physics, not even Einstein's, will raise doubts in my mind about it. My axiom is that an intangible substance cannot physically impact a tangible one. For 2,000 years probably all Christian theologians, with the exception of Tertullian, idiotically postulate an immaterial human mind/soul controlling the material human body. Today Millard J. Erickson is a rare and welcome exception, but he is half-hearted about it, attempting to stand on both sides of the fence.

For me the axiom produces a tautology. Meaning, photons are tangible by definition since they make a physical impact on the earth.

Furthermore, Einstein's physics is prolific with gibberish claims such as curved space, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity, massless particles, and special relativity (all being violations of my personal axioms). Maybe a better physics will arise within the next 200 years?