the intellectual enemies of freedom

You are just displaying more obstinacy to discuss the issue at hand.As before, what is your experience of Darwinists, 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. etc. many ways to find evidence for or against.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Right, please stop from posting in the thread.Sure I recognized it was some subtle comment about choice, but then besides it being a subtle comment it was also distorting the issue much, and I don't believe that's a coincedence.Take your philosophical discussion about free will elsewhere.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Those caveats probably help some. That they mention those caveats at all means that they recognize that there is an issue, although they think it's a small issue.But in context the caveats usually just add another layer of duplicity. So when Darwinists say we don't intend the informal meaning of success, purpose, choice, emotions etc., it becomes to mean that the informal meaning of those words are false.You can approach this to say;1 - science shouldn't assert things about purposes, because purposes are neccessarily by choice, neccessarily subjective.2 - Or you can say that since purposes can't be identified objectively, therefore there aren't any purposes.3 - or you can say purposes can be identified objectively with human beings only, therefore purposes only exist of human beings1 is out, because Darwinists don't acknowledge alternatives, so usually those caveats they mention lead to 2 and 3. On 3, elsewhere Darwinists, evolutionary psychologists, do actually make a science of purpose by brains, so their purpose is the only valid purpose.And while they make those caveats that their usage of those words is technical, they still refer to these "technical" things when thinking about identity - and moral issues for themselves. Such as; my genes make me selfish, but I want to be altruistic in stead. So then the technical sense of altruism is to help genetically similar creatures to yourself survive at the cost of survival of yourself. So then basically one ends up with Darwinist like goals anyway, which is really very close to a racist credo.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I do.Just to say, it's not good enough that you allow people to talk in terms of alternatives, without retribution for being unevidenced according to the scientific method. If you don't love knowledge about freedom, you're a bigoted hater of knowledge altogether. And I don't see any love of that knowledge among Darwinists.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

So, how much knowledge have you destroyed today scientist? Just look at your friends in the other threads, distorting, denying and oppressing knowledge of free behaviour. You wanted evidence of destruction, you got it.When they do a wrong, it's philosphical fogtime for knowledge of free behaviour, and does it all exist really?; and when they do a right, then it's; oh yes of course there is free behaviour, can't live without the knowledge. The attitudes presented in relation to the relentless pressures of conscience dictate that they would behave so.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Please stop from posting in the thread as well.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

You could just read it in the news one day, it's a possibility as far as we know because of global warming. So then what good did the scientific revolution bring, besides the total destruction of the earth?Seeing that there are many big moral responsibilities going on in the world, one would always want to be on the safe-side of ethics. Now is denying, oppressing, and destroying knowledge about free behaviour, being on the safe side of things?regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Folks, we already have knowledge about free behaviour, lots and lots of it. There is little need to go philosophizing inventing knowledge about free behaviour. Just do exegesis on books, newspapers, movies etc. in general where they talks about choosing, deciding, purpose and all that. That's our knowledge of free behaviour, as it is. Then you might do something useful in figuring out general patterns in our knowledge of free behaviour. See the main underlying assumptions in the knowledge. Such as;- consciousness, emotions, etc. can only be manifest at a point of choice between alternatives.That is what we propose to know already by the way we talk about those things, according to my exegesis. It's good knowledge we have, now only to emancipate this knowledge from scientific oppression.I don't buy it anymore that people are so stupid to be mislead by Dawkins "God delusion", and all the things he wrote against knowledge of free behaviour. Dawkins is much innocent, just an eccentric nutcase who can hardly do different. The evil is of the masses of readers of the book who actually know better then Dawkins how important knowledge of free behaviour is, but who willingly choose to believe some kind of sci-fi fantasy of mechanistic selfish genes and memes over the truth of creation.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

As explained in post 1 of the thread, objective knowledge about conscioussness is in terms of randomness, while subjective knowledge of consciousness comes from experience, from the spiritual act of choosing.Do this experiment, pick an object, any object, and look at it. Now when you're looking at the object your mind will basicly go as follows:- a coin flips in your mind on the one side of the coin it says, "there is this object", on the other side it says "there is no object"So looking at this object you will repeatedly have a surprise kind of feeling that the object is actually there. But at other times, completely illogically, you can't actually see the object because the coin flips to "there is no object". The harder one concentrates on looking at the object the closer one gets to a 50/50 split between the object being there and not there. That is because the harder one concentrates, the closer one gets to choosing, in stead of relying on much automated logic, reason etc. So if you concentrate hard and long enough on an object, any object, that object will start to disappear from your vision half the time.Of course there are ways of concentrating that makes the thing not dissappear, but a blunt effort at concentration like this on an object for no particular reason, will have the described effect of making the object disappear from vision.And that proves that consciousness is essentially about choosing alternatives.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu