Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

Unlike your gibberish, which isn't proven by anything but your "Trust me, bro."

If it's well-evidenced then it isn't gibberish.  You're just being perverse because you realize that you'll never understand this shit and that makes you resentful.

Demons boil water, but you have to turn up the heat to 212 to draw in those demons.

I can prove it - just put a kettle on the fire and turn it up to 212. See? Well evidenced. Works every time, always gets you the expected result.

I just proved demons exist.

Oh that's right. Maybe I didn't.

Will such a theory withstand falsification? No. See this stems from your misunderstanding the nature of science. Science attempts to show that things are wrong, not simply confirm that they are right. It is your general tendency to accept confirmatory evidence for your beliefs as a strong indicator of truth. This is confirmation bias and is known to lead to a lot of false positives. Karl Popper explored why this is not a good approach to knowledge in the twentieth century but I'm sure you've never read Popper because you read shit like creationist drivel and bogus natural theology arguments. Your reading such has just made you stupid and ignorant.



I take my pot of water up a mountain and it boils at a lower temperature. Demon theory falsified.

[Jal]

Demons boil water, but you have to turn up the heat to 212 to draw in those demons.

I can prove it - just put a kettle on the fire and turn it up to 212. See? Well evidenced. Works every time, always gets you the expected result.

I just proved demons exist.

Oh that's right. Maybe I didn't.

Will such a theory withstand falsification?  No.  See this stems from your misunderstanding the nature of science.  Science attempts to show that things are wrong, not simply confirm that they are right.  It is your general tendency to accept confirmatory evidence for your beliefs as a strong indicator of truth.  This is confirmation bias and is known to lead to a lot of false positives.  Karl Popper explored why this is not a good approach to knowledge in the twentieth century but I'm sure you've never read Popper because you read shit like creationist drivel and bogus natural theology arguments.  Your reading such has just made you stupid and ignorant.



I take my pot of water up a mountain and it boils at a lower temperature.  Demon theory falsified.

The apostle Paul said that demons proliferate in the atmosphere. You didn't know that demons are drawn to elevations?

[OakTree500]

You spoke of rewards incentivizing behavior. A free agent has the freedom to dictate his destination, he can shift direction on a dime to pursue the reward/ incentive.

Determinism lacks that freedom and flexibility.

I'm beginning to think your "can't understand" really translates to "I am so convinced of evolution that anything counter to it will not compute in my brain."  So yes, it might be impossible for you to comprehend the argument, at this point. Literally. In that case, I don't think I can help you understand.

Ok so on this part:

You spoke of rewards incentivizing behavior. A free agent has the freedom to dictate his destination, he can shift direction on a dime to pursue the reward/ incentive.

You know that this is literally what happens in your brain? I'm not saying everything that happens MAKES you do something, but the reason why you feel good when an action or task or someting is done, is a literal chemical in your brain making your do that? Its literally a "reward center" - again thats why people can be addicted to eating to much or drinking too much. Its a self high that makes you feel 'good'. 

Its not determinism its "you do something, your brain literally releases a chemical that makes you feel good" - determinism is philosophical in nature. I'm talking about "Evolution is a process that does X" - if anything else is present, as with any science based theory, you are free to prove otherwise. 

All of the above IS something that comes as a product from evolution. I mean my "lack of understanding" comes from you not knowing what your own point is I think.

[Angrboda]

Will such a theory withstand falsification?  No.  See this stems from your misunderstanding the nature of science.  Science attempts to show that things are wrong, not simply confirm that they are right.  It is your general tendency to accept confirmatory evidence for your beliefs as a strong indicator of truth.  This is confirmation bias and is known to lead to a lot of false positives.  Karl Popper explored why this is not a good approach to knowledge in the twentieth century but I'm sure you've never read Popper because you read shit like creationist drivel and bogus natural theology arguments.  Your reading such has just made you stupid and ignorant.



I take my pot of water up a mountain and it boils at a lower temperature.  Demon theory falsified.

The apostle Paul said that demons proliferate in the atmosphere. You didn't know that demons are drawn to elevations?

This is what's known as an ad hoc assumption and points to a weakness in the theory. If you can show that the alternative thermodynamic explanation also relies on ad hos assumptions, then you would have a point. Instead you've just made your explanation worse instead of better, as now you have increased the complexity without increasing the explanatory power.

But no matter, I can create similar conditions at sea level, thus illustrating that your theory about demons liking elevations doesn't explain the phenomenon, and your theory is once again falsified. By pumping the air out of a chamber I can lower the boiling point without raising the elevation. What is your next ad hoc assumption going to be, where you, like an idiot, make the case for your theory worse instead of better? Regardless of where you suggest demons are more or less prevalent, I can create the condition where if your theory were true, we would expect water to boil or not boil and yet under controlled conditions your theory with its ad hoc assumptions fails. This is because you think it's easy to prove or disprove something, but when your ability is put to the test, it just reveals that you are mistaken.

[Jal]

You spoke of rewards incentivizing behavior. A free agent has the freedom to dictate his destination, he can shift direction on a dime to pursue the reward/ incentive.

