One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780210"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780209"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2780149"][quote="Greg the Grouper";p="2780148"]

I do believe we've solved all of science.[/quote]


Who needs hypotheses, controls, experiments, falsifiability, peer review and all that hard stuff when you can solve all science with a few words typed into a webforum![/quote]


Are you attacking the fertility/impotency of minds in all web forums or just this one RatSkep?

Paul.[/quote]


I am doing science, according to the clown definition you employ.[/quote]

No ambiguity : the solar system evolved.

https://youtu.be/OeP4FFr88SQ

Paul
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="hackenslash";p="2780235"]Paul, I have something for you. Originally motivated by somebody else who had a brilliant idea and no idea how to present it, it's a sort of how-to on getting your groundbreaking theory taken seriously. I decided it was time to polish it off.
We've all done it, I'm sure; leapt out of the bath and run off naked down the street, having solved one of the thorniest problems in philosophy.

OK, maybe we've not all literally done it in the way Archimedes is purported to have done in what's almost certainly an apocryphal tale. Still, over the years, I've encountered many, many examples of people doing the easy bits of Feynman's famous problem-solving algorithm and running off metaphorically to expose their pendulous danglies to the internet at large without doing what Archimedes had done prior to his extra-ablutive excursion and fulfilled the difficult middle step.
Eureka![/quote]

Thanks for the link.

Is it fair to describe "the moon as a barometer?

https://youtu.be/sBW8Vnp8BzU

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Feb 04, 2022 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780244"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2780210"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780209"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2780149"]


Who needs hypotheses, controls, experiments, falsifiability, peer review and all that hard stuff when you can solve all science with a few words typed into a webforum![/quote]


Are you attacking the fertility/impotency of minds in all web forums or just this one RatSkep?

Paul.[/quote]


I am doing science, according to the clown definition you employ.[/quote]

No ambiguity : the solar system evolved.

https://youtu.be/OeP4FFr88SQ

Paul[/quote]


Penguins would eat frogs if only they could find them.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780245"][quote="hackenslash";p="2780235"]Paul, I have something for you. Originally motivated by somebody else who had a brilliant idea and no idea how to present it, it's a sort of how-to on getting your groundbreaking theory taken seriously. I decided it was time to polish it off.
We've all done it, I'm sure; leapt out of the bath and run off naked down the street, having solved one of the thorniest problems in philosophy.

OK, maybe we've not all literally done it in the way Archimedes is purported to have done in what's almost certainly an apocryphal tale. Still, over the years, I've encountered many, many examples of people doing the easy bits of Feynman's famous problem-solving algorithm and running off metaphorically to expose their pendulous danglies to the internet at large without doing what Archimedes had done prior to his extra-ablutive excursion and fulfilled the difficult middle step.
Eureka![/quote]

Thanks for the link.

Is it fair to describe "the moon as a barometer?

Paul.[/quote]


At least as fair as describing the Sun as an unwanted custard tart.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

Image
User avatar
newolder
Posts: 7877
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 1:13 pm
Name: Albert Ross
Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Location: Horwich, UK
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by newolder »

Image
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780244"]
No ambiguity : the solar system evolved. [/quote]

Wholly about ambiguity, which is why it remains a fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2780033

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780033"]
Obviously, this has been explained to Paul in terms even a child could have grasped, but the real issue plaguing Paul's comprehension here is basically semantic, so really superficial and really woolly in the comprehension department.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallac ... ref1102395
Verbal fallacies

These fallacies, called fallacies of ambiguity, arise when the conclusion is achieved through an improper use of words. The principal instances are as follows: (1) Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion (example: “The loss made Jones mad [= angry]; mad [= insane] people should be institutionalized; so Jones should be institutionalized.”).
If we were to call the development of the automobile 'evolution', the mere fact that it shares the same word doesn't remotely indicate that there is any similarity between the processes occurring, whereas Paul appears to believe that the usage of the same word means that the process is functionally identical. This flaw is deeply embedded in all his 'reasoning', despite having this flaw exposed and explained to him numerous times, and leads him to make all manner of errors - essentially his most basic argument is exactly this kind of error.[/quote]
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="hackenslash";p="2780248"]Image[/quote]


How so.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780250"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780244"]
No ambiguity : the solar system evolved. [/quote]

Wholly about ambiguity, which is why it remains a fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2780033

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780033"]
Obviously, this has been explained to Paul in terms even a child could have grasped, but the real issue plaguing Paul's comprehension here is basically semantic, so really superficial and really woolly in the comprehension department.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallac ... ref1102395
Verbal fallacies

These fallacies, called fallacies of ambiguity, arise when the conclusion is achieved through an improper use of words. The principal instances are as follows: (1) Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion (example: “The loss made Jones mad [= angry]; mad [= insane] people should be institutionalized; so Jones should be institutionalized.”).
If we were to call the development of the automobile 'evolution', the mere fact that it shares the same word doesn't remotely indicate that there is any similarity between the processes occurring, whereas Paul appears to believe that the usage of the same word means that the process is functionally identical. This flaw is deeply embedded in all his 'reasoning', despite having this flaw exposed and explained to him numerous times, and leads him to make all manner of errors - essentially his most basic argument is exactly this kind of error.[/quote][/quote]

Call in two different things the same.

Let's call it the Mark Twain argument........history does not repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes.

I would answer "what if everything that rhymed belonged in the poem.


My reuse of phrases is to show a related link.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

The process of primordial evolution by means of primal selection.

primal
[ˈprʌɪm(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE
relating to an early stage in evolutionary development; primeval.
"primal hunting societies"
synonyms:
original · initial · early · earliest · first · primitive · primeval · primary

Paul
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780273"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2780250"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780244"]
No ambiguity : the solar system evolved. [/quote]

Wholly about ambiguity, which is why it remains a fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2780033

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780033"]
Obviously, this has been explained to Paul in terms even a child could have grasped, but the real issue plaguing Paul's comprehension here is basically semantic, so really superficial and really woolly in the comprehension department.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallac ... ref1102395
Verbal fallacies

These fallacies, called fallacies of ambiguity, arise when the conclusion is achieved through an improper use of words. The principal instances are as follows: (1) Equivocation occurs when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in some other needed premise or in the conclusion (example: “The loss made Jones mad [= angry]; mad [= insane] people should be institutionalized; so Jones should be institutionalized.”).
If we were to call the development of the automobile 'evolution', the mere fact that it shares the same word doesn't remotely indicate that there is any similarity between the processes occurring, whereas Paul appears to believe that the usage of the same word means that the process is functionally identical. This flaw is deeply embedded in all his 'reasoning', despite having this flaw exposed and explained to him numerous times, and leads him to make all manner of errors - essentially his most basic argument is exactly this kind of error.[/quote][/quote]

Call in two different things the same.

Let's call it the Mark Twain argument........history does not repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes.

I would answer "what if everything that rhymed belonged in the poem.


My reuse of phrases is to show a related link.

Paul.[/quote]


Stop trying to wiggle around to find ways in which its remotely possible you might not be entirely wrong, and start processing the deep and unavoidable errors that are at the heart of your argumentation. You're not going to convince anyone of this Paul, it's wrong. In the practice of science, it simply does not matter how convinced you are, how insistent you are, or how much you want something to be - if it's wrong, then the universe is not going to roll over and let you give it one out of kindness or pity - your contentions will simply remain wrong.

Evolution by natural selection, as has been explained to you in far greater depth than anything you've ever written, has no similarity whatsoever to the evolution of the solar system; the same goes for the evolution of the universe, and the development of the automobile. The solar system has indeed changed, but it hasn't done so in any way that is comparable to the way in which species evolve. You cannot continue to pretend to yourself that your claims are still afloat while ignoring the facts - non-living systems do not have the iterative feedback loop present in a biological system where differential survival is retained through genetic information and compounded by heritability.

Rather, all you're doing is saying: look, X changes and Y changes - which is, of course, banal given that everything changes, but you then go onto argue that therefore X & Y are functionally the same, which is a fundamental misapprehension of the phenomena you're attempting to characterize.

No words of yours can fix this. The hardest lesson you'll learn in science is the first and most important: kill your darlings.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
Greg the Grouper
Posts: 549
Joined: Jul 27, 2021 12:53 am
Name: Patrick
Country: US

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Greg the Grouper »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780274"]The process of primordial evolution by means of primal selection.

primal
[ˈprʌɪm(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE
relating to an early stage in evolutionary development; primeval.
"primal hunting societies"
synonyms:
original · initial · early · earliest · first · primitive · primeval · primary

Paul[/quote]

That did it. It was my lack of understanding of the term 'primal' that had me confused this whole time. You've shattered my ignorance and enlightened me.
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780279"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780273"][quote="Spearthrower";p="2780250"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780244"]
No ambiguity : the solar system evolved. [/quote]

Wholly about ambiguity, which is why it remains a fallacy of equivocation.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2780033

[quote="Spearthrower";p="2780033"]
Obviously, this has been explained to Paul in terms even a child could have grasped, but the real issue plaguing Paul's comprehension here is basically semantic, so really superficial and really woolly in the comprehension department.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation



https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallac ... ref1102395



If we were to call the development of the automobile 'evolution', the mere fact that it shares the same word doesn't remotely indicate that there is any similarity between the processes occurring, whereas Paul appears to believe that the usage of the same word means that the process is functionally identical. This flaw is deeply embedded in all his 'reasoning', despite having this flaw exposed and explained to him numerous times, and leads him to make all manner of errors - essentially his most basic argument is exactly this kind of error.[/quote][/quote]

Call in two different things the same.

