The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

Certainly none whose points you care to actually address. So what? Particle physics does this as well. Quarks are called 'strange' or 'charm'. The mere overlapping of words is completely irrelevant to the scientific merits of a theory. Are you saying that you would be completely happy with the theory of evolution if we just changed all the words you object to to made up words, even if they still meant exactly the same thing in terms of the theory? But a truth which seems to have no supporting evidence, and indeed a lot of contradicting evidence, i.e. all of the many scientific papers which discuss probability and indeed the fundamental nature of experimental design. No it isn't, neutral selection is perfectly well accounted for in the population genetics based approaches to evolution. And saying 'when the fittest don't reproduce' is entirely non-sensical, 'Fitness' is a post-hoc measure based upon reproductive success not some platonic ideal. More like castles in the air.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

Notice this makes a terrible computer program, because the human mind doesn’t fit into simple functions. Concepts such as quickly assess ones environment, examine stored knowledge and come to a quick decision are not programmable concepts.

---

Eh? Why not? In fact I would say that the majority of bespoke commercial programmes do these things. Not to the same degree, of course.

Syamsu: the digital equivalent of going down on your room-mate and then pretending it never happened.But next time, just poke him with a stick a couple times. You get the same results as you would if you laid out thoughtful, respectful arguments, and it's a lot more fun.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck

quote:

---

going down

---

Watch it with those judgemental terms Dan. It is clear you are prejudiced against those digital people who go up on their roomates. I base this on a book I never read called Digital Fortress by Dan Brown. The word Digital is in the title. That is all the proof I need. I have no competition in this thread.Regards
Mam nor Reading Is Fundamental

The spatial dimension which the failed tenets of physics have labelled "up" are meaningless to this discussion. Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler all recognized "up" as a valid direction in which one could travel.The meaning of "up" is at the core of this debate. Your failure to recognize the failed and prejudiced nature of "up" is your downfall. For you to ignore the effect of "up" on ethnic cleansings throughout history is irresponsible, and delusional.

You might want to put up some safeguard, to not end up like Konrad Lorenz and a group of fellow psychologists, breaking up families and sending the non-German looking ones to a concentration camp. (Ute Deichmann, Biologists under Hitler)Now what should this safeguard be. You offer the naturalistic fallacy. A mere figleaf, which results in biologists actually being less careful in their discipline, because it puts the fault outside of science.How about half of all moneys that go to evolutionary psychology is used to study the phenomenon of things going one way or another, philosphically and technically. When you say that randomness precludes choices, you are obviously totally ignorant about choice as a matter of things going one way or the other.A paid professional who studies emotions who is totally ignorant about choices.Clearly, obviously, as before, something is terribly wrong here. I think this may be actionable, as in a studentstrike to force scientists to pay attention to choice, would have lots of students participating.You merely pay lipservice to the phenomenon of things going one way or the other, you are shown to be totally ignorant of it. What you must do is study it, or else you should not engage in a discipline that has it's subject a thing that is most all about going one way or another, a human being.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

- You have previously argued how there is no scientific evidence for things going one way or another.- You didn't even know what to call the point where a probability changes.- You also argued that probabilities don't neccessarily reflect things actually being able to go one way or another.- You also said that it is unworkable, and not interesting to find the decisions that set the main features of organisms.- You do not recognize any single last decision of any magnitute in the entire billions year history of evolution.You just want to sit at both sides of the argument, because you know you're on the losing side. The side of Galton, Haeckel, Lorenz, Darwin, Dawkins, in their worst moments, the moments they just ignored God's and human choice in favour of some mechanism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

While this may seem like a ridiculous idea to the layperson, you must keep in mind that to Syamsu, the idea of simply "not being a dick" is strange, and alien. In Syamsu's world, if you are able to justify the murder of millions of people, then no matter how flimsy and illogical your justification, you will murder millions of people. This holocaust will exist in a vacuum... there will be no larger social and political events that may have contributed to the cause... the fact that you allowed yourself to think of evolution in failed Darwinian terms will be to blame.But there is hope! If you carefully avoid any of the ideas that so obviously cause the evil which plague the souls of men, your mind will stay clean, scoured, and pure! Removing the words "competition" and "selfish" from all fields of scientific inquiry will ensure that no one ever thinks an evil thought, and then we will all live in a shiny, happy world, where nobody's puppy ever has to die. Ah... another one that probably needs a little explanation before the man-on-the-street can understand. In Syamsuland, if you disagree with Syamsu, then you are obviously totally ignorant. It doesn't matter how much "evidence" or "research" or "basic 101 course logic" you put into your disagreement... do not attempt to refute the judgement of total ignorance, as this will only make your total ignorance more obvious. Accept it, make the necessary changes to your way of thinking, and move on from there.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-28-2005 11:52 AM

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck

When I say programmable knowledge I am talking, in this case, specifically the ability to formalize it into simple programming logic. A series of if/then statements and calls to stored knowledge.The main point I was trying to make is that you can not make such a program that is applicable to everyone, because the stored knowledge and if/then functions are likely to be different.Models that try to produce results for across the board humanity often run into some major problems.In my research on time discounting most of the current economic models have people integrating every decision across time with every other decision. And while this can make a nice simplistic model it’s completely wrong. Trying to figure out just what people are integrating and how they are responding to these integrations is ultimately impossible for a universal model. The more specific you get to a single sample the less external validity you have.But I think evo psych can help by showing what most people, most of the time integrate. So you are given up some specific accuracy but gain some universal predictability.But it’s tough, and fits poorly in programming logic.That was my main point, to try and show that proximate factors, including "choice" have to be integrated at some level and that it is recognized.

