Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[SkepticThinker]

Better question. Why does he avoid the causes cited in both his sources....

Yes, much better question ...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes, much better question ...

It's like, you almost have an argument, but not really....

It has already been addressed repeatedly that the causes the article provides are just educated guesses. They are not the result of research, nor would any research ever give any definite conclusion for these sorts of issues.

The argument is still that evolution theory generally destroys knowledge about how things are chosen. And with that subjectivity is destroyed, because subjectivity depends on choosing.

There is loads and loads and loads of evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how things are chosen. It pretty much annihilates any knowledge about decisions made in the universe at large. That is now pretty much universally ridiculed in academics.

But also for the knowledge about organisms, and human beings choosing, evolution theory twists the logic of choosing to make it use a logic of being forced. Evolutionists use the logic of the natural selection algorithm to mean choosing. Natural selection is a sorting mechanism, by the forces of nature the fittest organism survive. The result of sorting mechanisms is forced, it cannot turn out any other way by the mechanism. The tallest will be sorted out as being the tallest, the most efficient will be sorted out as the most efficient. With sorting mechanisms the result is typically forced.

You all haven't even begun to make an argument. Yes obviously and ofcourse such a finding as by common sense that evolution theory causes depression is qualified by that many other factors can cause depression too. On the other hand though, evolution theory is a manipulative factor, that also plays a role in other factors that cause depression. Obviously when you mess with fundamental knowledge, the knowledge about how choosing works, subjectivity, then it's going to affect lots of things. You basically mess with the entire system.

 

[Kirran]

There is loads and loads and loads of evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how things are chosen. It pretty much annihilates any knowledge about decisions made in the universe at large. That is now pretty much universally ridiculed in academics.

Then please, show us some!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then please, show us some!

Cosmides and Tooby founders of the revamped socio-biology, into evolutionary psychology, describe emotions as akin to software running on hardware. Sounds a bit lame to have the foundations of a whole discipline based on a syllogism, but....nobel prize winner Konrad Lorentz did the same sort of thing previously, likening the function of instincts to cannisters slowly filling up with gas released when full.

Ofcourse...as we all know, by us all knowing common discourse, once you make emotions into a matter of fact issue, then you have already sidelined most subjectivity. The opinion what emotions are in your own heart, your poppa en momma's heart, your spouse, your children, your friends, etc. that is maybe 90 percent of subjectivity, which the evolutionists just made into factual issue, sidelining subjectivity altogether.

The other thing that this does is, it rules out freedom altogether. When emotions are posited as fact, then you get the logic of what the emotion in "fact" is, which cause forces an effect. You cannot get to any alternative option being chosen, because then the result can only be in accordance with what the emotion in fact is.

So you see ultra Darwinist philosopher, Daniel Dennet, explaining free will in terms of selecting options, as a sorting process. Dennett then argues that there may be a "random" element to the generation of options, which makes actual alternative results a possibility in choosing. But he says this is only true for some choices, it is not neccessarily the case for any decision that there must be an alternative result available.

So you see how evolutionism is in a vicious circle, spiralling downward, of objectifying emotions, and explaining choosing in terms of being forced, the one reinforcing the other.

You want more evidence? For 150 years evolutionists strenously opposed creationism. The one big theory which describes things in terms of the decisions by which they come to be, and which theory correctly identifies the choosing agency based on faith, as a matter of opinion.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ohh so you think that believing in evolution is an emotional decision?

 

[Kirran]

Cosmides and Tooby founders of the revamped socio-biology, into evolutionary psychology, describe emotions as akin to software running on hardware. Sounds a bit lame to have the foundations of a whole discipline based on a syllogism, but....nobel prize winner Konrad Lorentz did the same sort of thing previously, likening the function of instincts to cannisters slowly filling up with gas released when full.

I appreciate you getting some sources to talk about here.

However, I don't see how either of these facts (emotions as akin to software, or instincts like gas in cannisters) really supports your argument.

Emotions aren't physical objects, they're coming from the brain, whereas the brain is a physical object, so in the broadest sense emotions, as well as thoughts, instincts, memories etc are like software. But I don't think this means we're cold etc like computers.

Gas filling up cannisters, I think the comparison is a bit stretched there

Ofcourse...as we all know, by us all knowing common discourse, once you make emotions into a matter of fact issue, then you have already sidelined most subjectivity. The opinion what emotions are in your own heart, your poppa en momma's heart, your spouse, your children, your friends, etc. that is maybe 90 percent of subjectivity, which the evolutionists just made into factual issue, sidelining subjectivity altogether.

Well, for one, as I say, we're all operating on different common discourse, as we know different people.

But secondly, I think subjectivity is a function of opinion, as opposed to emotion.

