Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 106 of 236 (182670)
02-02-2005 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brad McFall
02-02-2005 5:39 PM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
Okey doke. I got a good 80-90%.
This is how it was possible for me to find that evolutionary psychology is not really on any better footing that sociobiology.
Ironically enough that specific paper has a section explaining why the author does not believe in sociobiology.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brad McFall, posted 02-02-2005 5:39 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 236 (182687)
02-02-2005 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
02-02-2005 4:17 PM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
I am going to attempt to pull out what I think are some of the major themes you brought up and the major examples. If I fail to address a point that you think is really important I have no doubt you will let me know .
Buss’ opinion on the current state of psychology is Buss’ opinion. I agree on some points and not on others. But the true current state of psychology doesn’t really affect whether evolutionary psychology is discovering new phenomenon or not. I think that if it can be shown that the methods of hypothesis development and research that are used by evo-psych are producing new and fruitful areas of research then it is a valid field of study, regardless of where psychology as a whole stands, right? I am going to try and focus on your claims that relate specifically to methodological and epistemological failures in the field rather than the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Buss.
The goal of evolutionary psychology is in practice not a mechanism to create an over arching theory for brain/mind. In the more philosophical moments of the field individuals talk about unifying cognitive psychology under an evolutionary frame work, ect. But when you get down to it what happens is the field is interested in looking at what is going on in the mind just like all of psychology. It’s not an alternative to say cognitive models, but another way of looking for interesting behaviors and traits in humans. There are those things that people do that have nothing to do with evolution of our species in the past those can be studied in different ways and are just as interesting. What evo-psych says though that there are a lot of fascinating aspects of human psychology that originate from our evolutionary past.
You say that evolution can only affect the physical and that the mind is greater than the physical. I am not entirely certain what you are trying to say. If you want to say there is a mind that is completely separate from our physical system, such as a soul, and that the soul is not subjected to evolution, then I am not really sure how to respond to that. But if you are saying that the mind comes from the physical at some level of interaction, then evolution can affect it. The mind emerges out of the nerves system, and the brain in particular. The nervous system is regulated and controlled just as any other system in the body. What exactly are aspects of the human mind and or behavior that are not accessible by selection? Are you saying mental ideas and behaviors have not coefficient of heritability?
Or is your point more about neuronal plasticity? How the brain is more of a blank slate that is written upon from birth?
You mention that you think there are very few things that are hardwired into humans. Buss address some, you have issues, I will shortly try and address your issues with these ideas. But there seems to be quiet a bit of behaviors that are hardwired. Language acquisition, mate assessment, cheater detection, ect. If your issues with evolutionary psychology comes down to whether there is any hardwired nature then this discussion can veer off to more specific examples of what I think are good research and we can see whether they fit the profile or not.
The nature and nurture issues is called a false dichotomy because both features are important in the development of an organism. There are some aspects which are nurture and some aspects which are nature. And a lot of evo-psych is about looking at these differences. But one of the things you find is that any trait is a mixture of proximate and ultimate causes. Anything working with in the life time of the individual is a proximate cause, and often contributed to the nurture end of the scale. Ultimate causes are basically phylogenetic origin and the selective influences that shaped the trait. They are not exclusive of each other. If one is describing the development of the waist to hip ratio in women there is a large list of proximate factors, from diet, to hormones, to receptor cites, to genes to parasite. But just because all these things affect the WHR doesn’t mean there can’t be an ultimate casual explanation for it. The WHR is a sexually selected trait. Men prefer smaller WHR cross-culturally for a varity of reasons (parasite load history, pregnancy, fertility, ect.) So you can say there are nurture affects and nature affects on the WHR. Evo psych would then look at what the proximate factors are that contribute to WHR and look at the proximate benefits of male assessment of the trait and then build an ultimate hypothesis off this data. So if WHR is heavily affected by the likely hood a given female can become pregnant, and that men prefer smaller WHR and that men who are with women with smaller WHR have greater reproductive success. You can formulate a hypothesis that the preference for WHR evolved because of the increased RS and the trait itself evolved because of the sexual selection on it.
Buss’ distinction of human nature from animal nature was loose language. Actually huge areas of research in evo-psych are comparative biology. A large number of hypotheses are generated by examining both homologous and analogous traits and behaviors. Often evo-psych will look at our close relatives for hints at homologous traits or look at animals far off on the tree but that posses similar environments for traits. Birds are a wealth of hints because many have developed mating systems similar to ours. A lot of fruitful research in humans has come from research initially done with birds.
The snake example is again somewhat loose language. What the research that has been done has found is that individuals will develop associations with negative conditioning to snakes or biological threats SIGNIFICANTLY faster than to novel and non-biological stimuli. So if you create a classic pavlovian shock experiment and show a snake and then shock, you will get the conditioned response a LOT faster then if you show a gun and then shock. Also a lot of research has been done analyzing phobias. Phobias develop disproportionately higher for biological threats. Not everyone has a phobia of spiders or snakes but a disproportionate number of people due who have never had contact with them. So what the research says is that there is not a universal fear of snakes, but that people’s psychologies are set up to develop fears and negative conditioned responses a lot easier for these threats than other threats. Another, somewhat related idea, is the disgust reaction. The facial expression of disgust is almost identical for people across cultures, and the disgust reaction is exclusively reserved for biological or biological like phenomenon. What people find disgusting can be very different, but it has some pretty common traits and is a universally recognized facial reaction. This too can bring up interesting hypothesis about the evolution of disgust.
The incest taboo is another interesting idea. Actually what evo-psych says is that there really doesn’t HAVE to be an incest taboo. People naturally avoid it. The research was looking at what cultures due have an incest taboo and what was it related too. For example, medieval Europe in the higher aristocracy developed laws and taboos on incest. But Daly and Wilson saw that as not incest but rather wealth concentration. The laws were an attempt to make it difficult for families to concentrate wealth. The evolutionary psychologist doesn’t look to CULTURES for their answers to adaptations but the people. People do not like to mate with those individuals they grew up with in close proximity. Evolution didn’t select against incest per say because there is no way to know for sure in the EEA who was a relative. You had to use cues from the environment, those individuals you grew up with, were told were family, ect. When you look at the historical records you see some interesting phenomenon. For those that used incest, especially in political families the relatives who were to be married were often raised separately from each other. And under those conditions in which they were not very little fecundity was associated with the unions. Basically, the idea in evo-psych is that those who were less likely to want to reproduce with individuals they were raised in close proximity with had greater RS and over time this fixated into the population.
Jealousy research is very interesting as well. In most cultures there is guarding of mates, I would have to really look carefully at examples of cultures where there was no sexual jealousy over long-term mates. Maybe you can give a few good sources? You brought up wife swapping. That’s in interesting example and I think evolutionary psychology can make some interesting predictions about it. Just for example, I would bet men were LESS likely to want there wife to participate during periods of peak fertility in the cycle.
There is some really cool stuff in jealousy though. There was a lot of research about sexual dimorphism in jealousy. For example, men were more likely to be jealous if there long term mate had a one-night sexual encounter with no emotional intimacy than a deep emotionally intimacy with no sexual contact. Women were the opposite.
So lets see where this takes us from here, maybe from here I can get a better idea of what your issues with the field is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 02-02-2005 4:17 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 02-03-2005 6:36 AM Parsimonious_Razor has replied
 Message 122 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 10:15 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 108 of 236 (182728)
02-03-2005 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Wounded King
02-02-2005 12:13 PM


