Re: Science of choices falls out of research


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
André G. Isaak wrote:
In article <1147591580.417351.10960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

André G. Isaak wrote:
In article <1147557442.323164.171410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(1) Who makes this decision?

There you go asking the who question again..... it is just
dishonesty.... you are just a liar...

How can a question be dishonest?

By repeating the same question over and over and over again, completely
ignoring the answer given.

Not ignoring it. Finding it evasive and unsatisfactory. You just keep
offering some handwaving about subjective identity without explaining
what that is supposed to mean.

Evasive and unsatisfactory how? Any moderator would throw out such
blatant intellectual dishonesty. Without honesty a debate can't
progress, so I'm finished with it.

Andre is right - you have failed to answer questions on a constant
basis and often resort to a torrent of poorly targeted abuse at a
mythical enemy as your defence, instead of getting down to explain what
it is your are struggling to explain. Speaking of mythical enemies....

One can well see how these racist pseudoscientists go to work.

Who? Where?


They just stonewall interpretations of consciousness working per decision,
because "choice" doesn't really figure in physics.

Decisions are part of consciousness - that's what I and others have
been telling you, just not dicisions in the way you think about them.


So they are left
with causal explanations for human behaviour, and naturally one big
causal factor is the genes mediated by the environment.

You're making a complete mess of this.

Hence we must
explain a thing like laziness as inherent, which we would normally
consider a matter of choice.

Who is 'we' in both cases? Behavour is down to how you think and how
you think is only partly down to your genes - most of it is the way you
where brought up, what you expeienced and what you continue to
experience. Being lazy is not hardwired when you are born.

Hence racism ensues, as is quite clear
from the onset of the Darwinian revolution in intellectual climate of
opnion.

You mean the wide spread acceptance of evolution amongst folks with a
few brain cells by 'Darwinian evolution'? If you do then racism does
not form part of that understanding. Why? Because take any random group
of people in any location and you'll find the human gene pool is
suprisingly well mixed. Race is largely down to culture (increasingly
so) as one 'race' of poeple will have as much diversity of genes as
between that group and another. In short evolution does not support
racism unless you don't know much about modern genetics.

Any objection to this pseudoscientific racism is dealt with in
the bigoted style that is quite engrained in the culture of science.

Got an example?

The main reason why scientists are now not racists, is the memory of
the holocaust.

Now who's getting racist?

Because that is the one event that scientists are forced
to acknowledge might also not have happened, if only different choices
were made. In Western science on this one event hinges all our
knowledge of choice on an intellectual level, where otherwise
scientists have consistently destroyed the knowledge of free behaviour
everywhere else. Only this one event in history remains which we know
was chosen, the one event for which scientists are so guilty.

What a load of rubbish. You keep on going on about 'knowledge of
choice' like it has existed and does exist. It has been pointed out
that when we ask you for this knowledge you don't appear to have it
either. What we get is you flapping around throwing words together in
the hope they stick without any actual thing that ties into any other
knowledge, is independently varifiable or can in some way be tested.

After you calling all inherently racist, claiming there's some kind of
mass conspriacy against truth (which is all standard kook stuff) you
claim they are ignoring something you can't even explain. Ultimately I
think it comes down what appears to be reality clashing with you ego.
You ego wants complete control over everything whilst in truth we are
all are slaves to the world we find ourselves in. You do have the
ability to descide, that decision process is you and real but what is
real and you is the thing you arnt understanding.

You are nature and nurture. Partly down to genes, partly down to world
experiences and knowledge. You genes can make you smarter but only if
you managed to receive an education or where exposed to a wide range of
experiences.

If you want to attack me and how I see things you need to understand
how I see things and why it makes sense to me. So far I've no idea who
you are accusing of being racist, some mythical group of scientists it
appears. I'm not a scientist, not a darwinist and am just one of many
faceless folks who just can't stand by when someone gets stuff so
wrong.

Stew Dean


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No distinction between artificial and natural selection - John
    ... being intelligently-directed mutations. ... There are an indefinite number of genes. ... evolution is. ... Can't modern scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Zimmers thoughts
    ... This Week in Human Evolution ... but brain genes certainly are. ... scientists published a study that investigates their ... This morning Nicholas Humphrey, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Punctuated Equilibrium-Eugenics?
    ... reproduction and evolution. ... reproduction of people who are shown by genetic testing to be close to ... have kids but the kids will not have those genes. ... It's news to me that scientists are expressing openness to using humans ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
    ... This is close to, if not actually, dishonest. ... That evolution is, according to you, only 3% of the document means ... Yet you offer no help for teachers to change how it is taught. ... discussions and encourage the scientists of tomorrow to start thinking ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New to the Creation/Evolution Debate
    ... falsification of evolution by small incremental steps. ... something by an evolutionist which was "dishonest." ... You won't learn about science from creationist ... Scientists do not exclude the supernatural for political reasons. ...
    (talk.origins)