Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Vishvavajra]

St

Stop drinking crappy coffee, try 100% Kona or Ka'u coffees and you'll never have that problem.

Problem solved! I think we've found the cause of and the cure for depression: modern man's addiction to crappy coffee.

That involved a subjective statement and a choice, so I guess that fits in the OP's theory, right?

 

[Sapiens]

Problem solved! I think we've found the cause of and the cure for depression: modern man's addiction to crappy coffee.

That involved a subjective statement and a choice, so I guess that fits in the OP's theory, right?

No, that involved a shameless commercial announcement, because along with vacation rentals and our sustainable organic farm, we grow Ka'u Coffee, recognized as the third best coffee in the world. For better beans you have to pick them out of the solid waste of an Ethiopian Civet Cat, or have someone else do it and pay them on the order of $60.00 per brewed cup.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Problem solved! I think we've found the cause of and the cure for depression: modern man's addiction to crappy coffee.

That involved a subjective statement and a choice, so I guess that fits in the OP's theory, right?

The philosopher Sam Harris wrote this whole article about how he got sick from drinking coffee, and that it was therefore not free will that he went to the coffeebar every morning, but addiction.

I know some of these people who've made a super-ego to take care of themselves, and this super-ego they support can never do anything wrong whatsoever.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The philosopher Sam Harris wrote this whole article about how he got sick from drinking coffee, and that it was therefore not free will that he went to the coffeebar every morning, but addiction.

It seems to me people define "free will" too narrowly. There's no such thing as a choice in which there aren't impulses or other factors pushing us in particular directions, yet we still make choices. Even addicts make choices, addiction just means that they will suffer immediate pain for choosing not to indulge in the thing they're addicted to. An absolutist view of free will, ironically, leads inevitably to a kind of hard determinism, since it's impossible to imagine a situation in which there are no factors affecting and guiding our choices.

 

[David M]

You don't know how subjectivity works, you are willfully ignorant about it. That's the truth, and you cause other people to not understand it as well, thereby you are directly guilty of causing depression, by undermining subjectivity altogether.

It is you who does not understand what subjectivity is, let alone how it works. That is my claim and until you provide rigorous definitions of "subjectivity" and "choosing" (and all the other
terms that you misuse) you cannot even begin to refute the claim.

Your arguments are nonsense because you use terms in ways other than their standard definitions and refuse any clarification of their meaning.

OK, just so I can demonstrate that it's not me: Does anybody have a clue what this guy is talking about?

No its not just you, its almost everyone. You can now expect repetition of nonsensical assertions using non-standard definitions of terminology and personal attacks from Nur who will claim it to be common discourse (another term whose meaning he does not understand).

 

[David M]

I'm sure mental health professionals generally use the same logic as in common discourse, which is creationist..

No, they use logic and evidence, which is the form of common discourse that the rest of the world uses, not the form that you have invented which obviates any need for you to back up your nonsense and assertions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know some of these people who've made a super-ego to take care of themselves, and this super-ego they support can never do anything wrong whatsoever.

Dude, in all reality, in all seriousness, for the sake of your own dignity, quit using words that you do not know what they mean. The way you used this word shows you do not know what it means, at all. The super-ego is a concept developed by Sigmund Freud, and there is no "people who've developed one" because, according to Freud, the man who came up with this idea, there aren't a few who develop them because we all have one that exists along side our id and ego.
Id, ego and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please educate yourself because you are only making yourself look like a fool.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I suspect there's a serious language barrier here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect there's a serious language barrier here.

I wondered about that, but this is not what could be considered a typical case of a language barrier. It happens here often enough to tell when it happens.
This guy does not have such a barrier, but rather he is using words that he does not know what they mean.
The language barrier is accepting you have misunderstood how a word or phrase is used in another language. This happens. It is normal. The language barrier is not taking a handful of words and misusing them at every term, even though if you know of these words (such as super-ego) you have read of them from sources that are describing them as is (as the sub-conscious is really the only idea of Freud's that is taken seriously today, which is based in his concepts of the Id, Ego, and Super-Ego), and you should not be misusing as many of them in such a way.
This is either a troll, or the best example of a language barrier I have seen on RF in my 10 years of being here. And because I have known many members here who do not know English as a primary language, this language barrier seems to be exceptionally profound. Not just a word or concept here, but time and time again. He claims common discourse, but the words he cites and defines do not match common discourse. This is an appropriate area to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his constant insistent that he is right, we are wrong, is suspicious for some who falls under ESL. Using the term super-ego seems to have sunk his battleship, as you will not be using this word unless you have studied the appropriate sources to know exactly what the super-ego is, or I do suppose it is possible you are reading sources that are terribly wrong.
We can only conclude that Syamsu is a troll or that he is reading from sources that are so terribly biased that the only means of effective communication and educating him are to learn what his sources are, start over completely and entirely, and try to work from his perception towards correcting his misunderstandings. But assuming this cultural difference hypothesis is true, it would take a carefully planned approach in order to educate him about these misunderstandings.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

but the words he cites and defines do not match common discourse.

