Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

by N2D2L Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:09 am

bogbrush wrote:
As for the doubt question, I have acknowledged slight room for doubt (the invisible dinosaur point) but to my mind there comes a point where doubt is so slight as to make it reasonable to move on. If we didn’t we’d almost literally never make a firm decision about anything, even invisible dinosaurs.

OK, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree over this one. I don't see an abstract supernatural entity (non personable God) as on the same certainty level as invisible dinosaurs. Invisible dinosaurs have no reason whatsoever to be existent, while 'God' could explain the phenomena of 'something from nothing'. Again I think it's very unlikely as so far all unexplained phenomena have been explained by natural science, but I just don't see how you're ruling it out at the same level of invisible dinosaurs or the Biblical God.
I also fundamentally disagree with you that a default position should be decisive rather than doubtful.

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:12 am

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
As for the doubt question, I have acknowledged slight room for doubt (the invisible dinosaur point) but to my mind there comes a point where doubt is so slight as to make it reasonable to move on. If we didn’t we’d almost literally never make a firm decision about anything, even invisible dinosaurs.
OK, perhaps we will have to agree to disagree over this one. I don't see an abstract supernatural entity (non personable God) as on the same certainty level as invisible dinosaurs. Invisible dinosaurs have no reason whatsoever to be existent, while 'God' could explain the phenomena of 'something from nothing'. Again I think it's very unlikely as so far all unexplained phenomena have been explained by natural science, but I just don't see how you're ruling it out at the same level of invisible dinosaurs or the Biblical God.
I also fundamentally disagree with you that a default position should be decisive rather than doubtful.

The wheels are coming off.

by N2D2L Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:22 am

Tenez wrote:
The wheels are coming off.

I wouldn't declare derailment so quickly, despite not completely agreeing with BB over whether there should be doubt, he has made a convincing case over what is more likely- and unlike you who said a few years ago you believe in God but have been reluctant here, he has put his argument in the firing line.

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:34 am

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:
The wheels are coming off.
I wouldn't declare derailment so quickly, despite not completely agreeing with BB over whether there should be doubt, he has made a convincing case over what is more likely- and unlike you who said a few years ago you believe in God but have been reluctant here, he has put his argument in the firing line.

This is a semantic question. What is God or Force which can turn chaos into order and order into chaos?

by bogbrush Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:04 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:...Now it becomes crystal clear to me. You fundamentally do not understand evolution; the process you describe is completely wrong.

If you'd like me to explain it to you I will but only if you wish it and are prepared to read and give it attention. I don't want to waste any more time unless you're prepared to listen.

It's funny you say that! I have studied "Compared Anatomy" for 5 years (It was one of my subject (evolution in effect) while graduating in Neurophysiology and humoral systems (glands). But not only at the anatomy level but also at the cell level. You can read on this forum way before we started this thread how I explained the role of mitochondria in the cell evolution.

But if you can teach me better I am certainly happy to hear from you.

If you're prepared to listen I certainly will.

OK, so I want to do this in stages so I don't find we have parted ways at the start and I've made all the effort.

1. Do you accept that the atoms in the rocks and stone, and gases and liquids are the very same atoms that comprise a human?
2. Do you agree that there is no meaningful difference between a human, a pig, an insect other than intelligence level and obvious physical attributes?
3. Do you recognise that each body cycles through molecules many times over it's period of activity?

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:34 pm

bogbrush wrote:
1. Do you accept that the atoms in the rocks and stone, and gases and liquids are the very same atoms that comprise a human?

indeed

2. Do you agree that there is no meaningful difference between a human, a pig, an insect other than intelligence level and obvious physical attributes?

Intelligence and awareness. I m not sure you understand what consciousness is. But I agree that physically we are a product of evolution made from "Mother" Earth.

3. Do you recognise that each body cycles through molecules many times over it's period of activity?

[/quote]Yes. So far, so good.

by bogbrush Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:53 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
1. Do you accept that the atoms in the rocks and stone, and gases and liquids are the very same atoms that comprise a human?
indeed
2. Do you agree that there is no meaningful difference between a human, a pig, an insect other than intelligence level and obvious physical attributes?
Intelligence and awareness. I m not sure you understand what consciousness is. But I agree that physically we are a product of evolution made from "Mother" Earth.
3. Do you recognise that each body cycles through molecules many times over it's period of activity?

