Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Monk Of Reason]

I guess that is the same way we know political correctness is fascism, and not the care and love it pretends to stand for. You take prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory. If you only use natural selection theory to support that good and evil are fact, that is already social darwinism.

I don't. I think that philosophical arguments based off of our own subjective but collective opinions are how we should describe good and evil within our societies. Good and evil are both subjective. When have I ever stated that I wanted natural selection to be the basis for my ethics?

 

[leibowde84]

I guess that is the same way we know political correctness is fascism, and not the care and love it pretends to stand for. You take prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory. If you only use natural selection theory to support that good and evil are fact, that is already social darwinism.

Can you provide the comment where he claimed that good and evil were factual?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't. I think that philosophical arguments based off of our own subjective but collective opinions are how we should describe good and evil within our societies. Good and evil are both subjective. When have I ever stated that I wanted natural selection to be the basis for my ethics?

You havent. He just makes false claims so he can argue with himself. I've asked him about a hundred times to quote our comment where any of us has made this claim.

 

[gnostic]

I don't. I think that philosophical arguments based off of our own subjective but collective opinions are how we should describe good and evil within our societies. Good and evil are both subjective. When have I ever stated that I wanted natural selection to be the basis for my ethics?

That because in his ignorant and deluded world, he think evolutionary biology and social darwinism are one and the same, so that he change any definition whenever he like (which is quite frequently), especially when anyone disagree with him.

He is deluded because he think his definitions are better than anyone and everyone else, which is laughable, when most of time, he's incoherent and making things up.

He has just basically labelled everyone who have ever disagree with him as "Social Darwinists".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't. I think that philosophical arguments based off of our own subjective but collective opinions are how we should describe good and evil within our societies. Good and evil are both subjective. When have I ever stated that I wanted natural selection to be the basis for my ethics?

You don't mimic the morality posited in the struggle for survival, and then you pretend this means you don't derive morality from natural selection theory. This is just like biologists saying nature is selfish, and we should be altruistic. That is deriving morality from natural selection theory all the same. It is equating the technical meaning of selfishness with evil, and the technical meaning of altruism with good, it is science of good and evil.

Saying subjective a lot is meaningless, because you define subjectivity differently. Subjectivity works by choosing about what is that chooses. And choosing is to be interpreted as making an alternative future the present, or making a possible future the present or not.

Subjectivity requires to acknowledge the fact that freedom is real, because subjectivity operates based on freedom. And this is all what you are explicitly opposing. And opposing it without any reasoning whatsoever. You have no conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, you just say subjectivity a lot, and then you oppose the conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works in common discourse.

The standard and common definition of free will was for the spirit or soul to do the job of choosing, of making the decision turn out the way it does. You replace that with ideas about genes, psychological mechanisms, electro chemical processes in the brain, environmental factors, and whatever, forcing the behaviour, and then calling it a choice and subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You don't mimic the morality posited in the struggle for survival, and then you pretend this means you don't derive morality from natural selection theory. This is just like biologists saying nature is selfish, and we should be altruistic. That is deriving morality from natural selection theory all the same. It is equating the technical meaning of selfishness with evil, and the technical meaning of altruism with good, it is science of good and evil.

Saying subjective a lot is meaningless, because you define subjectivity differently. Subjectivity works by choosing about what is that chooses. And choosing is to be interpreted as making an alternative future the present, or making a possible future the present or not.

Subjectivity requires to acknowledge the fact that freedom is real, because subjectivity operates based on freedom. And this is all what you are explicitly opposing. And opposing it without any reasoning whatsoever. You have no conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, you just say subjectivity a lot, and then you oppose the conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works in common discourse.

The standard and common definition of free will was for the spirit or soul to do the job of choosing, of making the decision turn out the way it does. You replace that with ideas about genes, psychological mechanisms, electro chemical processes in the brain, environmental factors, and whatever, forcing the behaviour, and then calling it a choice and subjectivity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You don't mimic the morality posited in the struggle for survival, and then you pretend this means you don't derive morality from natural selection theory. This is just like biologists saying nature is selfish, and we should be altruistic. That is deriving morality from natural selection theory all the same. It is equating the technical meaning of selfishness with evil, and the technical meaning of altruism with good, it is science of good and evil.

False. IT is your subjective opinion (see me using subjectivity there) that altruism is good. To some altruism may be a bad thing. It may be evil in some respects. In certain circumstances I can see where altruism would be an evil thing to do. They don't equate anything to good or evil.

And I don't have to derive my morals from the "survival of the fittest". Why? Because I don't want to live in that kind of society. I have a subjective opinion that I would rather live in a society based on altruism than on survival of the fittest. Collaboration rather than conflict. And I still know the facts of evolution. Is this blowing your mind?