Let's call it the Mark Twain argument........history does not repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes.

I would answer "what if everything that rhymed belonged in the poem.


My reuse of phrases is to show a related link.

Paul.[/quote]


Stop trying to wiggle around to find ways in which its remotely possible you might not be entirely wrong, and start processing the deep and unavoidable errors that are at the heart of your argumentation. You're not going to convince anyone of this Paul, it's wrong. In the practice of science, it simply does not matter how convinced you are, how insistent you are, or how much you want something to be - if it's wrong, then the universe is not going to roll over and let you give it one out of kindness or pity - your contentions will simply remain wrong.

Evolution by natural selection, as has been explained to you in far greater depth than anything you've ever written, has no similarity whatsoever to the evolution of the solar system; the same goes for the evolution of the universe, and the development of the automobile. The solar system has indeed changed, but it hasn't done so in any way that is comparable to the way in which species evolve. You cannot continue to pretend to yourself that your claims are still afloat while ignoring the facts - non-living systems do not have the iterative feedback loop present in a biological system where differential survival is retained through genetic information and compounded by heritability.

Rather, all you're doing is saying: look, X changes and Y changes - which is, of course, banal given that everything changes, but you then go onto argue that therefore X & Y are functionally the same, which is a fundamental misapprehension of the phenomena you're attempting to characterize.

No words of yours can fix this. The hardest lesson you'll learn in science is the first and most important: kill your darlings.[/quote]

You can wax lyrically all you like thrower your not an ignorant man.

Human SELECTION emerged from Darwinian selection.

If one type comes to understanding the other, that can only count as advancement.

By showing that selection advances; then by triangulation, a more primitive type of SELECTION is a rational proposal.

Again give it some thought:

It is not the process that changes but the circumstances, (domain and type of material) that the process finds itself in.



Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]
You can wax lyrically all you like thrower your not an ignorant man.[/quote]

I am not waxing lyrically though, Paul. That is, in fact, precisely the opposite of what I did. Instead, I explained very clearly and precisely to you, for the umpteenth time, what the problem is with your understanding of this topic.

Do feel free to engage substantively whenever you think you can muster the gumption.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]Human SELECTION emerged from Darwinian selection.[/quote]

And so....?

So we're talking about artificial selection, which is a bit of a misnomer really given that humans are natural entities, but insofar as it means something, it can be best said that artificial selection means selecting for a particular trait intentionally regardless of its fitness.

Emergence here is recognizable as a concept, the reason being that the process by which humans selected for traits didn't involve them doing anything technical or to possess any understanding of the systems they were tinkering with, but instead co-opted the processes of natural selection favouring a given trait over others and artificially maximizing its reproductive success through selective breeding.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]If one type comes to understanding the other, that can only count as advancement.[/quote]

Advancement herein has to mean something particular, because it assumes a progression of events. For humans, it was an advancement as it had a material impact on the scope with which they could manage their environment. But in some abstract universal sense, nothing new is actually happening - it's still just natural selection producing forms that are fit for their environment, in this case one created by humans.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]By showing that selection advances; then by triangulation, a more primitive type of SELECTION is a rational proposal.[/quote]

This is flawed and you would need to unpack here what you mean because you are, again, treating selection as an entity that exists independently and can thus 'advance'. Selection isn't a thing that can advance, it's a category mistake Paul.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]Again give it some thought: [/quote]

I wish you would do what you tell others to do.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780427"]It is not the process that changes but the circumstances, (domain and type of material) that the process finds itself in. [/quote]


And you've just completely contradicted yourself having just claimed as confidently that 'selection advances': it is not the PROCESS which changes - it is not 'selection' that has 'advanced' as per your prior sentence, it is the circumstances. These circumstances are not functionally equivalent - they bear no analogous reference.

Thus, among the orbiting rocks which largely happen to be drawn into the gravitational well of a proto-planet, it can not be said that the rocks which became part of the planet were 'selected' nor that the rocks which weren't were 'selected' - in no way can this concept of selection you keep attempting to sell be in any way, shape or form functionally analogous to biological selection.

Once again, the fundamental flaw in your understanding boils down to 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' - Y follows X, so X caused Y. You need to actually show a causal relationship, Paul, and you can't even show even any compelling superficial relationship between the quantities.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

throwerAnd you've just completely contradicted yourself having just claimed as confidently that 'selection advances': it is not the PROCESS which changes - it is not 'selection' that has 'advanced' as per your prior sentence, it is the circumstances. These circumstances are not functionally equivalent - they bear no analogous reference.snip

I'm treating the bang as a singularity, that is I state it started one process and that single process can be divided into three separate states.

The separated different states are different both in terms of domain and type of material.