Yes. So far, so good.[/quote]

Not sure we're ok on 2. Are you saying there is no difference apart from sheer brain power and body shape, or are you saying there's something else?

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:59 pm

There is something else. Humans know that they know (the famous homo sapiens sapiens). Something you start to see in caves drawings. Self awareness in short. How did that happen and why no other species have got it so far.

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:04 pm

Anyway I do not want this to stop your reasoning. I'm happy to accept that this awakening might be the result of excess pain or hopefully joy though the former is more likely. However it's still another stage of the rocket propulsing us towards drizzling heights.

by bogbrush Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:03 pm

This will probably become a problem. However, let’s continue

1. Do you agree that the offspring of any creature, human or other animal, predominantly carry characteristics inherited from the parent(s)?

2. But that they also vary from the patent(s) through both mixture of genes and mutation?

3. And do you agree that some offspring will succeed more than others due to these differences?

by Tenez Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:This will probably become a problem. However, let’s continue

1. Do you agree that the offspring of any creature, human or other animal, predominantly carry characteristics inherited from the parent(s)?
yes

2. But that they also vary from the patent(s) through both mixture of genes and mutation?
yes but what makes those mutations happen?

3. And do you agree that some offspring will succeed more than others due to these differences?

yes

by Daniel Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:13 am

summerblues wrote:

But you cannot provide such justification. It is not even clear to me from your mumbo-jumbo where it is that you think you see such justification.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:07 am

Ok good.

1. Do you think the parents or offspring consciously create those differences?

2. Do you agree that as the World changes different things decide who succeeds (such as, in one situation strength might decide whereas in another it might be height, intelligence, sociability so on?

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:17 am

bogbrush wrote:Ok good.

1. Do you think the parents or offspring consciously create those differences?

Consciously no, cause animals are not conscious. But subconsciously, yes.

2. Do you agree that as the World changes different things decide who succeeds (such as, in one situation strength might decide whereas in another it might be height, intelligence, sociability so on?

Environment certainly affects evolution.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:27 am

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Ok good.

1. Do you think the parents or offspring consciously create those differences?
Consciously no, cause animals are not conscious. But subconsciously, yes.

2. Do you agree that as the World changes different things decide who succeeds (such as, in one situation strength might decide whereas in another it might be height, intelligence, sociability so on?
Environment certainly affects evolution.

1. Well you don't know that, but leaving it aside, humans?

2. That's a conclusion. I'm just asking for your view on the question I asked.

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:34 am

Humans can now physically and consciously alter their genes. Is it simply random or is it because they "wish" to?

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:48 am

Tenez wrote:Humans can now physically and consciously alter their genes. Is it simply random or is it because they "wish" to?

Come on now, you know exactly what I'm asking, don't be evasive.

The question I am asking, so please answer it honestly, is whether you believe a two human beings can under natural conditions direct the variation in their offsprings genes, or if the offspring itself can direct that change in utero or at the moment of conception?

Edit: to make the question even clearer, could they do this 500 years ago?

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:46 pm

I am not evasive at all. You have been trying to corner me and you find yourself cornered. You are the one evading my question. My answer was very clear actually. And please answer my question in turn!

Regarding your question, we do not know how those so called "random" mutations happen. We know for instance that someone with a depressive mind might affect cell mutations resulting in having a higher risk for cancer. There are many factors affecting mutations and probably more to discover. So I am not sure what is your point.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:54 pm

Tenez wrote:I am not evasive at all. You have been trying to corner me and you find yourself cornered. You are the one evading my question. My answer was very clear actually. And please answer my question in turn!

Regarding your question, we do not know how those so called "random" mutations happen. We know for instance that someone with a depressive mind might affect cell mutations resulting in having a higher risk for cancer. There are many factors affecting mutations and probably more to discover. So I am not sure what is your point.

I'd remind you that I'm the one asking the questions. You agreed to co-operate so that I can explain to you how evolution happens.

So, do you agree that human parents - in natural condition, or those prevailing perhaps 500 years ago if that helps you - have no control over the differences between their children?

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:16 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Tenez wrote:I am not evasive at all. You have been trying to corner me and you find yourself cornered. You are the one evading my question. My answer was very clear actually. And please answer my question in turn!

Regarding your question, we do not know how those so called "random" mutations happen. We know for instance that someone with a depressive mind might affect cell mutations resulting in having a higher risk for cancer. There are many factors affecting mutations and probably more to discover. So I am not sure what is your point.

I'd remind you that I'm the one asking the questions. You agreed to co-operate so that I can explain to you how evolution happens.

I know how evolution happens. It's not because science cannot measure archetypes or notions such as "will" or "fear", "happyness", that those energies do not exist and influence evolution. We know for instance that atoms are made of protons, Neutrons and electrons. Charged with positive or negative energies, but those are also made of smaller elements and who knows whether those are made of smaller ones yet!. Pain, joy, fears are also subtle energies, very difficult to measure scientifically but proven psychologically. Can you be sure those energies do not influence our production of sperm, ovums and affect the mutations? You seem to know so much but as I said you do not seem to have the scientific knowledge to understand the extend of our ignorance.

And I have yet to hear from you how all that life started. If it is just scientific as you say, please grab a couple of rocks, gas, and liquid gas and show us how. Don't forget your Merlin hat and magic wand, you might need it!

So, do you agree that human parents - in natural condition, or those prevailing perhaps 500 years ago if that helps you - have no control over the differences between their children?

No I do not know that. No one knows for sure.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:41 pm

Ok, let's back up a bit.

The purpose of this part of the discussion was that I offered to tell you where you are wrong about evolution. As part of that you agreed to answer my questions. Now you seem to not want to do that but just to assert you understand it, which you actually clearly do not. So I hope you will either answer these questions or declare you don't want to hear. I know, you are already feeling the noose around your neck but just have the guts to let it carry on a while, eh?

So, in the hope you will carry on:

1. Are you saying that we don't know whether human parents intentionally make their children different from each other?

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:09 pm

bogbrush wrote:Ok, let's back up a bit.

The purpose of this part of the discussion was that I offered to tell you where you are wrong about evolution. As part of that you agreed to answer my questions. Now you seem to not want to do that but just to assert you understand it, which you actually clearly do not. So I hope you will either answer these questions or declare you don't want to hear. I know, you are already feeling the noose around your neck but just have the guts to let it carry on a while, eh?

So, in the hope you will carry on:

1. Are you saying that we don't know whether human parents intentionally make their children different from each other?

What does intentionally mean for you? You are using words which do not fit your own reasoning. As you said there is no "will".

I have explained very clearly above where you reasoning is failing, not at one level but at multiple ones. And that is why you do not wish to answer the simplest question and has to re-adjust to 500 years ago. You only see lego blocks more or less complex. I have proven to you that will is there all along unless you think it appears suddenly with humans...which would make humans different than pigs and break your dodgy "logic". Now tell me where does that "will" appear in the evolution?

You don;t even see the complexity of an atom, how strange it is to have electrons spinning crazy around them. Do you know what quarks are made of? Do you know for sure whether we can't break them further, like we thought we coudl not break atoms not so long ago?

That life follows some rules (evolution) like matter follows some as well is very evident to me. You have not taught me anything so far. It does not make the puzzle any less smart, nor unimpressive. Where we disagree is that you only "believe" in what we know and ignore everything else we don't know. For you it's very clear now, what we don;t know is false by default and that is not a very scientific way of reasoning.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:12 pm

Just answer the question.

Intentionally mean with intent. Deliberate. The term is used to specify your position, not mine.

Like I say, answer the question, no need for your bullshit.

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:51 pm

I repeat:

I have explained very clearly above where you reasoning is failing, not at one level but at multiple ones. And that is why you do not wish to answer the simplest question and has to re-adjust to 500 years ago. You only see lego blocks more or less complex. I have proven to you that "will" is there all along unless you think it appears suddenly with humans...which would make humans different than pigs and break your dodgy "logic". Now tell me where does that "will" appear in the evolution?

This should answer your question you are so desperate to ask!

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:29 pm

bogbrush wrote:Just answer the question.

Intentionally mean with intent. Deliberate. The term is used to specify your position, not mine.

Like I say, answer the question, no need for your bullshit.

BB,
evolution is the easiest thing on earth to understand, whether one chooses to believe it or not.

It's old news.

by noleisthebest Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:52 pm

...assuming you believe in everything you wrote here, what happens with you when you die?

And a more important question, are you afraid of death?
And if the answer is yes, why?

And why do people say “rest in peace” when someone dies?

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:14 pm

noleisthebest wrote:...assuming you believe in everything you wrote here, what happens with you when you die?

And a more important question, are you afraid of death?
And if the answer is yes, why?

And why do people say “rest in peace” when someone dies?

1. Your body decomposes into constituent parts.

2. Yes in the sense I will do anything to avoid it, but I’m not afraid of being dead. That’s irrelevant because I won’t know I am. I won’t have any sense of awareness whatsoever. I will be gone.

3. Because if my ancestors had not a strong aversion to dying they would not have survived long enough to pass on that instinct and I would not be here.

4. Because they’ve been trained to.

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:15 pm

Tenez wrote:I repeat:

I have explained very clearly above where you reasoning is failing, not at one level but at multiple ones. And that is why you do not wish to answer the simplest question and has to re-adjust to 500 years ago. You only see lego blocks more or less complex. I have proven to you that "will" is there all along unless you think it appears suddenly with humans...which would make humans different than pigs and break your dodgy "logic". Now tell me where does that "will" appear in the evolution?

This should answer your question you are so desperate to ask!

So you cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer.

I invite you again to answer the question. I don’t need the bullshit, I just want you to answer directly and straightforwardly. I’ll remind d you of it:

So, do you agree that human parents - in natural condition, or those prevailing perhaps 500 years ago if that helps you - have no control over the differences between their children?

Will is easily understood but to remind you, you agreed to this process so I can explain evolution to you.

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:20 pm

"So, do you agree that human parents - in natural condition, or those prevailing perhaps 500 years ago if that helps you - have no control over the differences between their children?"

That is a more honest question! Though it's you who requires "the 500 years ago" and move the goal post. Not me. Today we can prove we can willingly change our genome and therefore have not the answer you wanted.

So my answer to your question is No! We do not know if and/or how our subconscious affects our offprings. It might be affecting them in a very subtle, unnoticeable way, impossible to detect from one generation to the next but of course over 100 000s of years those little changes might be more obvious. As we know now, our mental states may affect those mutations one way or another, so it is not far stretch to think that the brave hunter who is keen/willing to bring his wife the best meat may have better offsprings that the one who doesn't care, even though he might be fitter but depressed and yet relies on "random" mutations. It is not intentional, but under the threshold of consciousness (intent) we do not know the energies at stake. You do not know whether a giraffe "willing" to grasp higher leaves has an impact on its offspring. Your view is "that's not how it works", "the giraffes able to grasp more leaves will be stronger and more successful" and that satisfies your simple mind. It does not satisfy mine and billions more people as the world is much more complex than that. I still don;t know why a giraffe is more able to grasp more leaves in the first place. Because it is naturally bigger? why is it so? "random"? well yeah...maybe in a 1000s years they could grow wings so they'd grab even higher leaves.

Now on the other hand you easily brushed the question on "Will" as being "easily understood". That's a joke frankly. This shows you are more interested in looking good than providing tangible answers or even learning. Desire is certainly not an easy thing to understand and a pillar of evolution theory. Ask your wife! Winking

by bogbrush Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:53 pm

Waffle waffle to disguise ignorance as wisdom. Desire is so simple to understand it’s incredible that you need to dress it up like that. We desire suitable mates for reproductive success because our ancestors did, because anyone who doesn’t has a lesser chance of reproducing so their weak instincts are less likely to be copied. Fucks sake, that is so easy I can’t believe I had to type it!

The question you find more honest was copy & pasted from earlier today. Just shows how well you read this stuff This Is What A Feminist Looks Like - Page 8 2355573927

This Is What A Feminist Looks Like - Page 8 2355573927

I’m very disappointed, I didn’t think you were at this level. It’s one thing not to know stuff but it’s quite another to boast about your ignorance by disguising it within mysticism.

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:51 pm

bogbrush wrote:Waffle waffle to disguise ignorance as wisdom. Desire is so simple to understand it’s incredible that you need to dress it up like that. We desire suitable mates for reproductive success because our ancestors did, because anyone who doesn’t has a lesser chance of reproducing so their weak instincts are less likely to be copied. Fucks sake, that is so easy I can’t believe I had to type it!