Very obviously my words do match common discourse, as my words can be easily commonly understood. By common discourse you mean using the exact technical definition as in the professional literature.

But all this professional technical literature suffers from the same error to reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity as invalid, making them inconsistent with common discourse. This technical literature is merely a lot of authoritarian huffing and puffing in order to lend respectability to the idea that freedom is not real, and that you can get away with rejecting subjectivity as invalid.

It is very clear that the denial of freedom is very widespread in science, it is less clear that this denial of freedom comes together with rejection of subjectivity altogether.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Very obviously my words do match common discourse, as my words can be easily commonly understood. By common discourse you mean using the exact technical definition as in the professional literature.

But all this professional technical literature suffers from the same error to reject freedom is real, and reject subjectivity as invalid, making them inconsistent with common discourse. This technical literature is merely a lot of authoritarian huffing and puffing in order to lend respectability to the idea that freedom is not real, and that you can get away with rejecting subjectivity as invalid.

It is very clear that the denial of freedom is very widespread in science, it is less clear that this denial of freedom comes together with rejection of subjectivity altogether.

No, your words are not easily or commonly understood. Several of us have been trying in vain to understand what in the world you're talking about for some time now. You speak a lot of gibberish and call it "common discourse," but you're the only one here who understands it.

You also have a lot of false ideas about the contents of the scientific discourse. There is no denial of freedom or rejection of subjectivity. That is entirely in your mind. You are beating a straw man. You are projecting ideas and positions onto people that they do not actually hold, then criticizing them for holding such terrible positions. In doing so you have accomplished nothing except for showing everyone that you are scientifically illiterate and probably uncomfortable with modernity. But be that as it may, if opposing science is really the hill you want to die on, then it's your responsibility to learn something about it. Otherwise you're just attacking something you don't understand and have no desire to understand, and there's no point to that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, your words are not easily or commonly understood. Several of us have been trying in vain to understand what in the world you're talking about for some time now. You speak a lot of gibberish and call it "common discourse," but you're the only one here who understands it.

You also have a lot of false ideas about the contents of the scientific discourse. There is no denial of freedom or rejection of subjectivity. That is entirely in your mind. You are beating a straw man. You are projecting ideas and positions onto people that they do not actually hold, then criticizing them for holding such terrible positions. In doing so you have accomplished nothing except for showing everyone that you are scientifically illiterate and probably uncomfortable with modernity. But be that as it may, if opposing science is really the hill you want to die on, then it's your responsibility to learn something about it. Otherwise you're just attacking something you don't understand and have no desire to understand, and there's no point to that.

It is not really possible to reason with people who deny freedom is real and who reject subjectivity. That's because reasoning requires acceptance of freedom and subjectivity.

You can see evolutionists just fantasize whatever about how choosing works, and how subjectibity works. There is no intention on their part to study the structure of common discourse, which common discourse they just as well despise as they despise religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is not really possible to reason with people who deny freedom is real and who reject subjectivity. That's because reasoning requires acceptance of freedom and subjectivity.

You can see evolutionists just fantasize whatever about how choosing works, and how subjectibity works. There is no intention on their part to study the structure of common discourse, which common discourse they just as well despise as they despise religion.

I see a lot of ad hominems and other accusations, and yet I see no hard evidence of anything that you have claimed.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It is not really possible to reason with people who deny freedom is real and who reject subjectivity. That's because reasoning requires acceptance of freedom and subjectivity.

You can see evolutionists just fantasize whatever about how choosing works, and how subjectibity works. There is no intention on their part to study the structure of common discourse, which common discourse they just as well despise as they despise religion.

Who has denied freedom or subjectivity? You make that accusation over and over again, but you have yet to offer any support, presumably because you don't have any to offer. It's a straw man fallacy, which you would understand if you actually understood anything about reason.