So you see ultra Darwinist philosopher, Daniel Dennet, explaining free will in terms of selecting options, as a sorting process. Dennett then argues that there may be a "random" element to the generation of options, which makes actual alternative results a possibility in choosing. But he says this is only true for some choices, it is not neccessarily the case for any decision that there must be an alternative result available.

Yeah, I get what you're saying here, put like that is does seem kind of heartless and robotic. But that's only talking about it in theory, simplifying it down to look at it more clearly. I don't know anybody who thinks through this 'sorting' in real life. So I, for instance, absolutely experience making a choice, in the same way I did when I was a child etc, it's just the theory around it which has changed.

You want more evidence? For 150 years evolutionists strenously opposed creationism. The one big theory which describes things in terms of the decisions by which they come to be, and which theory correctly identifies the choosing agency based on faith, as a matter of opinion.

Yeah, they did. But I don't see how that proves it's linked to depression :/

As a side note, I enjoy our debates, thank you.

 

[shawn001]

Cosmides and Tooby founders of the revamped socio-biology, into evolutionary psychology, describe emotions as akin to software running on hardware. Sounds a bit lame to have the foundations of a whole discipline based on a syllogism, but....nobel prize winner Konrad Lorentz did the same sort of thing previously, likening the function of instincts to cannisters slowly filling up with gas released when full.

Ofcourse...as we all know, by us all knowing common discourse, once you make emotions into a matter of fact issue, then you have already sidelined most subjectivity. The opinion what emotions are in your own heart, your poppa en momma's heart, your spouse, your children, your friends, etc. that is maybe 90 percent of subjectivity, which the evolutionists just made into factual issue, sidelining subjectivity altogether.

The other thing that this does is, it rules out freedom altogether. When emotions are posited as fact, then you get the logic of what the emotion in "fact" is, which cause forces an effect. You cannot get to any alternative option being chosen, because then the result can only be in accordance with what the emotion in fact is.

So you see ultra Darwinist philosopher, Daniel Dennet, explaining free will in terms of selecting options, as a sorting process. Dennett then argues that there may be a "random" element to the generation of options, which makes actual alternative results a possibility in choosing. But he says this is only true for some choices, it is not neccessarily the case for any decision that there must be an alternative result available.

So you see how evolutionism is in a vicious circle, spiralling downward, of objectifying emotions, and explaining choosing in terms of being forced, the one reinforcing the other.

You want more evidence? For 150 years evolutionists strenously opposed creationism. The one big theory which describes things in terms of the decisions by which they come to be, and which theory correctly identifies the choosing agency based on faith, as a matter of opinion.

He is using the term "choosing" as the argument of fine tuning.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu, we are carbon based life forms. Where does the element carbon in the universe come from? What is the process that creates carbon?

 

[Kirran]

 

[Shad]

It's like, you almost have an argument, but not really....

It has already been addressed repeatedly that the causes the article provides are just educated guesses. They are not the result of research, nor would any research ever give any definite conclusion for these sorts of issues.

Educated guesses are better than your view which is not supported by the sources, which are claimed to support said view, and is pure speculation.

The argument is still that evolution theory generally destroys knowledge about how things are chosen. And with that subjectivity is destroyed, because subjectivity depends on choosing.

Only if one is a hard determinist. If one is not your argument fails. Your argument only applies to a specific group.

There is loads and loads and loads of evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how things are chosen. It pretty much annihilates any knowledge about decisions made in the universe at large. That is now pretty much universally ridiculed in academics.

Subjectivity is not ridiculed in all academic circles. Physiology is linked with subjectivity. Branches can not function without it.

The rest of your post is just repeating the first part, no need to address it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We is all of us. Since I examined common discourse I can talk in terms of we. You can only talk for yourself, as an oracle on how choosing and subjectivity work. And the next also an oracle. You don't actually agree on anything except that each is an oracle on the issues.

Kinda ironic posting, mate. You stated that 'we know that Shadow Wolfs ideas about choosing and subjectivity are a fantasy' (paraphrasing)

There is no 'we', and the explanation offered above literally doesn't make sense (unless youre a borg..Ahem...)

You say we dont agree on anything in one breath, but suggest we all destroy subjectivity and free will with the next.

And yes...i only talk for myself. @Iti oj hasnt yet converted me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

...lots of useless intellectualism. You should argue towards responsibility to deal with a depression epidemic. I cannot see any reality of people's lives reflected in your words. Why would subjectivity still function if people go out of their way to destroy it intellectually?

 

[Kirran]

...lots of useless intellectualism. You should argue towards responsibility to deal with a depression epidemic. I cannot see any reality of people's lives reflected in your words. Why would subjectivity still function if people go out of their way to destroy it intellectually?

Who is this addressed towards?

 

[Nietzsche]

Who is this addressed towards?

Everyone smarter than him. So really, most of the planet.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He is using the term "choosing" as the argument of fine tuning.

Mohammad Nur Syamsu, we are carbon based life forms. Where does the element carbon in the universe come from? What is the process that creates carbon?