As far as I can tell, it is more like saying if you flip a coin a million times, the chance of heads turning up one time reaches unity, because it is so close to 1. Or, X can happen between time T1 and T2, and at time T2 X is certain to have occurred, at T2 the probability of X happening reaches unity. So since every time X will have happened at T2, there is no other possible outcome, like X not happening, it is not a decision.
I am just guessing about what it means, but so it seems are you, which makes your previous suggestions that "decision" is all well and clearly understood within science false.
I don't think it is neccessary to find an exactsame startingposition, to talk about things turning out one way or another, since we talk about decisions all the time without reference to such a finding. In any case you are just substantiating the idea that knowledge about decisions is fundamentally underdeveloped within science. I remember Wolfram talking about "inherent randomness" resulting in order, but Wolfram presents his ideas as new and revolutionary, so it is still underdeveloped.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 02-02-2005 12:13 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 1:44 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 109 of 236 (182729)
02-03-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dan Carroll
02-02-2005 11:47 AM


But you can obviously see in this thread that it is not even generally known within science, what to name the point where a probability changes, the point where something goes one way in stead of another. So obviously when scientists talk about human beings, which are much about going one way or the other, it is they that don't know what they are talking about. Let's be clear that you and Mammuthus are as ignorant about it as the rest of scientists generally.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2005 11:47 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-03-2005 9:25 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 110 of 236 (182730)
02-03-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Syamsu
02-03-2005 1:22 AM