Determinism lacks that freedom and flexibility.

I'm beginning to think your "can't understand" really translates to "I am so convinced of evolution that anything counter to it will not compute in my brain."  So yes, it might be impossible for you to comprehend the argument, at this point. Literally. In that case, I don't think I can help you understand.

Ok so on this part:

You spoke of rewards incentivizing behavior. A free agent has the freedom to dictate his destination, he can shift direction on a dime to pursue the reward/ incentive.

You know that this is literally what happens in your brain? I'm not saying everything that happens MAKES you do something, but the reason why you feel good when an action or task or someting is done, is a literal chemical in your brain making your do that? Its literally a "reward center" - again thats why people can be addicted to eating to much or drinking too much. Its a self high that makes you feel 'good'. 

Its not determinism its "you do something, your brain literally releases a chemical that makes you feel good" - determinism is philosophical in nature. I'm talking about "Evolution is a process that does X" - if anything else is present, as with any science based theory, you are free to prove otherwise. 

All of the above IS something that comes as a product from evolution. I mean my "lack of understanding" comes from you not knowing what your own point is I think.

Let's try this again.  Suppose I throw a punch. What force moved my arm?

[OakTree500]

Ok so on this part:
You know that this is literally what happens in your brain? I'm not saying everything that happens MAKES you do something, but the reason why you feel good when an action or task or someting is done, is a literal chemical in your brain making your do that? Its literally a "reward center" - again thats why people can be addicted to eating to much or drinking too much. Its a self high that makes you feel 'good'. 

Its not determinism its "you do something, your brain literally releases a chemical that makes you feel good" - determinism is philosophical in nature. I'm talking about "Evolution is a process that does X" - if anything else is present, as with any science based theory, you are free to prove otherwise. 

All of the above IS something that comes as a product from evolution. I mean my "lack of understanding" comes from you not knowing what your own point is I think.

Let's try this again.  Suppose I throw a punch. What force moved my arm?

Nobody or no thing made you do it.

But the pain receptors in my body tell me it hurts. So who told me it hurts?

You seem to be confusing conscious acts [like throwing a punch] and stuff like thirst [which is a bodily function that tells you to drink water] - those are different types of actions

[Jal]

The apostle Paul said that demons proliferate in the atmosphere. You didn't know that demons are drawn to elevations?

This is what's known as an ad hoc assumption and points to a weakness in the theory.  If you can show that the alternative thermodynamic explanation also relies on ad hos assumptions, then you would have a point.  Instead you've just made your explanation worse instead of better, as now you have increased the complexity without increasing the explanatory power.

But no matter, I can create similar conditions at sea level, thus illustrating that your theory about demons liking elevations doesn't explain the phenomenon, and your theory is once again falsified.  What is your next ad hoc assumption going to be, where you, like an idiot, make the case for your theory worse instead of better?

I could continue with counter-scenarios and counter-theories but it's probably a good idea, for the sake of expediency. to dismiss those that seem gibberish:

1. Intangible forces pushing tangible matter - gibberish.
2. Shortest distance is not a straight line - gibberish.
3. The tangible hand of God pushing tangible matter. Clear.

[Jal]

Let's try this again.  Suppose I throw a punch. What force moved my arm?

Nobody or no thing made you do it.

But the pain receptors in my body tell me it hurts. So who told me it hurts?

You seem to be confusing conscious acts [like throwing a punch] and stuff like thirst [which is a bodily function that tells you to drink water] - those are different types of actions

You didn't answer my question.

[Angrboda]

This is what's known as an ad hoc assumption and points to a weakness in the theory.  If you can show that the alternative thermodynamic explanation also relies on ad hos assumptions, then you would have a point.  Instead you've just made your explanation worse instead of better, as now you have increased the complexity without increasing the explanatory power.

But no matter, I can create similar conditions at sea level, thus illustrating that your theory about demons liking elevations doesn't explain the phenomenon, and your theory is once again falsified.  What is your next ad hoc assumption going to be, where you, like an idiot, make the case for your theory worse instead of better?

I could continue with counter-scenarios and counter-theories but it's probably a good idea, for the sake of expediency. to dismiss those that seem gibberish:

1. Intangible forces pushing tangible matter - gibberish.
2. Shortest distance is not a straight line - gibberish.
3. The tangible hand of God pushing tangible matter. Clear.

Continuing the counter-scenarios, as noted, make your theory less believable rather than more so. But regardless, there's a reason you stopped here. Because you ran out of counter-scenarios.

[Jal]

I could continue with counter-scenarios and counter-theories but it's probably a good idea, for the sake of expediency. to dismiss those that seem gibberish:

1. Intangible forces pushing tangible matter - gibberish.
2. Shortest distance is not a straight line - gibberish.
3. The tangible hand of God pushing tangible matter. Clear.

Continuing the counter-scenarios, as noted, make your theory less believable rather than more so.  But regardless, there's a reason you stopped here.  Because you ran out of counter-scenarios.

No I didn't. I just thought it more productive to cut to the chase.