....in considering how decisionmaking works, when you first make a decision in a new system you have lots of freedom. But next decisions combine with previous decisions, making outcomes around what you already decided previously, more likely.

Carbon, we can measure the distance it is from a universe consisting of just 0. Which means the least amount of steps there are from 0 to carbon. So from 0 you get to the set 00, 01, 10, 11 etc. and then finally you come to the mathematics which exhaustively describes carbon. And If the universe started out with 0, then that would be the default hypothesis of the process how carbon came to be, yet history may wander here and there.

And I don't think it is right that the inanimate universe started out with just 0, but instead it started out, pretty much, fully formed. At the start all states of the universe are equally likely, or at least, all states of the universe which are efficient steps in regards to a single 0 state are equally likely. So with 1 decision carbon has been created, and with it most the other elements. What processes there are now which create carbon, I don't know, but it would mainly be covered in the science about what steps it takes to get from 0 to carbon.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...lots of useless intellectualism. You should argue towards responsibility to deal with a depression epidemic. I cannot see any reality of people's lives reflected in your words. Why would subjectivity still function if people go out of their way to destroy it intellectually?

You still have not shown how this happens.
Humans are not androids or Vulcans. There is no way to "destroy" subjectivity. Though some of us are more drawn to concrete facts than others, not many people hold Aristotle's pinnacle of Nicomachean ethics of being totally rational (and not even indulging in subjective things such as art) as an ideal. We all have at least a little bit of Dionysian spirit in us, and pretty much just about everyone is subject to being at the mercy of their own emotional/subjective whims.

 

[shawn001]

....in considering how decisionmaking works, when you first make a decision in a new system you have lots of freedom. But next decisions combine with previous decisions, making outcomes around what you already decided previously, more likely.

Carbon, we can measure the distance it is from a universe consisting of just 0. Which means the least amount of steps there are from 0 to carbon. So from 0 you get to the set 00, 01, 10, 11 etc. and then finally you come to the mathematics which exhaustively describes carbon. And If the universe started out with 0, then that would be the default hypothesis of the process how carbon came to be, yet history may wander here and there.

And I don't think it is right that the inanimate universe started out with just 0, but instead it started out, pretty much, fully formed. At the start all states of the universe are equally likely, or at least, all states of the universe which are efficient steps in regards to a single 0 state are equally likely. So with 1 decision carbon has been created, and with it most the other elements. What processes there are now which create carbon, I don't know, but it would mainly be covered in the science about what steps it takes to get from 0 to carbon.

Carbon is created in supernova explosions by a process called Nucleosynthesis. All the Heavy elements are created that way. The Universe didn't start out fully formed or is it now and what is a fully formed universe to begin with? It has always been evolving.

 

[Iti oj]

Kinda ironic posting, mate. You stated that 'we know that Shadow Wolfs ideas about choosing and subjectivity are a fantasy' (paraphrasing)

There is no 'we', and the explanation offered above literally doesn't make sense (unless youre a borg..Ahem...)

You say we dont agree on anything in one breath, but suggest we all destroy subjectivity and free will with the next.

And yes...i only talk for myself. @Iti oj hasnt yet converted me.

you mean assimilated

 

[shawn001]

On these stars who "choose" how small the sun is to the other stars? How does that process work?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no 'we', and the explanation offered above literally doesn't make sense (unless youre a borg..Ahem...)

I think such a thing may be the only thing un-assimilatable by the Borg (asides from Xenomorphs and Yuuzhan Vong, and maybe perhaps crazy Scottish groundskeepers), as it would serve absolutely no use, purpose, and it would not serve the higher purpose becoming more perfect.

And yes...i only talk for myself. @Iti oj hasnt yet converted me.

We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
And you know you want a cool Borg avatar! Even our Groundskeeper has tried to find one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unless you have a brand new state of the art Halsey class "Enterprise" to fight the borg!


View attachment 8063

BAH! A video game I haven't played doesn't count. You, Lewis, and everyone else, just like everyone else in the ST universe, will just have to learn how to deal with the Borg being able to transport to your ship, make your super-bad *** defense personnel look pathetically weak, and letting us abduct your captains just because we can and their is nothing you can do about it. And just remember, your tactics and [energy based] weapons will only work once.
This is why I doubt the Borg would even have a prayer against Xenomorphs and Yuuzhan Vong. Picard mopped the floor with the Borg using an old fashioned Tommy gun, so what chance really do the nanoprobes stand against acidic blood? And the Vong? Just the very presence of mechanical technology within their body would make themselves happily, eagerly, and without hesitation, half a thought, or regret blow themselves up into a billion pieces, and if the individual couldn't their comrades would with equal enthusiasm. The ultimate sci-fi clash easily comes down to Ripley vs. the Vong, and Ripley is just too bad *** to lose. EVER!