Hence: it is not the process that changes but the circumstances the process finds itself in.

Hope that's cleared thing up for you.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

thrower So we're talking about artificial selection, which is a bit of a misnomer really given that humans are natural entities, but insofar as it means something, it can be best said that artificial selection means selecting for a particular trait intentionally regardless of its fitness.snip

I prefer the label "Human SELECTION or at it best intelligent SELECTION.

Since Artificial selection answers to man I count it as one of the above.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

throwerOnce again, the fundamental flaw in your understanding boils down to 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' - Y follows X, so X caused Y. You need to actually show a causal relationship, Paul, and you can't even show even any compelling superficial relationship between the quantities.snip

No N,selection gave rise to I, selection so primal is rationally plausible.

Let's not ignore that the proposed single process follows the rationale: Arrow of time. Past present future. The movement of unconscious ,subconsciouse, conscious state.

I'm not just staking words in multiples of three, the phenomenon are rational accepted examples.

For clarity I envisage the different types separately, with the understanding that the states slowly flow and blend.

Dawkins says so much himself, the puddle wakes up.

Paul.


.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780457"]throwerAnd you've just completely contradicted yourself having just claimed as confidently that 'selection advances': it is not the PROCESS which changes - it is not 'selection' that has 'advanced' as per your prior sentence, it is the circumstances. These circumstances are not functionally equivalent - they bear no analogous reference.snip

I'm treating the bang as a singularity, that is I state it started one process and that single process can be divided into three separate states.

The separated different states are different both in terms of domain and type of material.

Hence: it is not the process that changes but the circumstances the process finds itself in.

Hope that's cleared thing up for you.[/quote]


Of course it's not 'cleared things up' Paul because it's not addressing the problem you're nominally replying to - which is that you contradicted yourself, and your answer is just to engage in more contradiction.

I've explained this already Paul. Bad ideas exist to be destroyed. Working overtime to continually toss out ad hoc fixes to the problems easily found in your presentation doesn't actually indicate that your idea is succeeding to overcome challenges, it's at the very best reading indicative of you not having been diligent. But there's no reason any longer to give this a best reading Paul; the reason it appears ad hoc is because it is ad hoc, there's no depth to it which is why you immediately retreat to chanting mantras.

Even in your ad hoc above, it's still fundamentally problematic because, as I've clearly commented to you many times, the concept of 'selection' in natural selection isn't analogous, it isn't present in the initial expansion of the universe - it can't logically be. In fact, a great deal of contemporary states were not there during the early expansion of the universe, they simply did not exist, no conditions relevant to them, and there was never any path laid out by some ineffable that intended for Y to follow X causally.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780458"]thrower So we're talking about artificial selection, which is a bit of a misnomer really given that humans are natural entities, but insofar as it means something, it can be best said that artificial selection means selecting for a particular trait intentionally regardless of its fitness.snip

I prefer the label "Human SELECTION or at it best intelligent SELECTION.

Since Artificial selection answers to man I count it as one of the above.

Paul.[/quote]


Well, the rest of the world uses 'artificial selection', so let's stick with that.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780461"]
No N,selection gave rise to I, selection so primal is rationally plausible.[/quote]

You can not show it is rationally plausible, only assert that it is.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780461"]Let's not ignore that the proposed single process follows the rationale: Arrow of time. Past present future. The movement of unconscious ,subconsciouse, conscious state. [/quote]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X

It's fallacious.

It's not that Y cannot be caused by X, but merely stating that one followed the other is insufficient to establish a credible causative link.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780461"]I'm not just staking words in multiples of three, the phenomenon are rational accepted examples.[/quote]

What 'phenomena'?

You can't possibly be talking about 'unconscious ,subconsciouse, conscious state' (sic) because, for a start, all of them are predicated on consciousness. A brick, for example, is not 'unconscious' - that's the kind of category mistake you've made before. Subconsciousness requires consciousness for it to be referred to as such.

What you are presumably trying to say is that there are 3 stages, physical, mental, intentional. So initially the universe is composed only of physical components, then later mental states arise in biological lifeforms, and later still humans evolve the type of consciousness that allows more clearly for intentional behavior, like selective breeding.

But this, of course, isn't the problem. The problem is you claiming that component processes of the latter 2 sets therefore must have originated in the initial set. This is something you have never been able to provide any support for at all, not even jumbled together declarations. And it is provably a point I've made for more than a decade to you, but which you still refuse to acknowledge or address.


[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780461"]For clarity I envisage the different types separately, with the understanding that the states slowly flow and blend.[/quote]

Whatever it is, it's not 'clarity'.



[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2780461"]Dawkins says so much himself, the puddle wakes up.[/quote]

I assume you mean Douglas Adams, but this still tells us nothing at all to do with your central claim, the one being challenged.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
Locked