I am just guessing about what it means, but so it seems are you, which makes your previous suggestions that "decision" is all well and clearly understood within science false.
No Syamsu, I am not having to guess what it means, I am having to guess why you think it is different because your answers are getting totally incoherent.
I remember Wolfram talking about "inherent randomness" resulting in order, but Wolfram presents his ideas as new and revolutionary, so it is still underdeveloped.
Surely a cellular automaton is very far from indeterminism, something other than a vague recollection might be useful to understand Wolfram's perspective on the issue.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 1:22 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 2:09 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 111 of 236 (182735)
02-03-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-02-2005 3:02 PM


Why don't you do a cursory research on decision, such as make some guess at the location of the decision in time at which it became very likely that there would be such a thing as human beings. So as to say that at that point people (or superintelligent beings) were basically created, with some variation up to later decisions. The bibletalk of creating "kinds" is very helpful here, so as to say the main features were decided at that decision, but the specific final variation was still fuzzy. ( so the decision near the start of the universe stands in relation to a future point where the probability of human beings appearing reaches unity, where humans are certain to have appeared)
You are merely putting up your ignorance of decision as if it was an argument.
I know about the difference between social darwinism and evolutionary psychology, but since evolutionary psychology has so quite transparantly changed it's name from socio-biology much for the reason to escape criticism, I think it is legitimate to change the meaning of words in responds to that, and simply make evolutionary psychology a subset to social darwinism, lest we let evolutionary psychologists escape criticism by trickery.
If there were some theory about energy-efficiency in organisms by a guy named Jack, and people would apply this theory to people's psychology and society, then I guess we might also talk about social Jackery, as we do now about social darwinism. So what I mean to say is, that the use of the term "social darwinism" is still quite straightforward to me, and besides you can still differentiate between sorts of social darwinism.
Kevin McDonald wrote some anti-semitic books from an evolutionary psychology perspective, I think it is only right to put that book in the same category as the much similar social darwinist books predating the holocaust.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-02-2005 3:02 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-03-2005 2:11 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 112 of 236 (182737)
02-03-2005 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Wounded King
02-03-2005 1:44 AM


I don't think anybody else is quite clear about the point where a probability reaches unity, if there actually is another possible outcome, or if it is like I say it is, that X must have occured every single last time there, leaving no other options, like tails in stead of heads.
People looking to this thread from google for a solution about it are going to be quite dissappointed.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 1:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 6:41 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 236 (182738)
02-03-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Syamsu
02-03-2005 1:59 AM


quote:
Why don't you do a cursory research on decision, such as make some guess at the location of the decision in time at which it became very likely that there would be such a thing as human beings. So as to say that at that point people (or superintelligent beings) were basically created, with some variation up to later decisions.
Wow so how the heck did we go from PEOPLE making decisions to GOD making decisions to create people? Bit of a leap there.
quote:
I know about the difference between social darwinism and evolutionary psychology, but since evolutionary psychology has so quite transparantly changed it's name from socio-biology much for the reason to escape criticism, I think it is legitimate to change the meaning of words in responds to that, and simply make evolutionary psychology a subset to social darwinism, lest we let evolutionary psychologists escape criticism by trickery.
There is a bit of a difference between sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. But I admit it was mostly a PR game, doesn't mean either one is Social Darwinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 1:59 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 6:00 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 114 of 236 (182764)
02-03-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-03-2005 2:11 AM


I didn't actually mention God creating people. If a decision falls somewhere and the result is the appearance of human beings, that does not prove yet that the decision was owned by God.
But I think we all know that these identity-issues about who owns the points where something goes one way in stead of another, are very religion friendly. So that if we should find some decision which is much constrained to the result of producing human beings, and that the major part of the probability of humans appearing was set there, many would be inclined to attribute that decision to God.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-03-2005 2:11 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 236 (182768)
02-03-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Parsimonious_Razor
02-02-2005 9:04 PM


Re: less rampage but still evo-psych issues
If I fail to address a point that you think is really important I have no doubt you will let me know ?.
You could start by telling me what that symbol is at the end of the sentence and what it means. I'm getting used to smiley faces at this point, but I had not seen that before.
Buss’ opinion on the current state of psychology is Buss’ opinion.
You have no idea how relieved I am to hear that, however the paper was given out in a university psych department in order to help students learn about evo-psych. Perhaps you could recommend a better one and I'll have my gf pass it on to the profs.
But if you are saying that the mind comes from the physical at some level of interaction, then evolution can affect it. The mind emerges out of the nerves system, and the brain in particular. The nervous system is regulated and controlled just as any other system in the body. What exactly are aspects of the human mind and or behavior that are not accessible by selection? Are you saying mental ideas and behaviors have not coefficient of heritability? Or is your point more about neuronal plasticity? How the brain is more of a blank slate that is written upon from birth?
Don't worry, I am not talking about souls. Within the above grouping is the source of most of my issues. Let me try and restate it more clearly.
The brain (in any organism) is an organ for motor and system activity, it is a stimulus-response decision making apparatus, ranging from automatic decisions (hardwired or instinctive) to choices of decisions (perhaps hardwired groups but ultimately the final choice is not hardwired).
From an evolutionary perspective the brain must have started with a certain form of stimulus-response mechanism (assumption being hardwired) and as species evolved growing increasingly complex with additional stimulus response coverage as well as allowing for options of responses based on stimuli.
For some species it grows even more complex as the brain is allowed to reshape (rewire) itself based on stimuli-response-resulting new stimuli. That added dimension of neural activity was an evolutionary change in the brain which occured... when? I am not sure we even have that pinned down that this point.
This new ability creates the blank-slate phenomenon you mentioned. While a human will have certain inherent stimuli-response pairs, or choice groupings hardwired in (indeed some abilities such as spatial assessment may not form until after birth, but will do so naturally as part of body development) many other psych mechanisms are the result of neurons or neural nets forming and reforming due to inputs from the world and are not inherently going to happen.
Thus we start with a piece of hardware which is the brain, with some decision systems an inherent part of that brain. How it exists in that form and the inherent decision systems hardwired in would obviously be evolutionary products.
First problem (at least for Buss), this was not a "human" issue, or we cannot talk about it belonging to a "human nature" and what human ancestors (or should I say human-like ancestors) faced. We have brains which are descendent and products of responding to wholly nonhuman-like lifestyles.
For all we could know a hardwired (assuming this) predilection for liking light and avoiding darkness is due to an earlier ancestor's need to stay within oxygen richer, or nutrient richer waters and light (up) was the key to staying in those bounds. It is projection or sheer speculation to assume it originated in an environment humans currently inhabit.
But lets move on from the purely hardwired issue. Evolution at some point change to allow it a greater than hardwired response system, whose responses would be wholly due to evolutionary selection, and allowed for adaptation during existence. Thus there was a section of brain devoted to being a "blank slate" or maybe it is better to use the computer analogy of "empty disk" which rules could be written to based on stimulus-response-resulting stimulus.
That immediately creates a dilemma for a person studying pysch mechs (lets call them PMs) in that a certain section of PMs will be adaptational and not evolutionary in nature. The fact that a PM may be common, may have only to do with the fact that most members of a species have common environmental backgrounds, or that basic pathways of interaction between two systems will generate a common stimulus-response grouping.
Unless evo-psych is advancing that the evolution of the brain is Lamarckian as opposed to Darwinian, then the rules written into the empty disk portion cannot possibly be effected by evolutionary selection. Even if WHR selection provides a better chance for offspring for males, if it was initially a software program, its success could not have been passed down to male offspring.
As brain systems became more advanced, more layered, it gained stimulus-response-resulting new stimulus- response- resulting new stimulus etc etc. That is what allows for actions based on future assumed events, as well as forms of self awareness. The basic brain does not have all decisions hardwired in, but grows them as it gains experience.
I suppose the more advanced brains have moved from stimulus-response decision making systems, to stimulus-response and storage decision making systems.
Yet again, more has just been added to the plate for anyone looking at PMs. Interactions and possible sources of environmental input have moved from purely external interactions, to internal hypothetical reflection. Without this we cannot get people who have phobias of totally fictional creatures (products of pure imagination), nor love of (or obsessions toward) completely nonexistent objects.
The increased level of human introspection also allows for greater degrees of human interaction. That is where cultures may become writers on our empty disks just as much as the physical environment or singular human interactions.
And once again, we are left with the fact that evolution can only work on genes which determines how the brain may function physically. Genetics may add a new stimulus-response hardwire on its own, or it may add a new level of complexity in how a brain will handle stimulus-response-new stimuli, and evolution can select those for advancement. But unless the brain is a Lamarckian system, good choices arising from the software written in the empty disk portion cannot be passed on, even if they do allow for greater offspring.
Thus there seem to be many problems facing evo-psych at this stage. It appears near impossible to determine what is an evolutionary product from merely assessing commonality or speculating on primitive environmental advantages which might be had.
It appears to me the only way we can study evolution's effects on the brain is to get into almost pure neural studies and discover what is hardware (or hardwired) and what rules are software. And unless we find that from one generation to the next that software is able to be written into brain growth DNA for hardwiring the next generation (Lamarkian evolution), anything software is off limits to evo-psych.
Once hardware components are determined we can trace them back through similar nonhuman ancestors and show how the brain and its hardwired systems (as well as storage and interaction capabilities) grew, then speculating on what environments may have selected the new systems for adavantage.
Otherwise it seems to me we are simply speculating from existing PMs how they might have been genetically shaped by speculative environments through speculative evoultionary mechanisms.
Hmmmmm. Let me end this here. I realize I just left a bunch of your post unanswered but I think we may be better off starting from this more clearly stated set of issues. Definitely feel free to use WHR or jealousy examples (used in your previous post) if you want to address the above with examples.
Once we move beyond the above problems for studying evo-psych, it will be easier to address specific evo-psych theories.
PS- When I spoke of the mind being software which is greater than the whole, I was trying to get at the fact that multiple layered decision systems which allow choices, and can interact with itself (introspection of rules), anyone interacting with the system will see something greater than simple collections of stimulus response, even if when looked at the brain is a system wholly neuronic "fire/notfire".
Thus the human brain is the physical hardware with some sections of hardwired response and other sections devoted to empty neural disk storage and writing systems, while the human mind is the collective "system" of both hardwired and newly written and stored (and perhaps only temporarily written) decision making rules.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-02-2005 9:04 PM Parsimonious_Razor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 02-05-2005 4:17 AM Silent H has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 116 of 236 (182770)
02-03-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Syamsu
02-03-2005 2:09 AM


I don't think anybody else is quite clear about the point where a probability reaches unity, if there actually is another possible outcome, or if it is like I say it is, that X must have occured every single last time there, leaving no other options, like tails in stead of heads.
Good Lord!!!!! How can you be so obtuse!! All you are doing now is complaining that science doesn't insist on being as arrogant as you in insisting that the universe is fundamentally indeterministic.
To the best of our knowledge before the probability reaches unity there is still a chance of the outcome being different. Our knowledge is based on previous observations of other outcomes, and is only as good as those previous observations were representative. Without being able to reproduce the exact initial conditions this is the best we can do.
Once again you assume your preferred scenario is the one which represents reality.
Please, please, please try and understand how probabilities are actually calculated and used.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 2:09 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 9:44 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 136 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2005 9:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 236 (182809)
02-03-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Syamsu
02-03-2005 1:31 AM


Let's be clear that you and Mammuthus are as ignorant about it as the rest of scientists generally.
Syamsu, I will happily admit to being utterly ignorant of the crazed processes that churn and curdle in your very strange mind.
But there's hope. If you ever find me in the alley behind a 7-11, covered in what I hope is my own waste, mumbling something about the reptile demons based in Area 51, then you might wanna try running your ideas by me again.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 1:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 9:52 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 118 of 236 (182818)
02-03-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wounded King
02-03-2005 6:41 AM


MEMO: FOR THOSE WHO COME HERE FROM GOOGLE-SEARCH TO FIND OUT WHAT "A PROBABILITY REACHING UNITY" MEANS, SORRY WE DON'T REALY KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, PLEASE CLICK BACKBUTTON, AND CLICK NEXT SEARCH-RESULT IN GOOGLE. (and this is all Wounded King's fault)
That out of the way, I explained to you what I think it means. I've also illustrated what I think it means with usage in a post following my explanation. You do not actually address what I say it means, deny it, or affirm it. You simply don't know.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 6:41 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Mammuthus, posted 02-03-2005 9:50 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 123 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2005 10:29 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 119 of 236 (182821)
02-03-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Syamsu
02-03-2005 9:44 AM


MEMO: FOR THOSE WHO COME HERE FROM GOOGLE-SEARCH TO FIND OUT IfF SYAMSU KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT HE RANTS ON ABOUT, SORRY HE DOES NOT REALY KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT HERE, PLEASE CLICK BACKBUTTON, TRY TO FORGET THE STUPID EXPERIENCE AND CLICK "ONE NIGHT IN PARIS2 SEARCH-RESULT IN GOOGLE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Syamsu, posted 02-03-2005 9:44 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 120 of 236 (182822)
02-03-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dan Carroll
02-03-2005 9:25 AM


And what idea of mine in particular do you find to be crazy?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-03-2005 9:25 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-03-2005 10:00 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 135 by nator, posted 02-05-2005 8:33 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024