Hold on! dig down a bit. Remember there are only "lego blocks" for you out there, dead atoms, isn't it? No life! no will! right? All this is spelled out by you! not me. Who desires then? You won't get away with a waffle , waffle for everything you cannot explain as it highlights your contradictions. So when does this will or desire intervene in the evolution. You are saying "we desire suitable mates for reproducing cause our ancestors did!" And you really think you are going to get away with that? Remember your ancestors come from a cell, even a rock and liquid gas, earlier. Are you saying that a rock desired to turn into amino acids? if not when in the evolution desire or will started to appear? That is not a difficult question and it is you who is disappointing stating "desire" comes from our ancestors. Frankly, does that answer the question?

by Tenez Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:05 pm

And remember we started this conversation because you mentioned there was no will just random mutations. Now you are telling me that there is will and will is easy to explain.

Frankly you are difficult to follow.

by N2D2L Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:20 am

Will does not play a part in evolution.
The mutations are random, and those who are lucky to have mutations which help their chances of surviving produce more offspring.
The will Bogbrush talked about is due to evolution, a random process, meaning humans with certain willpowers survive and reproduce more. For example humans who had mutations which meant they 'willed' to have sex more, had a natural advantage to reproduce more. That trait was therefore passed on and became prevalent at high rates.
As for your 'giraffes wanting longer necked offspring' example, it ignores the fact that initially there were likely to be equal number of mutations for shorter necks, but they were just killed off. Did those giraffes also subconsciously want their offspring to have short necks? You just see the end product, which is giraffes having a long neck, due to selective advantage for thousands of years after random mutations.

Tenez wrote:You do not know whether a giraffe "willing" to grasp higher leaves has an impact on its offspring. Your view is "that's not how it works", "the giraffes able to grasp more leaves will be stronger and more successful" and that satisfies your simple mind. It does not satisfy mine and billions more people as the world is much more complex than that.

I'm sorry that's just absolutely shocking.

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:21 am

You remind me those who sued Galileo cause he troubled their vision of life by saying the world was not flat. or even more appropriate those who rejected Darwin theory as complete non-sense.

For you guys everything that is not demonstrated yet is "shockingly false". That is a really shocking statement!

Luckily, science does not wait for you guys. With this kind of mindset nothing gets to be discovered. You wait for the others to do the work. You would not even know where to find cause you simply reject any idea!..and all discoveries start with ideas.

Newton watching an apple fall generated a feeling that led him to an amazing gravity law. Incomplete law but still a physical law. Maybe Darwin's theory is incomplete too?

Now regarding our subject, how old is psychology? How old is the concept of subconscious, collective subconscious, ego, super ego, etc.... How old is the concept of archetypes? Waffl waffle waffle I guess for you.

Since Jan 2017, that's not old is it? we know that mind affect cancer and survival. We don;t know "how" yet but unlike you guys some at least had the curiosity to find a link between mind, mindset and illnesses such as cancer. It seems there is one. A 23y long study reported by the NHS.

To some extend I feel I am discussing here with walls. It's a bit like explaining to a colour blind that there are more colours than they see. Difficult to prove it frankly. And I will leave it as is.

by noleisthebest Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:48 am

Yes, psychology has really taken off!

Emotional intelligence was only “discovered” in the 90s, and now Gail Brenner is revolutionising therapy with “be in the moment” thought and emotions control.

Very exciting.

by bogbrush Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:29 pm

DECIMA wrote:Will does not play a part in evolution.
The mutations are random, and those who are lucky to have mutations which help their chances of surviving produce more offspring.
The will Bogbrush talked about is due to evolution, a random process, meaning humans with certain willpowers survive and reproduce more. For example humans who had mutations which meant they 'willed' to have sex more, had a natural advantage to reproduce more. That trait was therefore passed on and became prevalent at high rates.
As for your 'giraffes wanting longer necked offspring' example, it ignores the fact that initially there were likely to be equal number of mutations for shorter necks, but they were just killed off. Did those giraffes also subconsciously want their offspring to have short necks? You just see the end product, which is giraffes having a long neck, due to selective advantage for thousands of years after random mutations.

Tenez wrote:You do not know whether a giraffe "willing" to grasp higher leaves has an impact on its offspring. Your view is "that's not how it works", "the giraffes able to grasp more leaves will be stronger and more successful" and that satisfies your simple mind. It does not satisfy mine and billions more people as the world is much more complex than that.
I'm sorry that's just absolutely shocking.

I know, I had no idea this level of ignorance persisted. I mean, I know there are people who think these thing but the charicature is of some Bible Belt idiot who demands Intelligent Design is treated as a genuine theory.

The one thing I did know was that this sort of deep need will defy any rational discussion, but I really didn’t thing it meant a guy like Tenez became incapable of answering a question with a straight answer.

I reckon after answering a half dozen or so he knew the next one was going to kill him, because he’d accepted all the necessary steps to accept evolution as a ‘willless’ process once he agreed that parents don’t direct the differences in their children. I have four myself and can attest that they’re all different and we didn’t plan that!

by bogbrush Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:34 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Waffle waffle to disguise ignorance as wisdom. Desire is so simple to understand it’s incredible that you need to dress it up like that. We desire suitable mates for reproductive success because our ancestors did, because anyone who doesn’t has a lesser chance of reproducing so their weak instincts are less likely to be copied. Fucks sake, that is so easy I can’t believe I had to type it!
Hold on! dig down a bit. Remember there are only "lego blocks" for you out there, dead atoms, isn't it? No life! no will! right? All this is spelled out by you! not me. Who desires then? You won't get away with a waffle , waffle for everything you cannot explain as it highlights your contradictions. So when does this will or desire intervene in the evolution. You are saying "we desire suitable mates for reproducing cause our ancestors did!" And you really think you are going to get away with that? Remember your ancestors come from a cell, even a rock and liquid gas, earlier. Are you saying that a rock desired to turn into amino acids? if not when in the evolution desire or will started to appear? That is not a difficult question and it is you who is disappointing stating "desire" comes from our ancestors. Frankly, does that answer the question?

Oh you complete dope!

Desire is a word we can use for strength of instinct. A fucking Rock wanting to sprout legs - Jesus, they don’t sink that low in Bible class in Redneck, Dumbsville.

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:53 pm

"Desire is a word we can use for strength of instinct?" Wow that's a cool answer. Any chemical formula for this, M Lego-man?

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:21 pm

You are telling us will/desire has nothing to with evolution and now you are telling us that "We desire suitable mates for reproductive success".

Honestly you do not make sense. I believe that is why you are resorting to ridiculing the debate and insults.

But it is there for everybody to see!

by N2D2L Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:34 pm

Tenez wrote:You are telling us will/desire has nothing to with evolution and now you are telling us that "We desire suitable mates for reproductive success".

Evolution= Random mutations lead to selective advantage of certain traits by natural selection
Certain traits= Could include 'desire', if they provided a selective advantage (i.e. desire to stay alive, reproduce)

Tenez wrote:Honestly you do not make sense. I believe that is why you are resorting to ridiculing the debate and insults.

It's true Bogbrush's tone and words have been harsh, but he's still fundamentally correct. On this issue I'm in full agreement with him and my tone is very friendly and not tough at all- don't use it as an excuse to avoid answering the substantive questions!

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:43 pm

I'm glad you are in agreement with BB cause he is not even in agreement with himself.

by bogbrush Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:14 pm

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:You are telling us will/desire has nothing to with evolution and now you are telling us that "We desire suitable mates for reproductive success".
Evolution= Random mutations lead to selective advantage of certain traits by natural selection
Certain traits= Could include 'desire', if they provided a selective advantage (i.e. desire to stay alive, reproduce)

Tenez wrote:Honestly you do not make sense. I believe that is why you are resorting to ridiculing the debate and insults.
It's true Bogbrush's tone and words have been harsh, but he's still fundamentally correct. On this issue I'm in full agreement with him and my tone is very friendly and not tough at all- don't use it as an excuse to avoid answering the substantive questions!

Exactly, as you say ‘desire’ is only a word to describe the impulse of an organism to do something. It might be to eat, to breed, or whatever. It exists as you understand as a consequence of evolved traits, not as the cause.

Will and desire are OUTPUTS of evolution; consequences of selection, not INPUTS to it.

However, none of this can be heard by Tenez. When the need for religious reassurance is as strong as this people cannot hear, it’s too disturbing to them. As I said earlier, “after answering a half dozen or so he knew the next one was going to kill him, because he’d accepted all the necessary steps to accept evolution as a ‘willless’ process once he agreed that parents don’t direct the differences in their children.”

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:31 pm

bogbrush wrote:Exactly, as you say ‘desire’ is only a word to describe the impulse of an organism to do something. It might be to eat, to breed, or whatever. It exists as you understand as a consequence of evolved traits, not as the cause.

Will and desire are OUTPUTS of evolution; consequences of selection, not INPUTS to it.

Ah good. some sense again at last. You see no need to be condescending especially when we should all be so humble in front of so much to know and understand. Did I say anywhere here that desire came from Mars? Did I say it came from a higher "power"? Please point me where I do say that.

So my question is at what time or level of the evolution desire/will arrives? If it does not come from Mars, where does this "craving" come from? Please answer that question.

Also do you know whether that desire or will is conscious or underneath the threshold of consciousness. You can ignore that question for now if pyschology is not your field.

by bogbrush Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:59 pm

I just did in the piece you quoted, you don’t seem to read these things.

I do read them, and you didn’t say it came from Mars (as I neither said you did) but you did say that evolution was directed by will, which is backwards.

Desire is nothing more than the impulse to act. The organisms without it didn’t get to breed, those with it most developed did so more successfully so all that’s left are organisms with high ‘desire’. We might as correctly say they have the most successful habits.

Conscious or subconscious is an easy question when you realise that consciousness is no more than the ‘front of shop’ part of the brains functioning. It’s like thanking the waiter for your meal when he did no more than relay information to the chef.
We are programmed. The so-called consciousness is no more than the sensory perception and processing part which acts on top of the core programme (and it becoming highly complex in humans and some other animals is where the illusion of being alive comes from). Desires are instinctive.

by Tenez Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:37 pm

/

bogbrush wrote:I just did in the piece you quoted, you don’t seem to read these things.

I do read them, and you didn’t say it came from Mars (as I neither said you did) but you did say that evolution was directed by will, which is backwards.

I did not say "directed" but affected it....and I thought you said so too. The desire of male and female affects the evolution. Today we can intently affect the evolution. (at least we think we can). So today this "will" is real. Don't you agree with this? In a way we have been using this "will" for centuries. Milleniums even as we were able to select the best chickens, cows, sheep breeds, adopt wolves and turn them into nice poodles, improve wheat and rice production etc...using natural compatible genes which in turn helped us develop differently than the course without that will/desire to improve.

Desire is nothing more than the impulse to act. The organisms without it didn’t get to breed, those with it most developed did so more successfully so all that’s left are organisms with high ‘desire’. We might as correctly say they have the most successful habits.

I don;t really understand that first sentence. Or at least it (impulse) does not add much to the concept and understanding of desire. Unlike you I do think it is quite difficult to define, especially as I go through periods of my life where my own desire fluctuates a lot. It seems to have a life of its own. Is it energy? emotional energy? What is emotional energy? What molecules shed some "mass" to provide that energy? But let's leave that for now. The maybe simpler question is still not answered. There is no shame not knowing but as a fervent Darwinian I am interested to know when desire arrives in the evolution and affects the course of evolution. We can say for instance language developped a long time, ago and is in quite a few species. And even before basic languages, some form of communication exist/ed. So I have a feeling desire, could be similar. It gets stronger and more complex as organisms follow the same trend. So the question is where does its simplest form start? does it start with Saurians, Reptile, Mamals or before with cells? Maybe bacteria even? But surely it does not come from outside, I certainly agree there is no outside**. So where from? dead atomes? Does an electron "desire" its nucleus? Does Hydrogen desire Oxygen? Is that the simplest form of desire? Surely not. But as a logical mind I do not believe in spontaneous appearances. So where does it start?

Conscious or subconscious is an easy question when you realise that consciousness is no more than the ‘front of shop’ part of the brains functioning. It’s like thanking the waiter for your meal when he did no more than relay information to the chef. We are programmed. The so-called consciousness is no more than the sensory perception and processing part which acts on top of the core programme (and it becoming highly complex in humans and some other animals is where the illusion of being alive comes from). Desires are instinctive.

It's strange how you wish to, desire should I say, simplify everything. It's like saying a "hand is very easy to explain", it's a kind of tool made of 5 fingers to help you grasp what you "desire". Sure but a hand is also a lot more complicated than that. nevertheless. I do not wish to discuss consciousness/subconsciousness. I just wanted to mention there were different levels of desire. One can have 2 different desiring forces in one personality (schizophrenia for instance), or without even going pathological, one may have the desire of a chocolate bar while having also the desire to shed weight and face a dilemma.

** Actually I do not know. I don't think so is more accurate.

by bogbrush Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:15 pm

Desire, Will.... these are just words for impulses, which is just a way of describing the actions driven by programming. We have a ‘desire’ to eat, just means that the way our organism cane to still be in the chain of copies going back a few billion years.

Your fluctuation enthusiasm for things only reflects varying health, competing pressures, etc. Emotional energy is what we call it but in reality it’s just attention. Mood is just chemicals otherwise secwe wouldn’t have mood altering drugs.

Desire, as so defined, was always there. As we become more complex, better able to process information and manipulate concepts so did those ‘desires’ develop. More complex than the bacteria but still fundamentally the same.

I say it’s simple because once we discard these artificial concepts it really is. Not to say it isn’t technically difficulty to know but as a process it’s just get copying molecules going and watch and wait.

by summerblues Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:46 pm

DECIMA wrote:Firstly why are you exempting people who talk about belief from being able to 'reason it out'? Would you do this in any other discussion? Imagine if we were discussing sport and I said something which sounded unreasonable, and then declared that it was a faith based belief. You would start picking holes in my argument and tear apart my stance. Be honest. Just because this question is a tougher one, why should people who choose not to reason be given an intellectual pass?

Nobody should be given an intellectual pass. That is not the issue. But a person saying "Reason shows that X is correct" is making a stronger statement than a person saying "I do not see reason giving me an answer, but I believe X". That is why the former needs to provide a stronger justification.

If someone broke their leg and said "I will not go to a hospital but instead will pray to have my leg healed because I believe that will work better", sure I would feel I could poke holes in their belief. But that is only because I think I could reason out that they were wrong. In other words, even there, it is me who is saying "I can show that this belief is wrong" who needs to reason out my justification rather than the person who states their belief in prayer.

Or maybe you meant something different from what you said, maybe you were just trying to say that a person who says "I do not see reason giving me an answer, but you should believe X" should be expected to substantiate it further. I would agree with that.

by Daniel Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:55 am

Desire, Will.... these are just words for impulses, which is just a way of describing the actions driven by programming

Except, as has been repeated to you at least twice, these things are debated by scientists around the world and are one of the biggest mysteries of the human mind. It isn't just "programming". How these things "feel" falls under a branch of psychology that no math can answer.

Also, why do things want to replicate their DNA and pass it on? Why is there a need for survival? In your world of pure math and science, why would matter want to duplicate and have a survival instinct? Survival instinct cannot exist in a pure math / science view of things - which is why no-one has worked out the answer. Why would matter develop a "feeling" to stop it self terminating -or being terminated. Answer that one.

You are making so many wild responses trying to avoid the fact that these arguments are debated around the world by prominent scientists. They are not answered on Tenez forum by the Almighty Egoist Bog Brush. I'm sorry. But they aren't. They are massively complicated questions - much more complicated than you've reasoned down to an abacus.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:39 am

Daniel wrote:Also, why do things want to replicate their DNA and pass it on? Why is there a need for survival? In your world of pure math and science, why would matter want to duplicate and have a survival instinct?

Niether 'want' nor 'need' is necessary for evolution to work.
For some organisms which are conscious, there will be a conscious desire to survive and reproduce, but that's because those traits would have given an evolutionary advantage in the past to those who had it.
Bacteria mutate to become antibiotic resistant, it's not because the bacteria want or need survival; it's just a process where certain bacteria undergo random mutations, these mutations help them survive against antibiotics, so these mutated bacteria then asexually reproduce and multiply, while the others get killed. Some humans having mutations thousands of years ago to have 'will' to reproduce/survive more is based on the same process of natural selection.

If this debate is based on the process right after initial life started to what we have now, scientists will be able to go through the process quite clearly, and show nothing supernatural was needed to end up with life as we have now. In the earlier debate, if we based the argument on the process from just after matter was created, scientists could go through the process to show how we've ended up with stars and planets as they are.
That is very much on Bogbrush's terrain, and he's explained it quite coherently.
However where we would perhaps differ in both debates is how matter and life respectively was created in the first place. Science is not really clear on that at all, and unlike Bogbrush I would not reach any conclusion with any certainty.

by N2D2L Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:44 am

summerblues wrote:
Nobody should be given an intellectual pass. That is not the issue. But a person saying "Reason shows that X is correct" is making a stronger statement than a person saying "I do not see reason giving me an answer, but I believe X". That is why the former needs to provide a stronger justification.

Yeah I do see where you're coming from, but I still think you're wrong to be uniquely tough on Bogbrush's arguments. I made the point which you didn't address that there is a difference between believing something on faith that hasn't yet been resolved by scientists, and believing something which has been disproved by science. The latter does deserve more scrutiny and critical analysis.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30