Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Emotions are feelings. Feelings are not sentient. Non-sentient things cannot choose. Unless you are claiming otherwise your argument eats itself.

Yes, I looked at how common discourse works, it all works out consistently. You on the other hand are just fantasizing, creating a big conceptual mess. You are making things up while you are writing your posting. There is no chance you will even remember tomorrow what you said, you have no understanding of how subjectivity works in place. You are just throwing garbage, and if enough evolutionists join in, in throwing garbage, then you pretend it is all proven.

In common discourse emotions are referred to as what makes a decision turn out the way it does. You are basically saying people are wrong to say "I love you" and such, because of your pseudoscientific assertions. That's really the implication of your bold assertions.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes, I looked at how common discourse works, it all works out consistently.

I hope you go into greater detail because common discourse is not something that supports your argument and nor is it an argument against evolution.

You on the other hand are just fantasizing, creating a big conceptual mess. You are making things up while you are writing your posting. There is no chance you will even remember tomorrow what you said, you have no understanding of how subjectivity works in place. You are just throwing garbage, and if enough evolutionists join in, in throwing garbage, then you pretend it is all proven.

But no...your baseless opinion rather than all of the scientific understanding which has been discovered by the most brilliant minds of the last two centuries are wrong. You have such a strong axiom that you are right you are willing to make stuff up and stick it onto other people in a feeble attempt to tear them down without actually supporting your argument. Try doing the latter first.

In common discourse emotions are referred to as what makes a decision turn out the way it does. You are basically saying people are wrong to say "I love you" and such, because of your pseudoscientific assertions. That's really the implication of your bold assertions.

This is false on a few different occasions. The first is that emotions are not what ultimately drive the decision making process. They are a factor among other factors. This is well understood. Someone may do something rash if they are angry. But that does not mean that everyone angry will do something rash. Logic, critical thinking, problem solving, self control, social pressure, knowledge of consequences are all factors that are right there along with the emotions. The emotions themselves NEVER "choose" anything. This is true even as you explain your position.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The first is that emotions are not what ultimately drive the decision making process.

You are obviously just making things up, inventing stuff while you are writing it.

What you argue does implicitly mean that people are wrong to say "I love you", it doesn't make any sense.

And supposedly that is the finiding of "brilliant minds", and not the finding of atheists making things up. The level of discourse among scientists generally on any topic dealing with freedom is ridiculous, they really only understand things being forced. The mathematics to describe choosing has not been worked out, the physics has not been worked out. The only thing scientists are brilliant at in relation to freedom, is in figuring out excuses why they could avoid freedom, like saying it is an illusion, saying freedom has the logic of being forced. You can right see on wikipedia that the section on free will is an intractible mess, containing virtually no practical knowledge about how it works. That intractible mess is the supposed.... brilliant.... work of scientists.

I have already provided the evidence in this topic, and besides, I should not have to explain to anybody how subjectivity works, you should just know it already.

 

[Midnight Rain]

What you argue does implicitly mean that people are wrong to say "I love you", it doesn't make any sense.

You are deluded if you believe that to be true. To say "I love you" is an expression of communication that would hopefully be used to indicate to another individual that you have certain feelings. It has nothing to do with the actual emotion or the consequences that may follow from the accumulation of factors that eventually decided what actions any individual takes.

And supposedly that is the finiding of "brilliant minds", and not the finding of atheists making things up. The level of discourse among scientists generally on any topic dealing with freedom is ridiculous, they really only understand things being forced. The mathematics to describe choosing has not been worked out, the physics has not been worked out. The only thing scientists are brilliant at in relation to freedom, is in figuring out excuses why they could avoid freedom, like saying it is an illusion, saying freedom has the logic of being forced. You can right see on wikipedia that the section on free will is an intractible mess, containing virtually no practical knowledge about how it works. That intractible mess is the supposed.... brilliant.... work of scientists.

I have already provided the evidence in this topic, and besides, I should not have to explain to anybody how subjectivity works, you should just know it already.

You haven't provided a lick of evidence. You have brought an incoherent half-assed argument that is repeated like a record but not evidence.

The vast majority of scientists throughout history have actually been theists not atheists. So there is no atheistic making up all of these findings. But in modern psychology we understand that the decision making system is complex with many many factors. To what degree we have "Free will" is argued but no one argues that emotions are the pure and only basis of decisions. And DEFINITELY no one argues that the emotions themselves are some sort of sentient decision making entity. It is unanimously agreed that emotions are one of many factors.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are deluded if you believe that to be true. To say "I love you" is an expression of communication that would hopefully be used to indicate to another individual that you have certain feelings. It has nothing to do with the actual emotion or the consequences that may follow from the accumulation of factors that eventually decided what actions any individual takes.