Reason is about making logical inferences from clear premises. I have seen none of that from your side. It is not, incidentally, about freedom or subjectivity, at least not directly.

But here, I'll make it easy for you: the theory of evolution by natural selection describes how genetic mutation can result in adaptive changes in creatures over many generations. What does that have to do with choice or subjectivity? Are you suggesting that polar bears chose to be white, or that humans chose to be bipedal? Did you choose to be a human in the first place? Did you choose your genes or the physical structures they code for? Because that's the only kind of choice evolutionary theory denies. But nobody actually believes in that kind of choice anyway, so what's the point?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who has denied freedom or subjectivity? You make that accusation over and over again, but you have yet to offer any support, presumably because you don't have any to offer. It's a straw man fallacy, which you would understand if you actually understood anything about reason.

Reason is about making logical inferences from clear premises. I have seen none of that from your side. It is not, incidentally, about freedom or subjectivity, at least not directly.

But here, I'll make it easy for you: the theory of evolution by natural selection describes how genetic mutation can result in adaptive changes in creatures over many generations. What does that have to do with choice or subjectivity? Are you suggesting that polar bears chose to be white, or that humans chose to be bipedal? Did you choose to be a human in the first place? Did you choose your genes or the physical structures they code for? Because that's the only kind of choice evolutionary theory denies. But nobody actually believes in that kind of choice anyway, so what's the point?

You are simply showing your ignorance about how choosing works. So then your ignorance is evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how choosing works. And anybody reasonable already knows that subjectivity depends on knowledge about how choosing works. So it is shown that evolution theory undermines subjectivity in general, leading to depression.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are simply showing your ignorance about how choosing works. So then your ignorance is evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how choosing works. And anybody reasonable already knows that subjectivity depends on knowledge about how choosing works. So it is shown that evolution theory undermines subjectivity in general, leading to depression.

Stating nonsense and prefacing it with "anybody reasonable already knows..." doesn't somehow make it not nonsense. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever and have no basis in reality.

 

[Vishvavajra]

You are simply showing your ignorance about how choosing works. So then your ignorance is evidence that evolution theory destroys knowledge about how choosing works. And anybody reasonable already knows that subjectivity depends on knowledge about how choosing works. So it is shown that evolution theory undermines subjectivity in general, leading to depression.

That is not how reasoning works. Just more ad hominem attacks and straw men and the worst of all fallacies, begging the question. Your assertions are the diametric opposite of reasonable, by textbook definition. You can't even construct an argument. All you can do is insult people and insist that if they were reasonable they'd already agree with you. Then you take any refutation of your assertions as proof of your assertions. So your assertions are correct no matter what you say, no matter what other people say, no matter what the evidence says, simply because they're your assertions.

Let me speak a bit more slowly for you: It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is not how reasoning works. Just more ad hominem attacks and straw men and the worst of all fallacies, begging the question. Your assertions are the diametric opposite of reasonable, by textbook definition. You can't even construct an argument. All you can do is insult people and insist that if they were reasonable they'd already agree with you. Then you take any refutation of your assertions as proof of your assertions. So your assertions are correct no matter what you say, no matter what other people say, no matter what the evidence says, simply because they're your assertions.

Let me speak a bit more slowly for you: It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way.

There is no refutation on your part. Somebody who knows how choosing works would respond from the basis of their knowledge of it. You have no basis. You are just fantasizing whatever while you are writing your posting, because you do not have anything established about how choosing works.

 

[Vishvavajra]

There is no refutation on your part. Somebody who knows how choosing works would respond from the basis of their knowledge of it. You have no basis. You are just fantasizing whatever while you are writing your posting, because you do not have anything established about how choosing works.

How does choosing work?

I have asked you that before, and you have been consistently unable to answer the question. Saying "if you weren't brain-damaged you would already know" is not an answer. That's what people say when they don't know themselves. IF you cannot explain how choosing works, then this conversation is over, and you have admitted defeat.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How does choosing work?

I have asked you that before, and you have been consistently unable to answer the question. Saying "if you weren't brain-damaged you would already know" is not an answer. That's what people say when they don't know themselves. IF you cannot explain how choosing works, then this conversation is over, and you have admitted defeat.

In your dreams. You can look at common discourse and find the structure of how people talk in terms of making decisions, in daily life. It is right there, obvious for all to see. This is 100 percent a problem with your attitude about it.