the intellectual enemies of freedom

This is just the same argument I always make, with some new rhetoric.Day in day out, our knowledge about free behaviour is being destroyed by Darwinists.How come that although we are much concerned about choices we make ourselves for the way we turn out, that science has no interest in the choices that occur in the universe at large?Ask yourself why don't you have *any* knowledge about *any* turningpoint in the history of the universe, while on the other hand you cherish knowledge about turningpoints in your own life.The reason for the destruction of knowledge about free behaviour is Darwin's theory of natural selection. What this ill-conceived theory does is to distort our knowledge about free behaviour, by using the language of free behaviour for things that are forced.What this means is that for instance a Darwinist will say that a rabbit *chooses* to run away when it meets up with a fox. So choosing is explained by Darwinists in terms of doing that which gives the optimal survival benefit of genes. But notice one thing here, it isn't actually held to be possible by Darwinists that the rabbit would not run away from the fox. So choosing to run away, is equated with the rabbit being forced to run away by genetic programming. So in the Darwinist conception of choosing, there isn't the possibility of an alternative thing happening.So then the Darwinist conception of the human mind is computational(Pinker, Dawkins, Cosmides, Tooby etc. etc.). The mind is explained to be the operation of the brain-organ which was fashioned by natural selection to computate genesurvival-problems. They're basic precept is simple, but for the rest of their argument about how the mind works specifically, they often appeal to complexity to fit the gaps in their argument. So they will give some basic selectionist explanation to some mindfunction, and then they will assert that the rest of the mind works in similar ways, but that the mind is far too complex for them to explain it all at once.But complexity is not the point about mind, freedom is, and so Darwinist knowledge about mind is *all* false, and not just incomplete. We understand to make choices with our minds, we understand choices to have a possible alternative. What Darwinists are talking about has nothing to do with minds, since there are no possible alternatives in their conception of it.A right way to understanding minds is to explain minds as randomness generators. For when on the inside an animal experiences emotional turmoil going on deciding between fighting or fleeing, objectively from the outside the decision whether the animal fights or flees looks like randomness. Objectively *all* choices look like randomness, without any single exception. It does not matter if one makes the choice after thinking hard doing deep soulsearching, or if one chooses flippantly, from the outside it all looks like randomness. From the outside a choice always looks like it could have gone either way, which is why objectively it always looks random. To understand choices we do a little trick by imagining what it would be like to be the thing that is making the choices. But such imaginings are subjective. We can't actually objectively observe soulsearching or flippancy of choices we see, we can't measure it, but only experience it by proxy through our imagination.And so the Darwinists are every day destroying more knowledge about choice, religious knowledge about it, but just as well common knowledge. I can say with certainty that a learned Darwinist is much more likely to be what is called a nerd, then is a learned creationist. That is to say a learned Darwinist has likely destroyed their knowledge about choice, making them choose by computation in their personal life, in stead of choosing by emotion.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Environmental determinism and genetic determinism is determinism all the same, and not freedom. Gould et al do not support freedom intellectually, that is to say possible alternatives, they support chaotic environmental determinism.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

It is just a perversion of language to say that choices aren't essentially free. If there is no alternative possible result, there is no actual choice, and not a choice which is forced.Notice again you talk about success or failure, as Darwinists do, for things which you consider to be forced. Again, success and failure properly belongs to the language about choosing, trying, wanting etc. yet you use it in a force context.In any case it's not the point to argue about freedom whether or not there is, the point is to show that Darwinists are intellectual enemies of freedom. Enemies of it by perverting the language by equating free behaviour with forced behaviour, denying it, neglecting it etc. etc.This is a real issue which you can see in daily life talking to people. Is somebody going to say I shouldn't have done that I made a bad decision, or is somebody going to say this or that made me do it. The Darwinists bend language so much that even saying to decide something becomes to mean the same as being forced to do it by some cause, genetic, environmental, cultural or whatnot. I bet everyone knows these kinds of people, the people that *always* seek a preceding cause for anything anyone does, in stead of saying it's decided, chosen.We can have knowledge about probabilities, knowledge does not equate to predictability. If something is more likely to occur it doesn't mean we have more knowledge about it, that is ridiculous. We can have full 100 percent knowledge of a probability, and our knowledge would then be perfect. There is more to know about a 6 sided die then there is to know about a 2 sided coin, more possibilities to know. Yet you would have it that we have less knowledge of the die then the coin, because we can only predict 1/6 what face it ends up compared to 1/2. That is what you said, that predictability is a limit on our knowledge, rather then saying it's a part of our knowledge.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well you are just providing more evidence that Darwinists are indeed destroying our knowledge about choice. I'm not really interested in addressing arguments why that might be a good thing to do, I'm only interested in addressing whether they do it or not.It is not because of lack of knowledge that there is a 1/6 probability, it is because of the equal sides to the die. Startingconditions change nothing about that, over the whole event it still equates to a probability being decided. That you found a way to flip a coin without 1/2 probability is irrellevant. In normal cointosses the result is 1/2 time on average for each side.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I suggest you read post 1 again to find out how Darwinists are destroying knowledge about freedom. Go ahead and address that argument, like as if you care about knowledge.I'm giving you a warning, because you asked a question that I already addressed. I'm sort of moderator in this thread, meaning I can ask for you to be removed from the thread, and they've done it before. I know from experience that if I don't moderate you will ask this question 10 times more, ignoring the argument about it.As before, throwing the coin another way then normal doesn't prove anything. One can hardly disprove gravity by pogo-sticks jumping up either.You argue the decision is very close to the startingpoint of the throw, but a decision on a chance it is nevertheless, no matter if it is mainly decided closer to the start, in the middle of the throw, or at the end of it.That we find the 6 faces not perfectly represented equally in a thousand throws is mainly due to the decisions turning out one way in stead of another. The variation in the results of a normal throw of a normal die proves this explanation in terms of chances getting decided there and then is consistent with the results. That is to say the outcome is decided per event, in stead of that if 6 would turn up a lot of times, that it would be less likely for 6 to turn up again, which is what would be expected if all outcomes were predetermined.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

As from post 1:
Q How are Darwinists destroying knowledge about free behaviour?
A By using the language of free behaviour for things which they consider forced.I'm giving you a second warning. Well it's unfortunate there isn't any neutral moderator that points out these sorts of things. But nobody likes it when somebody asks a question already answered, time and time again. I don't like it, so when given this moderating power, I use it of course.The point is alternative results. If by caused you mean excluding possible alternatives, then it is predetermined, as I understand the word. If by caused you meant not excluding alternative possible results, then you don't seem to have any point with your argument. So a cause may have several possible effects, according to you, so what does this have to do with anything at issue?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

That many people say there is no valid knowledge of free behaviour only goes to prove that knowledge about free behaviour is being destroyed. I bet you that these many people are mostly actually scientists and more Darwinists, and the intellectuals informed by science, not the population in general. I don't care to answer where my knowledge of free behaviour comes from. I don't want to make this into a deep philosophical discussion, I see no reason to. It is wrong to destroy knowledge of free behaviour in the way Darwinists do.I have provided an example with the rabbit and the fox. There are many more. Selection, selfish, success, emotions, mind, choice, etc. etc. normally we consider these things in association to possible alternatives, yet Darwinists use these words in context of forced results.For instance it is not possible in natural selection for instance, for the less fit to be selected for. So there are no alternative possiblities in natural selection, rather by force the outcome is predetermined.So the "precise mechanism of destruction" is to change the meaning of those words so they become to be understood in a forced way, without possible alternatives. That is the destruction of knowledge about free behaviour, the destruction of knowledge about possible alternatives.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

As before, I expected to debate whether or not Darwinists are destroying knowledge of free behaviour. As before, all you have done really is to provide evidence indicating that it is actually true.Regardless of whether or not any knowledge of free behaviour is valid (which is basicly a non-issue in my opinion), it is still wrong to surreptiously corrupt those words away from their original and intended meaning.It is wrong for a dictator to say people have a choice when he rigs the election, and it is wrong for a Darwinist to say the rabbit has a choice when the rabbit doesn't have any alternative but to do what it does by it's genetic programming.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well those things weren't actually at issue, but I consider when something can go alternative ways, that it behaves freely, as different from when there are no possible alternatives and the outcome is forced.I consider atoms, in the way they spin and shake, to behave freely, so that is basically everything. On a micro-scale, atoms do actually basically behave in a similar way to dice being rolled when you look at them.These are not "hard determinists" much, these are science-minded radical atheists, who put the language of morality into science as a substitute for the traditional religion which they dislike. So in scientific theories they talk about "choosing" this and that, talk about "success", and "selfishness" etc. as people generally would do in any religion, and then they turn around and say it's all forced by the laws of the universe.So they use this religious-language in science-theories to undercut traditional religion, and to provide some anchorpoint to think about moral and identity-issues for themselves. It is basically scientism, making science into a religion.Doing this they are destroying proper understanding of concepts like "choice" and "morality", which appropiately only apply to when there are alternatives.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Strangeness and charm are simply not understood by scientists, and they are hardly used at all.I never heared of "truth" as some kind of scientifically determined state or quantity.Evolution of morality is discussed in Darwin's "Descent of Man", and from there on endlessly by Darwinists.It's religious because they use it as a defacto religion. When you go to a Darwinist scientist, they will likely talk about identity -, and morality issues for themselves in the context of natural selection theory. And when you go to a Christian they will likely talk about identity - and moral issues in the context of Christianity etc.Besides, you can see that Darwinists are generally opposed to knowledge about choosing with possible alternatives, even openly so. So why would it be unreasonable to suppose that a strong and open opposition to knowledge in terms of alternative possible results, would result in the destruction of knowledge that is in that form?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I don't think agency, identity-issues, are part of science. Who somebody is in their heart is not a scientific issue, whether a choice is selfish, loving or hateful is not a science issue. Whether the structure of nature shows "benevolence" like creationist Paley said, is not a scientific issue, as I also don't believe Paley himself considered to have a science of "benevolence".If you say it's predetermined that 6 will turn up, then it's not possible for any of the other numbers to turn up, and it's not free. This is just normal understanding of things.You seem to be questioning all knowledge about free behaviour (with possible alternatives) in general, not just mine. Why do you do that? Is that because of natural selection theory?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well what I "seem" to be saying is not the point huh. I make quite a specific argument there shouldn't be much seeming about it. Darwinists are destroying knowledge about choice. They either are, or they aren't.We can somewhat see open hostility to knowledge about choice of Darwinists in general, right in this thread also in my opinion.We can also see that Darwinists use language about chosing in a force way in science theories, without possible alternatives.Why don't you just address Darwinist success, struggle for life, selfishness, choice, and any of those terms that they not lead to destruction of knowledge about choosing, in stead of bringing up charm?As before, charm states are not understood AFAIK, that somebody can look at a material phenomenon and then say; oh this material must be in charm-state Y on average. So it is outside the scope of daily life, and not even scientists know much about it, which is why they build so many particle accelerators now.But even for things like charm and beauty, it sounds a little odd to me. If you then get some physicists saying that charm and beauty according to traditinoal religion is a nonsense, and that this is what charm and beauty "really" is in stead, then they are supplanting the meaning of the words. And you get that sort of thing a lot among Darwinists. For instance the heart is really just a pump. The mind is really just a computer. Emotions are really softwareprograms etc. etc.Besides charm states seem to be fundamentally tied to probabilistic knowledge. They aren't explained in terms of forces AFAIK. It doesn't destroy knowledge of free behaviour, it tends to establish it. So it's a different issue, and I see no reason why you not address the real issue.Being a scientist you are among many Darwinists. So what is your experience of them, are they indeed more likely to say something made them do it, rather then say they decided to do it? Do they generally discuss identity and moral issues in context of natural selection theory for themselves? Do they think more when they should be feeling, calculate when they should be choosing in stead? Are they hostile to knowledge where there are alternatives from one state to another? Do the more Darwin inclined also use more "metaphorical" language of choosing in their theories? etc. etc.That is the best kind of evidence you have in your position to decide this issue, and your talk about charms provides no evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well you are just wrong. People in general understand dice to behave freely, and the flip of the coin. That the chance which side turns up is decided per event, and that it is not predermined in the way you explained it. Talking about flipping coins is mainly used in context of deciding alternatives.Then there are also many people who believe the outcome is predetermined, in the way that they believe there is some hidden law of the universe which keeps the decision which side turns up to be even on average. As before, they believe that if you throw heads a lot of times, then by this hidden law tails will most likely turn up next. But most people believe the chances are decided per event.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Ah you just don't like what I put at issue. You want to shroud this issue in a fog of philosophy. Do you also demand of yourself that your mind turns into a philosophical fog everytime you use the word choice, same as you demand of me to turn this thread into a philosophical fog when I talk about choosing? Your demands are just evidence of oppression of knowledge about free behaviour."Chance is the enemy of science" Richard Dawkins, The blind watchmaker.See, open hostility to knowledge about free behaviour. Evidence in favor."If time were wound back, and evolution run again, things would turn out differently" paraphrase GouldSee, evidence against the thesis that Darwinists destroy knowledge of free behaviour.But then of course Dawkins is the ultra-darwinist, and Gould was not.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

It's also not okay to junk the thread by interspersing comments meaningless to the subject at issue.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu