(7 hours ago)Jal Wrote: It means that, if the species is to survive,  blind causality must move the mammal towards food and drink, and force it to ingest this sustenance, on a regular, timely basis. And not too little, and not too much, e.g. drinking too much water at one meal can kill you, it happened a while back to a mother of two. 

Haven't we already discussed this?  Hunger is -exactly- the sort of homeostatic trigger that causes us to eat too much.  It's why we find ourselves chronically obese in todays world, as opposed to the world our hunger response developed in.

It is true, fwiw, that life doesn't need a hunger response (like ours, or at all) to stay alive. Plenty of life doesn't work the way we do. We're extra like that - not unique in this respect, but still pretty cool. There are also some genuinely baffling unknowns in this AO. We don't know why dodder vines will pass up suitable host plants in search of others - a behavior that leads to most of the dodder vines that germinate dying. When we try to describe it we end up talking about preferences, plants with preferences. Preferences they'll die over. Stranger than we can suppose, I guess....but here's the kicker, this seemingly inexplicable and far too familiar state of affairs would appear like it would be an issue for dodder vines..but it isn't. They're an invasive species. Doing extremely well....not in spite of this suicidal impulse, but because of it. They spread further, faster, than they otherwise might if they attached to the first suitable host. From our point of view it looks like they're searching for tomatoes..but maybe they're just going the distance, and solanae voc are strong airborne reactors - a solid orientation signal.

(7 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Fine. Let's speculate that such occurs deterministically/ randomly, often enough to preserve the species.  (This coincidence is beyond my wildest imagination, but let's humor the idea for a moment). Did you notice something? No  hunger or thirst is needed in this domino effect. There is no apriori correlation between hunger and food-consumption. The chips just fall where they may.

That's because nobody but an ignorant Christer assumes that determinism and randomness are the same thing. You really are butt fucking stupid.

(7 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(7 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

Posted by a person who can't seem to comprehend that, for many of us, our belief is a tautology.

(7 hours ago)Jal Wrote: And, to boot, a domino effect, in of itself, lacks a First Mover.

Libertarian free will resolves both issues.

As does block time and the Hawking-Hartle thesis. All you're doing is proving that you're cloistered and ignorant.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov

I think he's trying to say axiomatic when he talks about a tautology.

(7 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not at all.   If fatalism is true..the idea that things just happen and nothing can change them - the thing you object to so often, all of the free willing in the world could be real...and still irrelevant to outcomes.

Fatalism seems to presuppose a belief in a higher power, a supreme Governor, a kind of theism or deism.

In this case, aren't we back to God pushing on matter, even more pushing than I advocated?

Nah, gods are often subject to fates. You've added a new wrinkle. Fatalism is the thing you're describing when you talk about determinism...and claim that it is ridiculous. Now, however, you're saying that the fatalism which you think is ridiculous is a strong argument for your god?

(6 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think he's trying to say axiomatic when he talks about a tautology.

I think he's butt fucking ignorant and thinks that's a virtue.

(6 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think he's trying to say axiomatic when he talks about a tautology.

Per google, one usage of the term is "a statement that is always true by its own structure."

My claim was, "As long I am still finding it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X, I will continue to believe Religion-X."

Yet the entire gallery is saying that is NOT an example of a tautology.

I'm still scratching my head over this one....

(6 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Nah, gods are often subject to fates.   You've added a new wrinkle.  Fatalism is the thing you're describing when you talk about determinism...and claim that it is ridiculous.  Now, however, you're saying that the fatalism which you think is ridiculous is a strong argument for your god?

I have no idea what you are referring to.  I didn't post anything on fatalism on this thread.
Except that a second ago you mentioned it, and I responded. My response did not adduce fatalism as an epistemic foundation for Yahweh.

Whose posts are you reading?