Saying subjective a lot is meaningless, because you define subjectivity differently. Subjectivity works by choosing about what is that chooses. And choosing is to be interpreted as making an alternative future the present, or making a possible future the present or not.

Subjectivity is the personal opinion and decision making that isn't backed up by objective facts. You may feel that a piece of art is beautiful. Granted there are usually factors involved but its still subjective as others may have different opinions about the same objective situation.

Subjectivity requires to acknowledge the fact that freedom is real, because subjectivity operates based on freedom. And this is all what you are explicitly opposing. And opposing it without any reasoning whatsoever. You have no conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works, you just say subjectivity a lot, and then you oppose the conceptual scheme of how subjectivity works in common discourse.

I will need you to quote me where I say freedom isn't real. Because I'm pretty sure that I have typed "I believe in freedom" at least 100 times to you. Evolution does not conflict with freedom. No matter what you say this continuse to be true. IF anything your god conflicts with freedom.

The standard and common definition of free will was for the spirit or soul to do the job of choosing, of making the decision turn out the way it does. You replace that with ideas about genes, psychological mechanisms, electro chemical processes in the brain, environmental factors, and whatever, forcing the behaviour, and then calling it a choice and subjectivity.

False. This may be true in your language but the spirit and soul have no direct correlation to freedom and subjectivity in English.

Does it bother you that our brain activity isn't a supernatural soul thing that exists outside of the universe? Does it bother you that much that our brain is a physical organ? Why does that change anything?

And if the subjectivity of ourselves and our ability to choose is purely from a spiritual realm why does brain damage hurt us?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

False. This may be true in your language but the spirit and soul have no direct correlation to freedom and subjectivity in English.

Is rubbish. It's in the engish language wiki under the header metaphical libertarianism. It's the common understanding still in the English speaking world. There are certainly hundreds of medieval works talking about the soul choosing. With variations on it, that there is an instinctive soul, denoting the spirit choosing in an instinctive way, and the intellectual soul, etc. As explained by Ockham, Thomas, and all the others.

You are appearing to look reasonable by saying you accept freedom is real, and accept subjectivity, while actually you are undermining subjectivity directly, destroying it utterly.

Where is your theory about how things are chosen in the universe? That the universe can turn out several different ways, and one of the ways is made the present. You don't have such a theory, it is all just posing, you don't accept freedom is real at all. You have an idea about freedom to mean that something is uninhibited. And your idea about subjectivity is that one person has different genetics, different electro chemical processes in the brain, different psychological mechanisms, different environmental factors etc., as another person.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is rubbish. It's in the engish language wiki under the header metaphical libertarianism. It's the common understanding still in the English speaking world. There are certainly hundreds of medieval works talking about the soul choosing. With variations on it, that there is an instinctive soul, denoting the spirit choosing in an instinctive way, and the intellectual soul, etc. As explained by Ockham, Thomas, and all the others.

You are appearing to look reasonable by saying you accept freedom is real, and accept subjectivity, while actually you are undermining subjectivity directly, destroying it utterly.

Where is your theory about how things are chosen in the universe? That the universe can turn out several different ways, and one of the ways is made the present. You don't have such a theory, it is all just posing, you don't accept freedom is real at all. You have an idea about freedom to mean that something is uninhibited. And your idea about subjectivity is that one person has different genetics, different electro chemical processes in the brain, different psychological mechanisms, different environmental factors etc., as another person.

Lets look at several definitions from non-medieval sources.

From Subjectivity | Define Subjectivity at Dictionary.com
noun, plural subjectivities for 2.
1.
the state or quality of being subjective; subjectiveness.
2.
a subjective thought or idea.
3.
intentness on internal thoughts.
4.
internal reality.

From Subjective | Definition of subjective by Merriam-Webster

: of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as

a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness

b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
2
: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b

b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>

b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by externalstimuli <subjective sensations>

c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <asubjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
5
: lacking in reality or substance : illusory
— sub·jec·tive·ly adverb
— sub·jec·tive·ness noun

From subjectivity - definition of subjectivity by The Free Dictionary

1.
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (JohnHoberman).
b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient.
4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
5. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
6. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

And for further reading Subjectivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of which at all mentions a soul. None of which has ever been an actual definition of the word. There has been a theological opinion that the soul was involved with subjectivity and "choosing" as you say but in English it has NEVER been part of the definition of the word.

What your argument falls down to is that "You don't believe in souls therefore you are a Social Darwinist".

I do not believe in souls. There is no evidence for souls. I believe in subjectivity by any of the above definitions. I could have gone and quoted a dozen other online dictionaries but I just chose the top three as well as a wiki page. Hopefully you will see that as sufficient in at least the definition of the word has nothing to do with souls. If your point still boils down to souls then use those terms instead. However you will have a far harder time proving your point of subjectivity and making everything "fact" when what you mean to say is that I am a pragmatic materialist and you believe in souls. That is the key difference.