It is an established fact among mainstream historians that the Darwinian revolution resulted in the rise of pseudobiological racism. Even Gould admitted this, saying that while racism was prevalent before Darwin, it increased manifold on the event of the Darwinian revolution.And as historian Klaus Fischer implores in his standardwork about Nazi-Germany, the most lethal component of nazi-ideology was it's predeterminist characteristic. Predetermination by blood, and by misconceived laws of nature.So there is a clear link, from general denial and neglect of things going one way or another within science, to denial and neglect of human choice, leading to mistreatment of human beings.As before my argument is strong, the evidence clear, as far as I can tell. You're going down. You are pitifully trying to create some strawman. For what reason you don't support investigation into things going one way or another, as a matter of urgent ethical import, is quite beyond me. There seems to be no reasonability in your position, only scientism.It was offered some time ago by a scientist that the yelps of a dog when they cut through the nerves should just be considered as the chimes of a machine. Basically that is just what modernday evolutionary psycholigists are saying, when they say that emotions are just machine-mechanisms, that there is no free will in them.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thanks for the recap, do you have any actual evidence yet that would contradict either of those things?As for a specific term for the point where a probability changes, I have suggested a number of terms for the point where a probability reaches unity, such as 'the point where a probability reaches unity'. Why does a specific one word label add anything to the discussion? Not given your loaded usage of 'decision'. Again, I disagree with your terminology. No, I just don't want you to act as if you already have all the answers to questions which have yet to be answered scientifically, if you have any evidence to support the answers you put forward I would be interested to see it.TTFN,WK

I don't have much of any principle objection to the word unity, although I think it's a bad wordchoice. The point is that you are just making up names, which means that there is no "official" commonly accepted word for "decision" in science, or else that word is not widely known. Clearly this must mean, if you don't even have a name for it, that the study of it is completely underdeveloped. You can't communicate about "unities" if people don't understand what you mean by the term.So you lose, the subject of things going one way or another is underdeveloped and the evidence that it is underdeveloped is undeniable within reasonability, totally obvious. It's one huge stinky fundamental prejudice in science right there for all to see.The word unity does not imply to me that things could have turned out differently. And the common usage of unity doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with turning out one way or the other. You might actually want to explain why you use that word. As before my first preference is "determination", as offered to me by some evolutionist, as a more neutral alternative to "decision". The only reason I use the word "decision" now is to have it be understood that things can go one way or another, which is not understood when I use the word determination.Most all of this I told you several times before, so please don't bring it up again ignoring my counterarguments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Please try and learn some science. Unity is already a well established term for 1 in mathematics and statistics. Why is it a bad 'wordchoice'. And I can't discuss science meaningfully with someone who is ignorant of a topi he chose to address and totally resistant to the idea that he might not already know everything. And yet you have never provided a single scrap of it. Nor have you addressed the many counter-evidences I have proposed.TTFN,WK

That would be when the Bolsheviks looted the Galapagos Islands, right? And of course, we've been back and forth around the mulberry bush about fifty kajillion times about the fact that use of Christianity was a big component in this predeterminist characteristic, as was Darwinism, as could have been any idea the Nazis wanted to twist for their own ends.You unchanging answer seems to be that no, only Darwinism counts, and that it's just asinine to suggest that anything else in the world had anything to do with it. Oh, and that you're being totally reasonable. Because all the evidence is in your favor. Evidence which, apparently, has been stolen by elite agents of the royal family... to prevent you from exposing the truth about the Illuminati snake demons, and their mind control technology. And remember... if you think something's obviously, objectively true, and no one else sees it, even after listening to you lay out your case in its entirety, then it's clearly everyone else who's wrong. That's not the first big sign of insanity. Life really is that much like a Twilight Zone episode. As soon as you support investigation into the idea that if I sneeze really hard, fire will shoot out my ass. There's no reason to think it might be the case... all the available evidence is against it... and ultimately, it boils down to nothing more than my own personal obsession. But why you don't support it is beyond me. See my first post on this thread, Syamsu. You pissed away any shot at reason and respect a long time ago. Now it's just more fun to poke you. And of course, you've reached your own personal conclusions about the implications of this idea, and you don't like those conclusions, so you'd like the facts changed to better suit what you would like reality to be. Got it.Ah... that reminds me of one of my favorite Syamsu moments... the time you laid out two theories, and asked me what the better one would be. When I responded that the better theory was the one better supported by the evidence, you changed the subject.Good times.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck

Today's Syamsu post is brought to you by the letter I.

---

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river, infidels shiver In the stench of belief
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late
I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw ringing in my ears"
-Beck