Summations Only

As this threa seems to be a repackaged version of Message 1 I thought I'd quote some of his replies to challenges to his theory of empathy being a driver for evolution.It could save people some time to select the most appropriate reply for their questions. Maybe I'm being unfair by doing this, but in the thread where I got these quotes from (Message 1) I nearly cut my lungs out in frustration.

In this thread Message 1 he made the same kack-handed use of the word empathy.I think he's searching for some non mechanical mechanism for nature being the way nature is.This is all woo being painted (badly) with some sciency sounding words that add up to a word salad.

Nope. He really is talking about a cell having intelligence. In a previous thread he was talking about exactly the same thing but using the word empathy. This is a purely chemical reaction; mediated by light levels, not mediated by intelligence.Edited by Larni, : Second [qs]

This is all just woo repackaged as 'intelligence" or "empathy" in a vain attempt to make the universe more interesting for people who are interested in woo.Some people seem to need the universe to be other than what it is and are blind to the grandure of reality (if it does not conform to their ideals).When asked to substantiate their claims (as I predicted in the case of Zi ko) they have nothing to bring; that is the reason the more rational creos don't last long here.Sorry, I'm feeling a bit disenchanted.Edited by Larni, : Bizarre formatting.

Apologies in advance, but.I told you so.

No.What you are doing is the equivalent of throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it will stick.And what do you know, the walls here may as well be made of Teflon.

You are doing the same thing here as you did in your thread about empathy powering evolution 'somehow'.You could not present evidence or even a rationale that would give anyone the slightest suspiscion that your crank idea is true.Not able to supply evidence, not able to supply a rationale, not able to even use reasoned argument: what are we to conclude from your post here?The reality is that you want this to be true. You want to pull other people into your conceptual orbit.Ask yourself this: why do you want this to be true?I think you'll be unpleasently suprised with the answer.

Emphasis mine.So from the outset you assume a priori that nature is intelligent.With no evidence, or even a rationale you have already assumed that you are right.That's like saying:"Sir, your dog did wilfully steal my credit card and ran up an enormous bill buying hard core internet porn""Excuse me?""Sir, I repeat that your dog did wilfully, with beastliness aforethought steal my credit card and ran up an enormous bill buying hard core internet porn""Surely, you can't expect me to believe my dog would have interest in human porn, can you?""Oh yes indeedy I do, sir. And don't call me Shirley""Well I must say I'm a bit confused: for why do you draw such a conclusion? What reason do you have to believe my dog would be interested in human porn?""Surely you don't want me to provide evidence or even a way that your dog could possibly be interested or even download human porn, what with the lack of hands?""Actually, yes sir, I do sir. And now may a prevail upon you not to call me Shirley?""I fail to see sir, why providing evidence or a rationale for my assertion could move this discussion forwards.""Sir I must kindly ask you to fuck off. My hansome carriage awaits and I have no time to discourse with you about my dog or human porn"."But I'm right, I tell you! Your dog and my massive internet porn bill are innately connected.!""Driver, to the Tescos Metro, if you would; I have a mind to purchase some of Mr Kellogs most delicious Co Co Pops."*Clatter of hooves on a cobbled road fades away.*Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

None of what you say makes any bit of the slightest sense. It does not explain where instinct comes from.Don't you know anything about evolutionary psychology? Of course not. Just like you know nothing about what empathy or intelligence is.Define instinct: bet you can't.Aaargh!*boom!**Head assplodes*Edited by Larni, : Anger

Instint is such a woolly term that it has virtually no meaning.Fixed Action Pattern or Preparedness is a much more useful term.

Please, people: let this thread go into the long night.

You could also think of the behaviour a one person in a building where they work: impossible to predict. But the behaviour of every one in the building obeys certain predictable rules that can be used to predict the behaviour of the group.Also like in the formation of ice: we can't predict exactly where the first crystal will form but we know they will form. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I have.It's a pile of shit.As a scientist or deep thinker or even an average thinker, you are a joke.You write nothing but stream of consciousness bollocks that makes no sense to anyone with a decent education.Edited by Larni, : Splink

It is badly written from the standpoint as a peice of scientific literature.I understand it all.The reason I don't agree with what your points is because you have given me no reason to agree with your points.I'm not going to take your flights of fancy as scientific untill I see some reason to.The balls in your court.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Is has nothing to do with Darwinsm. If ToE was wrong and creationism was correct your assertions would still have no evidence to support them and no reason for people to believe that they are in any way accurate.This is where you are going wrong: you believe something. You want it to be right. But you can't say why it is right.From a scientific point of view your assertions are no different to the assertion that organisms evolve because of their etheric morphic resonance fields acting on girm line cells.At least with that assertion you could falsify it by de polarising the inversion fields.Can you even do that?