And please respond to the portion about brain damage and "subjectivity".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Where is your theory about how things are chosen in the universe? That the universe can turn out several different ways, and one of the ways is made the present. You don't have such a theory, it is all just posing, you don't accept freedom is real at all. You have an idea about freedom to mean that something is uninhibited. And your idea about subjectivity is that one person has different genetics, different electro chemical processes in the brain, different psychological mechanisms, different environmental factors etc., as another person.

Quantum Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boom.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Lets look at several definitions from non-medieval sources.

From Subjectivity | Define Subjectivity at Dictionary.com
noun, plural subjectivities for 2.
1.
the state or quality of being subjective; subjectiveness.
2.
a subjective thought or idea.
3.
intentness on internal thoughts.
4.
internal reality.

From Subjective | Definition of subjective by Merriam-Webster

: of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as

a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness

b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
2
: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b

b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>

b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by externalstimuli <subjective sensations>

c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <asubjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
5
: lacking in reality or substance : illusory
— sub·jec·tive·ly adverb
— sub·jec·tive·ness noun

From subjectivity - definition of subjectivity by The Free Dictionary

1.
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: "The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation" (JohnHoberman).
b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient.
4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
5. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
6. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

And for further reading Subjectivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of which at all mentions a soul. None of which has ever been an actual definition of the word. There has been a theological opinion that the soul was involved with subjectivity and "choosing" as you say but in English it has NEVER been part of the definition of the word.

What your argument falls down to is that "You don't believe in souls therefore you are a Social Darwinist".

I do not believe in souls. There is no evidence for souls. I believe in subjectivity by any of the above definitions. I could have gone and quoted a dozen other online dictionaries but I just chose the top three as well as a wiki page. Hopefully you will see that as sufficient in at least the definition of the word has nothing to do with souls. If your point still boils down to souls then use those terms instead. However you will have a far harder time proving your point of subjectivity and making everything "fact" when what you mean to say is that I am a pragmatic materialist and you believe in souls. That is the key difference.


And please respond to the portion about brain damage and "subjectivity".

Is ridiculous. That the soul chooses is the only meaning of the soul since forever. And then when people die their soul is judged, meaning they are judged by God for the decisions they made.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Quantum Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boom.

There is an interpretation of qm in terms of freedom, but it's not the standard interpretation. And besides that qm interpretation is incomplete, it does not actually describe the act of one or the other becoming the present, it doesn't even describe anticipation.

And again, you explicitly reject choosing about what it is that makes any decision in the universe turn out the way it does. When you at all accept freedom you denote the agency as random and therefore meaningless. You reject subjectivity even when you acknowledge freedom.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is ridiculous. That the soul chooses is the only meaning of the soul since forever. And then when people die their soul is judged, meaning they are judged by God for the decisions they made.

This isn't ridiculous. Its English. Use he proper words. Subjectivity and soul are not interchangeable. You may believe that the soul is measured by subjectivity but subjectivity has never been measured by the soul. I also don't believe in judgement or god

If you feel that the the soul is the key to subjectivity then you must make that argument. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Why do you believe the soul is the basis for subjectivity? Aside from religion and aside from faith what is the REASON that you feel this way?

There is an interpretation of qm in terms of freedom, but it's not the standard interpretation. And besides that qm interpretation is incomplete, it does not actually describe the act of one or the other becoming the present, it doesn't even describe anticipation.

And again, you explicitly reject choosing about what it is that makes any decision in the universe turn out the way it does. When you at all accept freedom you denote the agency as random and therefore meaningless. You reject subjectivity even when you acknowledge freedom.

The standard interpretation of "freedom" is based on cognition. However you said very specifically that the universe is one way because of choices made. On a macro scale the situation still applies. There is an infinite possibility of tracts the universe could take. There is an infinite number of ways that your life could go. Based on the fulfillment of these possibilities which are based on your choices its how they turn out. Freedom is real. Its just not supernatural.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you feel that the the soul is the key to subjectivity then you must make that argument. .

I've made that argument already. The root of all subjectivity is that the agency of any decision can only be identified by choosing what it is. There is no other subjectivity except in respect to the agency of decisions. And that's how it worked in the middle ages, and that's how it still works with regular people.

Anybody who would accept freedom is a reality, would not object to a procedure to reach a conclusion about what is real by choosing it. You reject this procedure, you reject freedom, you reject subjectivity.

But you have genes, psychological mechanisms, environment, electro chemical processes in the brain etc. as agency of a decision. You describe people as being forced by their genetics, and psychological mechanisms etc. and then you call that way of being forced, choosing and subjectivity.

And you have no theory about how things are chosen in the universe, because you conceive of choosing as selection, as sorting out the best result with the scientific facts about what is good and evil. This is why you do not mention any choosing occurring in the universe at large, because you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result. And then it becomes ridiculous that things like the weather are chosen, because the weather doesn't sort out the best result with facts about good and evil like you do. You do not attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, you attribute it to their genes, their acts, their brainprocesses, their psychological mechanisms, etc. you measure good and evil, and pretend you know the worth of people as fact.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I've made that argument already. The root of all subjectivity is that the agency of any decision can only be identified by choosing what it is. There is no other subjectivity except in respect to the agency of decisions. And that's how it worked in the middle ages, and that's how it still works with regular people.

Anybody who would accept freedom is a reality, would not object to a procedure to reach a conclusion about what is real by choosing it. You reject this procedure, you reject freedom, you reject subjectivity.

But you have genes, psychological mechanisms, environment, electro chemical processes in the brain etc. as agency of a decision. You describe people as being forced by their genetics, and psychological mechanisms etc. and then you call that way of being forced, choosing and subjectivity.

And you have no theory about how things are chosen in the universe, because you conceive of choosing as selection, as sorting out the best result with the scientific facts about what is good and evil. This is why you do not mention any choosing occurring in the universe at large, because you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result. And then it becomes ridiculous that things like the weather are chosen, because the weather doesn't sort out the best result with facts about good and evil like you do. You do not attribute goodness and evil of a man to their spirit choosing, you attribute it to their genes, their acts, their brainprocesses, their psychological mechanisms, etc. you measure good and evil, and pretend you know the worth of people as fact.

 

[Shad]

That's whatever, the fact is that you all do reject subjectivity altogether.

Nope, incorrect again.

And you all deny freedom is real also. Shad now tries to acknowledge freedom is real, to try to have some credibility, but he cannot pinpoint the actual event of making a possible future the present or not. This is because he refuses to use the word decision for it. So now he says that freedom is real, but freedom is unrelated to choosing, in stead he says that freedom means that it is "dictated" by "natural mechanics". That is his actual argumentation, no kidding.

Strawman and red herring since I never said anything about freedom. I am describing natural mechanics to you since you have no idea how these work.

A decision is a choice thus a mind dependent outcome. You are using the wrong word for it. My refusal to use your incorrect terminology is well founded and reasonable. Find a magnet field on a planet that exists without the planet have the properties necessary for one.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Nope, incorrect again.



Strawman and red herring since I never said anything about freedom. I am describing natural mechanics to you since you have no idea how these work.

A decision is a choice thus a mind dependent outcome. You are using the wrong word for it. My refusal to use your incorrect terminology is well founded and reasonable. Find a magnet field on a planet that exists without the planet have the properties necessary for one.

Don't you love how he types like he's trying to convict you of a crime in a court setting?

" Shad now tries to acknowledge freedom is real, to try to have some credibility, but he cannot pinpoint the actual event of making a possible future the present or not. This is because he refuses to use the word decision for it. So now he says that freedom is real, but freedom is unrelated to choosing, in stead he says that freedom means that it is "dictated" by "natural mechanics". That is his actual argumentation, no kidding. "

 

[Shad]

Don't you love how he types like he's trying to convict you of a crime in a court setting?

" Shad now tries to acknowledge freedom is real, to try to have some credibility, but he cannot pinpoint the actual event of making a possible future the present or not. This is because he refuses to use the word decision for it. So now he says that freedom is real, but freedom is unrelated to choosing, in stead he says that freedom means that it is "dictated" by "natural mechanics". That is his actual argumentation, no kidding. "

I am guilty of using words correctly.

He produces a strawman since he can not address my comment directly. Notice he stopped talking about crystals as soon as I linked sources covering the formation of crystals. Probability becomes choice/decision then it becomes mind dependent when talking about people. His uses of choice/decision are fallacies of equivocation as the meaning changes based on context, often hidden and no expressed as clarification. When pointed out he ignores his own language use.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I am guilty of using words correctly.

He produces a strawman since he can not address my comment directly. Notice he stopped talking about crystals as soon as I linked sources covering the formation of crystals.

So he's doing the same things you've done for the last 60 pages?

 

[Shad]

So he's doing the same things you've done for the last 60 pages?

No, he makes claim then challenges me to provide a source proving him wrong. I provide a source, he drops the crystal argument but repeats the same argument under a new topic. Crystals have choice. Magnetic fields have choice. He just changes the context word without realizing the sources counter the argument itself regardless of changing the context subject.

I have yet to produce a strawman as I am pointing out his terminology is in error. I address his arguments while he does not address mine. The only part I do not address is the opinion of agency since it is an opinion. Anyone can dismiss an opinion for being.... an opinion. Choice and decision are mind dependent outcomes that he conflates with a mind-independent outcome. This is begging the question since he is injecting his view of agency in to his "fact" claims based on his opinion view point