You haven't provided a lick of evidence. You have brought an incoherent half-assed argument that is repeated like a record but not evidence.

The vast majority of scientists throughout history have actually been theists not atheists. So there is no atheistic making up all of these findings. But in modern psychology we understand that the decision making system is complex with many many factors. To what degree we have "Free will" is argued but no one argues that emotions are the pure and only basis of decisions. And DEFINITELY no one argues that the emotions themselves are some sort of sentient decision making entity. It is unanimously agreed that emotions are one of many factors.

You find it incoherent to reach a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, by choosing it, however the procedure works without logical contradictions. You have a problem with basic subjectivity, your problem with it being, that it is not objectivity. This is why Shad says that emotions are fact, simply because he only understands fact. And why you say emotions don't choose, because you only understand about reaching a conclusion forced by evidence.

You are yourself providing evidence that evolutionists reject subjectivity wholesale.For anybody who knows how subjectivity works, it is immediately clear from your postings that you are rejecting subjectivity wholesale.

And you would not respond the way you do if you were creationist, if you had knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. Evolution theory destroys any and all knowledge about how things are chosen, and with that destroys subjectivity.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You find it incoherent to reach a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, by choosing it, however the procedure works without logical contradictions. You have a problem with basic subjectivity, your problem with it being, that it is not objectivity. This is why Shad says that emotions are fact, simply because he only understands fact. And why you say emotions don't choose, because you only understand about reaching a conclusion forced by evidence.

You are yourself providing evidence that evolutionists reject subjectivity wholesale.For anybody who knows how subjectivity works, it is immediately clear from your postings that you are rejecting subjectivity wholesale.

And you would not respond the way you do if you were creationist, if you had knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe. Evolution theory destroys any and all knowledge about how things are chosen, and with that destroys subjectivity.

I fully support subjectivity as it is unavoidable. I disagree that emotions are what do the choosing as you say. It doesn't logically follow and it is inherently contradictory.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I fully support subjectivity as it is unavoidable. I disagree that emotions are what do the choosing as you say. It doesn't logically follow and it is inherently contradictory.

Thereby proving that you reject subjectivity.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Thereby proving that you reject subjectivity.

No. Subjectivity is the ability to have experiences and react to those experiences. By all intents and purposes you reject subjectivity because of your free from experience choosing method of emotional agents of choosing rather than personal agents of choosing being affected by subjective experiences such as emotions or information.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. Subjectivity is the ability to have experiences and react to those experiences. By all intents and purposes you reject subjectivity because of your free from experience choosing method of emotional agents of choosing rather than personal agents of choosing being affected by subjective experiences such as emotions or information.

Conceptually, what you say is just a garbled mess, with many internal logical contradictions. You don't know where to place choosing in the conceptual scheme. You have no clue about agency. You are simply fantasizing stuff as you go along.

Everybody knows by the way you write, that next month you will be saying something different from what you say now.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Conceptually, what you say is just a garbled mess, with many internal logical contradictions. You don't know where to place choosing in the conceptual scheme. You have no clue about agency. You are simply fantasizing stuff as you go along.

Everybody knows by the way you write, that next month you will be saying something different from what you say now.

Strange. I haven't actually changed any of my positions on this at all and yet you think its an evolving. Strange indeed.

But name just one internal logical contradiction so far. Name one.

Secondly define agency and what constitutes an agent from something that is not an agent? How is it determined? I am interested to hear what you have to say on it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Strange. I haven't actually changed any of my positions on this at all and yet you think its an evolving. Strange indeed.

But name just one internal logical contradiction so far. Name one.

Secondly define agency and what constitutes an agent from something that is not an agent? How is it determined? I am interested to hear what you have to say on it.

A computer surveillance camera, emailing an alert when there is a change in the videopicture. This is what your definition of subjectivity as "experience and reacting to an experience" amounts to.

There is no integration with any logic of choosing in your conceptual scheme, it is just an arbitrary add-on. Once any logic of choosing is introduced, you complain that it is incoherent. You arbitrarily transpose any logic of choosing in the scheme, when pressured, leading to all sorts of contradictions with your scheme in which everything is forced. All the while asserting pompous scientific authority, for what is really just junk which nobody uses in practise in social life.

Subjectivity is choosing about what it is that that chooses, resulting in an opinion. One can have the opinion it is anger which makes a decision turn out the way it does, one can have the opinion it is care. One may choose either answer, and neither is more logically valid than the other answer. So one can make opinion about what is in your own heart, and of your spouse, children, parents, friends and even come to believe in God almighty. That is the freedom of opinion as intended in the different constitutions.

As you can see, this conceptual scheme is fully integrated with the logic of choosing. Nobody will deny that reaching a conclusion by choosing it is not an opinion. This procedure is clearly distinghuished from matters of fact, which is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence.

Agency in relation to choosing is a term which refers to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And so there are many terms which deal with this issue, some of which terms just only refer to what it is that chooses, other terms combine a reference to what it is that chooses, with a reference to a particular way that is chosen.

Spirit is the most general terms of all in reference to what it is that chooses. Then agency refers to an acting spirit. Then emotion generally refers to agency of decisions made in a particular way, and instinct same like emotions refers to agency of decisions made in a different way. etc. etc. there is a whole world of sophisticated understanding about it in common discourse and religion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

A computer surveillance camera, emailing an alert when there is a change in the videopicture. This is what your definition of subjectivity as "experience and reacting to an experience" amounts to.

Except that is a process not a subjective experience. Though I would like to amend my earlier definition to include that it does involve decision making on a personal level. I keep the rest of it but with that add on.

There is no integration with any logic of choosing in your conceptual scheme, it is just an arbitrary add-on. Once any logic of choosing is introduced, you complain that it is incoherent. You arbitrarily transpose any logic of choosing in the scheme, when pressured, leading to all sorts of contradictions with your scheme in which everything is forced. All the while asserting pompous scientific authority, for what is really just junk which nobody uses in practise in social life.

I have gone into great detail about how there are multiple factors involved in decision making. It is a complex psychological issue that actually does and is useful in daily life. Or are you someone who doesn't believe in psychology or that psychiatrists help people?

Subjectivity is choosing about what it is that that chooses, resulting in an opinion. One can have the opinion it is anger which makes a decision turn out the way it does, one can have the opinion it is care. One may choose either answer, and neither is more logically valid than the other answer. So one can make opinion about what is in your own heart, and of your spouse, children, parents, friends and even come to believe in God almighty. That is the freedom of opinion as intended in the different constitutions.

Subjectivity is the conclusion of mutlipe factors. Anger for example would be a factor of subjectivity not the other way around.

As you can see, this conceptual scheme is fully integrated with the logic of choosing. Nobody will deny that reaching a conclusion by choosing it is not an opinion. This procedure is clearly distinghuished from matters of fact, which is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence.

I argue that your "logic of choosing" is faulty and doesn't match up to real world observations. It seems far more an assumption of how the world works based upon a worldview.

Agency in relation to choosing is a term which refers to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And so there are many terms which deal with this issue, some of which terms just only refer to what it is that chooses, other terms combine a reference to what it is that chooses, with a reference to a particular way that is chosen.

Agency simply refers to the ability to act or to have individual capacity.

Spirit is the most general terms of all in reference to what it is that chooses. Then agency refers to an acting spirit. Then emotion generally refers to agency of decisions made in a particular way, and instinct same like emotions refers to agency of decisions made in a different way. etc. etc. there is a whole world of sophisticated understanding about it in common discourse and religion.

There is a theological stance on this. It is not verified or supported by evidence. The sociological studies on agency and the determining factors have reared interesting results especially when paired with psychological studies on individual processes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except that is a process not a subjective experience. Though I would like to amend my earlier definition to include that it does involve decision making on a personal level. I keep the rest of it but with that add on.

Yes you would like to include decisionmaking, however..... in practise you actually object to the definition where the choosing is functionally integrated in the conceptual scheme as nonsensical. So really in practise you object to choosing.

So then this "decisionmaking" just kind of hangs loosely as an add -on to your conceptual scheme, which conceptual scheme uses a logic of being forced. The solution to this jumbled mess, is to then simply to give choosing a logic of being forced. Problem solved, no more internal contradictions in your conceptual scheme.

In which case we are back to the videocamera. The videocamera is "choosing" between sending and not sending an email, based on if the picture changed or not. That is called "compatiblilism"and is the predominant idea among evolutionists about how choosing works. Naturally human beings choosing is more sophisticated then what a video-camera does. Evolutionists can make this look mighty impressive by talking about the many factors involved, and the millions of "possible" combinations. Then talk a bit more with pompous scientific authority how you are working on solving the problem of consicousness and so forth, and then it looks like you got something.

But meanwhile you are just rejecting subjectivity wholesale, and rejecting freedom is real.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes you would like to include decisionmaking, however..... in practise you actually object to the definition where the choosing is functionally integrated in the conceptual scheme as nonsensical. So really in practise you object to choosing.

So then this "decisionmaking" just kind of hangs loosely as an add -on to your conceptual scheme, which conceptual scheme uses a logic of being forced. The solution to this jumbled mess, is to then simply to give choosing a logic of being forced. Problem solved, no more internal contradictions in your conceptual scheme.

