The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

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

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

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

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

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

I find it very unlikely that there is an evolutionary behaviour to fear snakes. That over so many years the population shifted from organisms that didn't fear snakes towards organisms that did fear snakes.I think they all feared snakes right at the start, and the explanation for that fear is the same as that for fearing a stranger, it's because of the strangeness to the organism.Gee, you might have wanted to take some examples that are actually credible. Since you can just make up these examples more or less, I fail to see, why such an apparently weak example as snakefear is chosen to advertise evolutionary psychology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You must be misconstruing what I write. I am not saying that the chance of heads increases with each throw of not turning up heads.I asked you for where science recognizes decision, as a point at which something goes one way in stead of another. So you came up with a "probability reaching unity". But actually it seems this term is used when the outcome of the "probability" is always the same. It is so to say the upperbound in a window of oppurtunity in which a decision can take place. So that would be quite an absurd term to use for "decision", and not what I asked for at all.Again, please reference somewhere where a "probability reaching unity", turns out one way one time, and another way another time.edited to add: as far I can tell a probability reaching unity is simply the opposite of a probability reaching zero. So at the least you would have to rephrase as a probability reaching unity, or zero. But that is of course not a name for the event of decision, but a definition. As before, it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that scientists simply don't know about decision, as the point where something goes one way in stead of another, to the point that they don't even have a common name for it which is generally known.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-03-2005 23:57 AM

Well you are simply mistaken. It is not determined there which way it will go, because actually it can't come out any other way there.I read some references about it, and as far I can say, you don't know what you're talking about. Texts that go like, for S1>3 probability of person dying in car crash reaches unity, meaning simply that if S1 is larger then 3, the outcome will always be the same, the person will always die. There is no other outcome, there is no decision.I'll thank you to have shown how engrained the prejudice is, when you just put up some mechanism that can't turn out one way or the other at all, as decision.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I can only say as before, you only have given an incomplete definition of "decision", you omitted the probability reaches zero part, and it's still not a name. As before, you are just noting the limit on a window of oppurtunity. When S1=>3 then nothing is decided in the accident, it is predetermined.But even in the unlikely event that your usage is correct, you can't very well communicate about "unities" as if they are points where something turns out one way in stead of another. And not being able to communicate about it easily still means that it is fundamentally underdeveloped.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Same for you, you also try to argue in good faith. What I say about "unities" not communicating very well for a point where something goes one way in stead of another is reasonable by any standard. Nobody here understands it in relation to things going one way or another, which includes you, nobody here knows to use it, while it is supposedly a fundamental principle like "cause and effect". Yet you go on, and on, and on, pretending that decision is perfectly well handled in science, that everybody understands it, except me because I never studied probabilities. Mere obstinacy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I read the first pages, it posits what Dawkins calls elsewhere the selfish gene doctrine, so it's enough already, the basics. Why read any further when the basics are false?Both Darwin and Dawkins are certifiable apparently, if anyone wants to make craziness into an issue.regards,
Mohamamd Nor Syamsu

Read the first page of the selfish gene. Dawkins called it a doctrine in some newspaper article.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I already explained to you right in this thread somewhere, some of the things I think are wrong with it, and what the selfish gene theory says. Some people just don't read the posts they reply to huh...regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I've argued this several times before, you will just end up arguing that Dawkins fails to reflect his own theory correctly on page one or so. He says there that selfish genes makes for selfish individuals, and only by exception in limited circumstance does it provide for altruism.Several people have very insistently argued that this is not the message when you read the whole book, but that just means they are arguing that Dawkins is duplicit, because he says it quite explicitly on page one or so.edited to add: or maybe you object to my formalizing the selfishness relation as a +/- relation. Of course in Dawkinspeak, this should be worded as goodness / evil. In that sense I'm arguing some strawman yes.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-06-2005 13:37 AM

I think you are not making a very good risk-assessment of the consequences in the case you are wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu