The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

But that people are completely selfish is not what I reflected Dawkins as saying. It is of course very hypocritical that those who urge people to read books, don't actually read the posts they are replying to.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Quite happily without any decision of any magnitude in billions of years of history of evolution. So that Gould must urge his fellow evolutionists to restore the historical perspective, so that I read some article talking about stubborness of evolutionists in accepting probabilities, all the time assuring other scientists that they are not neccesarily saying things could have turned out one way or another when they use probabilities.It would be credible if you can reference some paper talking about any "unity" being reached, of some magnitude. Now you are just portraying the happiness of the totally ignorant. Things are indeed much more simple when you ignore decision, just positing cause and effect mechanisms. It just doesn't reflect reality very well, especially when describing human beings.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Parsimonious Razor:
"I dont think I am wrong, and I dont think the risks are high if I am. If Dawkins proposes everyone is completely selfish he is wrong. And no one believes it."I'm talking about the risk of it all leading in China to a marauding tribe of millions of self-identified hunter-gatherers menacing the world.I see that there are some more complex "smarter" criticisms of evolutionary psychology in the thread now. These are all side-issues I'm afraid.Evolutionary psychologists posit emotions that have no free will in them, just outside them.That is it, the denial of choice. An obvious and grave fault, with a long list of disastrous possible consequences for our understanding of humanity. When this get's to be in the mainstream of societal thought, asserted with certitdue, emotions as machines, then you can get that rampage-effect of evolutionism on common and religious beliefs througout society that I'm talking about.I just assume that these other critics also consider this the main fault, and are just exercising their minds in trying to make up smarter criticisms.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your theoretical point of the naturalistic fallacy, just provides to ignore to look at the actual consequences of evolutionary psychology. On account of evolutionary psychology we can expect that our understanding of emotions will shift towards understanding them as machines. If people consequently take actions based on treating emotions of themselves and others like machines it is no fault of interpretation, but rather a fault of believing what you know in your heart is not true. The act is directly related to the belief, there is no huge gap between them.A certain moral-elitism may take hold among evolutionary psychologists. Like; see how I can skillfully avoid being an asshole, but still consistently believe emotions are machines. The writings of sociobiologists Haeckel, and Lorenz are full of high-minded moral philosophizing, while still Haeckel joined a proto-nazi organization, and Lorenz the Nazi's proper. They ended up as assholes anyway, mainly for denying the basic truth of human equality, despite all their highminded moral philosphising to avoid any immorality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Holmes:
"What about if people learn not only that their emotions may work similar to programming or machinery, but that that doesn't mean one has to change how one thinks and feels and acts?"One would be inclined to function consistently with the knowledge that emotions are machines, because that knowledge is held as true to fact.Gee, the naturalistic fallacy found to be much meaningless, who is surprised?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You would start treating yourself and others as machines, behaviour predetermined.There is no moral precept against destroying machines, in common language, it is just like breaking a rock. If at all, there is a moral precept against breaking a machine, like a computer, it is in relation to the emotions of the owner, but this precept denies that emotions are just machines. I think the reason that there is no moral precept against it, is because there is no choice on the part of a machine. Choices must be respected, machines don't have to be.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are putting up a variant of Wounded King's position, that he can't accept decisions as real because there is not evidence for them, but he treats them as real on a practical basis regardless. So his denial of free will is just a lame duck.It's my impression that the belief that free will is part of emotions, is deeply, deeply, ingrained in common language. In talking I think I can catch u out some, where you attribute power of decision to your emotions, which is inconsistent with your belief in emotions as machines.Such talk about emotions choosing can be weakened and destroyed, by having a powerful scientific theory to deny it, and everyday talk would be very very different.Isn't it true that you have a lot of moral philsophy associated to your belief that emotions are machines? Or is it just a fact, among many