In which case we are back to the videocamera. The videocamera is "choosing" between sending and not sending an email, based on if the picture changed or not. That is called "compatiblilism"and is the predominant idea among evolutionists about how choosing works. Naturally human beings choosing is more sophisticated then what a video-camera does. Evolutionists can make this look mighty impressive by talking about the many factors involved, and the millions of "possible" combinations. Then talk a bit more with pompous scientific authority how you are working on solving the problem of consicousness and so forth, and then it looks like you got something.

But meanwhile you are just rejecting subjectivity wholesale, and rejecting freedom is real.

A video camera does not choose to take the recording. It is designed that way and it is its function. The camera is a non-agent preforming a function. A complex decision making agent such as ourselves, would not follow a simple process. We are self aware and have the capacity to take any number of potential courses of action. What actions we take are determined by factors. What those factors are are not always fully defined but emotion is not an agency itself but a weighing factor in the process of decision making for the agent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

A video camera does not choose to take the recording. It is designed that way and it is its function. The camera is a non-agent preforming a function. A complex decision making agent such as ourselves, would not follow a simple process. We are self aware and have the capacity to take any number of potential courses of action. What actions we take are determined by factors. What those factors are are not always fully defined but emotion is not an agency itself but a weighing factor in the process of decision making for the agent.

complex....self aware....a potential action.....determined by factors.....including undefined factors.....which are weighted.

Terms arbitrarily thrown together to create a jumbled mess.

You are just fantsizing it right now as we speak, everybody knows this. You have no working concept of subjectivity in place.

A potential course of action, determined by factors. That is where a contradiction threatens between being forced and being free, in your conceptual scheme.

Potentially the videocamera can email, it is determined by factors, factors which cause a change in the videopicture. You are still just using a logic of being forced, there is no real integration with choosing.

Which is obvious, because you rejected the explanation where choosing was fully integrated into the conceptual scheme. It is your obvious intention to do away with choosing, freedom, altogether.

 

[Midnight Rain]

complex....self aware....a potential action.....determined by factors.....including undefined factors.....which are weighted.

Terms arbitrarily thrown together to create a jumbled mess.

Just because you don't understand the terminology doesn't mean its a jumbled mess. It just means you don't understand it.

You are just fantsizing it right now as we speak, everybody knows this. You have no working concept of subjectivity in place.

I would wager they think of your posts as nothing but a bunch of nonsense and probably somewhat amused at my attempts to convey this to you.

A potential course of action, determined by factors. That is where a contradiction threatens between being forced and being free, in your conceptual scheme.

Only if I define potential action as a direct and constant reaction to the factors at hand. If there is randomness as well as self awareness (especially as self awareness and logic are factors) it can mean that the potential choices are numerous and based upon the cognitive decisions of the person. Its possible that there is no real freedom but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is not in any sense of certainty.

Potentially the videocamera can email, it is determined by factors, factors which cause a change in the videopicture. You are still just using a logic of being forced, there is no real integration with choosing.

There is no potential for the videocamera to suddenly change its function without being acted upon.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Only if I define potential action as a direct and constant reaction to the factors at hand. If there is randomness as well as self awareness (especially as self awareness and logic are factors) it can mean that the potential choices are numerous and based upon the cognitive decisions of the person. Its possible that there is no real freedom but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is not in any sense of certainty.

And then a pirate lizard came and cut down the potential with his sabre. You are just fantasizing whatever.

 

[Midnight Rain]

And then a pirate lizard came and cut down the potential with his sabre. You are just fantasizing whatever.

Do you have the faintest idea of what potential and fulfillment means? And when I say fulfillment I don't mean the feeling you get when you accomplish something but when something fulfills its potential. A good example is a ball has potential energy. It realizes the potential energy when it falls and it fulfills its potential to fall.

If I have several paths of possibility I can only fulfill one of those paths at a time. Other than multiple universes where each and every path is taken by an alternative version we can safely assume that we only take on one of our potential paths. What determines which potential path we take would be called free will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everybody knows by the way you write, that next month you will be saying something different from what you say now.

And everybody knows by how you write you're using a bunch of "fancy terms" that you don't know how to use or what they mean.

 

[JustCallMeNick]

More College Freshmen Report Having Felt Depressed
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/more-college-freshmen-report-having-felt-depressed.html?_r=0

The prediction of creationists in the early 20th century of evolution theory bringing "hell to the highschool", turns out true.

With evolution theory you are creating a study environment in which any knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe is discarded, and with that any subjectivity about what made the decisions turn out the way they do is discarded as well. No room is provided for subjectivity at all, hence students become depressed.

Most significantly at Harvard, where the predominance of atheism is the largest. That hellhole where 50 percent of students become seriously depressed during their studentcareer, should be closed down as a health hazard for mental health.

Holy post hoc ergo propter hoc, Batman!