The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

I don't see any problem communicating easily except when trying to communicate with someone who is entirely unwilling to enter a dialogue in good faith.As far as I can see what you are saying is that simply because you don't understand something it is therefore 'fundamentally underdeveloped'.The fact that you love arguing word choice and terminology rather than actually addressing scientific issues or real world examples of how probabilities are used is one of the reasons why the threads on this issue never get anywhere.TTFN,WK

OK Syamsu, an awful lot of assertions there and, stunningly enough, absoloutely nothing to back them up. Says you, but since you haven't actually provided any justification, other than its not fitting your own secret interpretation perhaps, it isn't reasonable by my personal subjective standard. What is the basis for this statement? Is it simply the fact that no one else has commented on it at all? If so then you are still scraping along the bottom of the barrel in terms of evidence. What evidence do you have of my lack of understanding other than your own inability to comprehend what I am saying? And yet you never show any indication of understanding it and science continues along quite happily incorporating probabilities at a variety of different levels including the study of evolution.TTFN,WK

You still have yet to show any way in which this is a coherent argument. Free will is not creationism, evolution is not determinism. Even if every scientist in the world were to whole-heartedly believe in the fundamental indeterminacy of the universe there would not be a scintilla of evidence less for evolution.TTFN,WK

In what way? Evolutionary biologists doesn't deny that points in time may exist where one probability becomes inevitable, you just claim that they do. Not as it is understood by anyone but you. Rubbish, you have never substantiated this assertion.TTFN,WK

I'm sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about.I have never denied that 'Decisions' exist, just that there is no evidence, other than our evaluation of probabilities and our own subjective experienced mental state, that they can go 'one way or another'.Your continual weak attempts to conflate a sensible rational approach to issues such as free will and determinism with some sort of nihilistic fatalism are about as successful as your attempts to conflate all evolutionary science with racists and eugenecists. Probably because no-one in science knows what the hell this means, it is your own invented terminology. There are certainly many key events and series of events, which would generally be seen as obeying all the normal laws of the universe with which we are familiar and which our best current theories suggest have a probabilistic basis. So once again, when people frankly admit that they don't fully understand a phenomenon you see it as a reason to dismiss them out of hand, it must be wonderful to think you already know everything. This is a non argument. The entire point of science is that common sense is insufficient to discern the truth about things. This is just incoherent fantasy. Just because there is no strong scientific evidence in favour of free will doesn't mean that scientists all walk about like zombies. Scientists are cntinually working with probabilistic models of systems, including evolutionary models, which assume the possibility of differing outcomes. People make decisions every day, that has nothing to do with your ephemeral and abstruse form of 'decision' much as you may wish it to. Well I think you have lost because you haven't shown the faintest inklinging of knowledge about any sort of science, either biology or physics. Your continual restatement of your initial assumptiona as if they were furthering your argument is pointless.It is particularly laughable that you not only completely misrepresent the evolutionary side of the debate but the creationist side too.TTFN,WK

I've addressed this many times, I have no problem accepting decision as most people understand it, I have difficulty accepting the fundamental indeterminism of the universe based on nothing more than your own empty assertions. No, it is becuase there are already terms to describe these things, but you insist on your own terminology so you can conflate your 'decision' with the type of decision we all experience in everyday life. Rather that there is no evidence that things can go one way or another, not that we don't commonly experience the phenomenon of decision, until you stop conflating the folk concept of decision with this more abstract metaphysical concept then you are never going to be talking anything other than nonsense. You probably do take it that way, but all that does it show again your peculiarly skewed approach to science.TTFN,WK

Bump! Just for the sheer nostalgia of it all, especially with Syamsu back with us again. This thread documents to some extent the development of Syamsu's current line of argumentation base on moments of decision from his previous focus on the evils of evopsych and evolutionist terminology, think of it as a transitional if you will .TTFN,WK

Bumped again since Syamsu has a 'proposed new topic' very reminiscent of ground this thread covered.TTFN,WK