facts, with no special relation to your own morality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You broaden the meaning of machine, to allow for decisions as machinebehaviour. This might do well in common language, but in describing things with mathematics no such fuzziness can be made. You have to choose, are you going to make an equation of cause and effect, or are you going to describe in terms of decisions on probabilities. Well, maybe you can mix cause and effect with probabilities in mathematics too, but I think it is clear you tend towards describing in terms of cause and effect.The evopsych article referenced denied emotions as being entities of free will. Evolutionists also do not recognize any single big decision / random event in the entire history of the universe. They do not describe a freedom in anything. See the pattern? The whole position of evolutionism is based on a veiled denial of free will, where creationism celebrates it. The nefarious social darwinist ideologies an obvious associate to evolutionist denial of decision.Slowly but surely evolutionism is screwing up our basic common knowledge about decision again, like it did twice previously. It must lead to ideological madness, when screwing up something as basic in our knowledge as our understanding of decision. If in stead we would screw up our understanding of cause and effect, it would certainly also lead to ideological madness, because that is also fundamental.My theory is that nothing, or zero, is making the decision. That is, we should be able to localize a decision to a point, and at this point we would find nothing. I would not push back to a spiritual machine, but I think it likely possible to construct some model of how these points of decision relate to one another.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your argument for decision as machine is shrouded in apparently unneccessary complexity. Why *many* inputs and outputs. Why not just one, or two, or three? The complexity you put up doesn't actually enhance your argument any, it does put up a false front of sophistication however. If we cut the many, which seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, then what would we end up with, if A then B?I would say let's chuck all that, let's start with the point of decision. Start with what it's all about, if you want to describe free will. That seems the sensible thing to do, and your way I can't see other as an attempt to shroud it all in mechanisms.In your explanation you talk about things like:
- a *force* that makes decisions
- knowledge of "good" options (reminds of social darwinist "good")
- rules governing rulesIt is all slanted towards mechanical cause and effect. You have all these mechanisms culminating in choice. But that is false logic according to common knowledge, because choices go the other direction, relate the future to present, and never go from past culminating in the present.You miss the point that David Hume's philosphy is not applied to try to explain mental disorders, like evopsych is, and that people do not actually at all live by David Hume's philosphy as true. You I suspect also don't live by your own philosophy about free will as true. You just much use the "hollywood" common knowledge about decision like we all do, as basics.But that knowledge may wear down by an onslaught of evolutionism, and the result would not be nice. Isn't that just a very credible and reasonable argument? You have no call to act so insulted, the concern has obvious legitimacy. Our emotions get to be understood as machines, very questionable indeed.I think it is not the point to advance a solution to "decision", eventhough I also offered one. Evo's, and scientists generally have a problem about decisions, they don't see any. That observation is all that is needed to devalue science generally on it's reliability to deal with the phenomenon of decisions. One evolutionist and another, offering some theory about it is hardly enough.We must have a historical perspective on our world now, for reasons of practicality. A decision perspective to see the things that are there in regards to the decisions at which they originated, even we don't exactly know where those decisions took place. And especially of course we must have a choice perspective on our emotions.I think you are only giving more credibility to my assertion, that evopsych and science are destroying knowledge about decision. You may call your construct free will, and attribute decision to it, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with realization on probabilities, or setting probabilities, or anything of that sort. It seems to have a lot to do with cause and effect, with rules and forces predetermining an outcome.edited to add: it's not neccessary IMO to make an explanation of any spiritual machinery, or reference to God. All that is needed is for evolutionists to recognize a single big decision, and accept decision generally, and they would have lost the creation vs evolution debate. At decison XPNT0341 it became a relative certainty that this class of organisms would appear. So you see a scientific sounding name, no reference to God, but just a decision at which a kind was created, and that would settle it.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-01-2005 10:27 AM

You are confusing the creation vs evolution debate with some kind of competition between the science of creation and the science of evolution.If decision XPNT0341 were found, it would be a creation event being recognized in science. That would not mean that evolution becomes untrue, (although it would mean that the theory of evolution has been deceptive) but it would still mean that evolutionists would have lost the creation vs evolution debate, because creationists have broadly recognized creation as a matter of decision, and evolutionists have broadly denied it.There are still zero big decisions recognized by evolutionists in billions of years of history, and evopsychs even deny decisions in emotions. Perhaps you can name some evolutionists recognizing some decision somewhere, but still the large picture is broad denial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

- you don't accept the existence of any decision for lack of evidence, but you do accept cause and effect- there is not a single decision of any magnitude recognized in billions of years of evolutionary history, or history of the universe- there are no decisions recognized in emotions even, by evolutionary psychologists, the decisions operate outside the emotions according to them, but are undescribedA big decision recognized would be much too similar to creationism, for the creationists to carry on. It may not fit exactly to the bible, and sure enough this would disturb some to the point of rejecting it, but what they would be rejecting could well be called something like generic creationism. The basic principles are very similar. As the evolution vs creation debate is actually mainly carried by wide common popular support, in stead of the few fundamentalists that it is said to be carried by, the common support for the debate would fall away, once the common sense notion of decision has a place in science.Common sense tells us that decision is true. Maybe decisions will be evidenced in science, maybe not. It would sure suck if it were neccessary to have knowledge of decision to for instance, save the planet from environmental catastrophy, or to make an intergallactic spaceship etc. because we aren't very likely to find any solution to a problem that involves decisions, with the current crowd of scientists, to which decision is nothing more than a theoretical possibility that is prefferably avoided.Evolutionists lost the debate to anyone who is reasonably sure of the existence of decisions. So I think you've lost, because evolutionists don't recognize any decision, and creationists do recognize several big decisions.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your irate rambling... doesn't seem to address anything, certainly not my position.For instance you don't address that you have a problem with accepting decision, but you don't have a problem with accepting cause and effect. You don't address the difference.There can't be any law at a point where something can go one way in stead of another, that is nonsensical. There may be some laws which constrain the possible outcomes to a few, but to say it is obeying laws at a point of decision can't be true.Your irateness covers your basic lack of knowledge about decision. It is no coincedence that your style is irate, you can't handle it reasonably.I certainly don't pretend to know emotions as much as evolutionary psychologists pretend that they do. Your accusation of pretensions are completely out of place. Remember that accepting decision means to accept that it is *impossible* to know some things. If something is a mechanism, the outcome may be calculated, but if it is a decision, it is impossible to calculate which outcome it will be.Look at what Holmes "knows" about decision. Inputs, outputs, searching for laws, feedback, multiple layers, culminating in a choice etc. A very large construct, with not much evidence supporting whatsoever. I only posit that decisions have a location, that at this location is nothing, and that points of decision may relate to one another in a structure. I have been much conservative, the pretensions are on the other side, and very very very big they are indeed!The point of science is to relate to common experience. At least that is the sort of science that I support, a longstanding tradition in science. I take it that when you say that the *entire* point of science is that common sense is insufficient, is more overblown irateness, that serves no other pupose then to disagree with everything I say.You are wrong, scientists try to avoid probabilistic models, and even when they do use probablistic models, this is often accompanied by qualifiers that the outcome may actually be predetermined. The other way around doesn't happen so much in science, to qualify that the outomce may be indeterminate even when using a determinate model. As before "chance is the enemy of science" (dawkins, blind watchmaker)I think it is safe to say, you think the creation vs evolution debate is about the kind of Bill Birkeland posts refuting the flood. That there are no deep fundamental issues, about creation being a decision, not some mechanism.It is the notion of creation by decision that is fundamental to the mindset of creationism. That is evidenced in very many creationist posts on this forum. For instance "soracilla, does materialism hold up". You also evidenced it yourself by bringing a quote from a creationist what they meant by intelligent design. That was mostly similar to my formulation of decision. And that formulation would obviously be the absolute central thing in intelligent design theory, the one thing it all is based on, the creation event.I already explained to you half a dozen times what I meant with decision, it is similar to a realization on a probability, or a probably being set, or changing. Now why do you now say that nobody knows what I'm talking about when I talk about decision? Is that because you don't know anything about decision?(edited to add: I've declared myself the winner a few times now, but that is much useless. It would be good if somebody called the debate at this point, who the winner is, because I think it is basically concluded. Who will deny that decision is an important, fundamental issue in the creation vs evolution debate? Who will deny that creationists are broadly supporting decision (several creation events where by the will of God organisms are created), and evolutionists denying it (no single decision of any magnitude recognized but only reference to laws, forces, mechanisms)? Any counterargument just seems to sink to doubts about the fact of any decision having taken place whatsoever.)regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-08-2005 10:36 AM

Let's remember that no evolutionist here save 1, even knew an "official" term for the point where a probability changes, realization on a probability. So if I would use that word in stead of decision then all but 1 person would know what I was talking about.For all I know you are now saying that we can't say within science that something can go one way or the other, because there is no evidence for it. You object to accepting fundamental indeterminism anywhere in the universe, within science. I have no clue what you mean by fundamental, I suppose you don't have either. Maybe you are saying that we may say that something can go one way or another, but we may not say that something *really* can go one way or another. Your position is a joke, isn't it?If you are trying to show credible support for a science about tracing back the probability of the appearance of things to where the probability was set, you are failing.You have 2 options in this debate. Either you show credible support for a science about decisions, turningpoints, realization or whatever u insist it should be called, or you stick your heels in the ground and object to all mention of things going one way or the other in science, for lack of evidence.The first will lead you to a generic science of creationism, where you view the origin of things from the point(s) at which they became likely to appear, the second lays you wide open to the charge that science and evolutionists especially are destroying knowledge about decision, with justifiable accusations of facillitating predeterminist ideologies such as nazism, communism, social darwinism.Either way, you lose.For now you probably recognize the one decision of the creation of the universe, because that event is widely recognized within science as uncaused. The one decision by which all was created, and since you don't accept there is evidence of things turning out one way or another after that, it follows that the likelyhood of all subsequent organization of the universe must have been determined at this one point of creation, including all the organisms.That way of thinking, tracing back the likelyhood of events, which you do every day, that is closely related to the meaning of creation in common language, and is formalized in creationist science, of intelligent design theory, creatio-ex-nihilo theory etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I request contracycle get's banned for a while. There is no argument, there is nothing but insult and unsubstantiated accusation, which is against forum guidelines.regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu

Describe a choice which goes from past to present.It would mean to have a chance that is in the past, and have it realized in the present.It is impossible for as far as common knowledge goes, and science as well I suspect, for what little science there is on the subject.So what do you actually know about decision again?This is just to demonstrate that basicly all of contracycle's replies in this thread are unthinking. To the other contributors in the thread, please ignore his posts.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu