[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 12 KB, 236x340, cb0439673283b8b86031234a5e76f517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16522408 No.16522408 [Reply] [Original]

Why didn't he like Evolutionism?

>> No.16522934

>>16522408
eoooooo bump

>> No.16523962

The Greater doesn't come from the lessor. Simple as.

Also bump

>> No.16523972

>>16523962
What makes you greater than a mosquito?

>> No.16524010

>>16523962
Such an encephalitic

>> No.16524307

>>16523962
Nice, very subtle. Now it makes sense the principles in science thing.

>> No.16524319

>>16523972
I can kill a mosquito by crushing it with my penis

>> No.16524454

>>16522408
Because he was monke

>> No.16524617

>>16522408
The world is top-down, not bottom-up

>> No.16524904

>>16522408
there is no real progress when time is circular

>> No.16525028

>>16523962
This, it's a mathematical certainty that which nothing can gainsay.

>> No.16525036

>>16525028
simple as

>> No.16525086

>>16524010
Butterfly, you are a hylic

>> No.16525168

>>16522408
he looked at himself in the mirror and thought 'nah this shit can't be true'

>> No.16525194

>>16525168
>surely a visage this divine must be the manifestation of a numinous principle

>> No.16525200
File: 2.78 MB, 3391x2948, FF6EA3CC-5CF4-4283-854B-06C116D1420E.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16525200

>>16522408
He was seething because he ironically looks so similar to a monkey that shares his name that it makes evolution seem obvious

>> No.16525216

>>16523962
lol dumb nigga over here denying 2+2 = 4

>> No.16525233

>>16525216
How so?

>> No.16525356

>>16525216
That’s not the emergence of the greater from the lesser, which implies that the whole can magically become more than the sum of its parts.

That is just taking two separate amounts and considering them to be one, but the same amount of that material or virtual amount preexisted its combination, the apples we added to get 4 apples for example already existed before as two groups of two apples, they were not somehow produced out of nothing or emerging out of some collective of parts merely by us including them in an addition equation.

>> No.16525634

>>16525356
damn...

>> No.16526306

>>16524319
an elephant can do that to you

>> No.16527257

>>16523962
large organisms like humans are just hosts for bacteria and viruses

>> No.16527288
File: 83 KB, 800x600, magnum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16527288

>>16526306
i can kill an elephant with this intellectual elongation of my benis

>> No.16527291

>>16527257
and? the greater of the human is not originating or emerging from the lesser of those bacteria

>> No.16527392

>>16523962
>he didn't understand what evolution entails
Wow, how shocking.

>>16525356
Guenon would reject your entire idea of "divisibility" outright.

>> No.16528016

>>16527392
> Guenon would reject your entire idea of "divisibility" outright
what do you mean?

>> No.16528018

Darwinian evolution has been debunked now anyways.

>> No.16528055

>>16528018
Yes of course it doesn't explain human development at all

>> No.16528390

>>16527288
>intellectual elongation of my benis
Yep, primates do tend to be concerned about establishing themselves above others. The soul idea is yet another extension of your evolutionary ego dick.

>> No.16528410

>>16523962
Yes it does. They're like hot and cold, defining one another, existing only because the other does.

>> No.16528631

>>16523972
imagine being an evolutioncuck and thinking you should be taken seriously if you think a mosquito is equal to you.

>> No.16528632

>>16527291
>he uses the words "lesser" and "greater" unironically

You have to go back

>> No.16528641

>>16528018
This. Structuralism completely destroys that quasi-mystical thought experiment garbage.

>> No.16528655

>>16528390
>Yep, primates do tend to be concerned about establishing themselves above others.
Well we are.

>> No.16528684

>>16528410
Just because you need to evaluate two different quantities in order to establish the larger of the two does not mean or imply in any way that a greater is emerging from a lesser, are you high?!?

>> No.16528710

>>16528055
Yes it does and we're only like 150 beneficial mutations away from monke.

>> No.16528714

>>16528684
All qualitative judgments and their opposites rely on each other and emerge simultaneously, and have only a perspectival existence. If you trace the origin of their occurrence in your perception of them, you'll find that it always relies on comparison.

>> No.16528747

>>16528710
>beneficial mutations
You mean like loss of hair (forced to clothe), loss of pigment (need protection from the sun), no opposable thumbs on feet
Theorized mutations from monke are not survival of the fittest

>> No.16528760

>>16528641
how so?

>> No.16528804

>>16528760
Structuralism bases its arguments on what we currently know about evolution, Darwinism declares presuppositions about the nature of evolution and life itself.

>> No.16528809

>>16528747
Yes, it's amazing to think that only a fraction of those mutations are for the brain. The most different we are to monke in that regard is in striatum, the dopamine reward circuit in other words. Human consciousness is very much a work in progress, which explains a lot when you think about it.

>> No.16528824

>>16528714
> All qualitative judgments and their opposites rely on each other and emerge simultaneously,
No, they don’t. When you stub your toe, everybody experiences pain and regards it automatically as a bad thing without any thinking or comparison involved. Nobody when they receives pain immediately thinks “X s a good thing” and also “this pain is bad, in relation to X”, instead there is just the spontaneous experience of a perceptibly bad sensation. In the same way, when you bite into ice cream or are having a massage, nobody thinks “X is this bad thing” and “but this massage or ice cream feels good in comparison to X”

>and have only a perspectival existence
are you saying that perceptions of qualia exist.... perspectivally? Wow I never realized that before. Did you know that thoughts only exist mentally? *mind blown*

>If you trace the origin of their occurrence in your perception of them, you'll find that it always relies on comparison.
No it doesn’t and I just explained why it doesn’t above. Even if that was true, that would not actually mean that any greater was emerging from any lesser, it would only mean that the concepts were completely relative and subjective, it wouldn’t prove the truth of a greater emerging from a lesser; but your arguments fails to begin with so it is a non-starter

>> No.16528833

>>16523962
What a retarded take.

And expressed with such absolute certainty too.

>> No.16528835

>>16522408
But that’s not the case for those mired in a conspiracy mentality. What’s also clear is that the rise in evolutionist beliefs has been fuelled by the Internet and YouTube videos in particular. “Almost everybody that we spoke to said that either they were directly exposed to evolution on YouTube or they were exposed to it via a family member who was exposed to it on YouTube,” says Dr Anon. Evolution videos often present numerous arguments in rapid succession with what Dr Anon dubs “an illusion of fluency”.

>> No.16528863

>>16528833
Well, it is a mathematical certainty.
To dispute otherwise is to maintain that you can obtain 10 ounces of apples from chopping up 7 ounces of apples

>> No.16528892

>>16528824
>Nobody when they receives pain immediately thinks “X s a good thing”
What I meant by emerging simultaneously was rather as an activity in the brain, not in your conscious perception. Think about dreams. How is it that we are able to picture places and objects in dreams that we may not have seen before, or compositions of existing objects with altered properties we may not have seen before? Where does our brain get that information from? But we HAVE seen all of it before, just not consciously. It's because all of our perceptions are being encoded in the brain as data which it can use to alter and create new images from while we're asleep. The data already exists in the brain, and it manipulates it while we're asleep. In a certain sense, the brain is "aware" of things that conscious perception isn't. In this awareness opposite judgements are emerging simultaneously as this data within the brain. This is also how we are able to deduce something before we've consciously experienced it.

On top of this, this process probably goes all the way back to while we're in the womb. All of our perceptions are being encoded as early as the brain is capable, and opposite judgements are already being formed long before conscious perception realizes it.

>are you saying that perceptions of qualia exist.... perspectivally?
If you knew this, why didn't you put two and two together and realize that opposite judgements are formed from each other, i.e., "the greater" does in fact come from "the lesser"?

>Even if that was true, that would not actually mean that any greater was emerging from any lesser, it would only mean that the concepts were completely relative and subjective, it wouldn’t prove the truth of a greater emerging from a lesser
What truth are you referring to here? The greater and the lesser both have only a perspectival existence. Outside the perspective, they aren't at all.

>> No.16528916

No ruler is exactly 1000mm long due to atomic entropy and degradation as soon as it is made it begins to shrink. Mathematics therefore is objectively true only when it is purely abstract.

>> No.16528946

>>16528018
Debunked how? "Dawinian" in what sense? Evolution can literally be demonstrated by anyone who breeds animals. Useful traits arise, get selected for, become more pronounced in future generations, harmful or not useful traits result in death or less offspring, get removed from species. Grade school children can understand this stuff guys.

>> No.16528955

>>16528946
Speciation has never been observed.

>> No.16528963

>>16528892
> as rather as an activity in the brain, not in your conscious perception.
So you are admitting that this is not actually how we consciously experience things and that you are just assuming that the brain does this unconsciously? That’s not an argument at all in favor of your position. Anyone can make up whatever claim they want and say “yea well I know we don’t experience it but what if our brains still did..... unconsciously.....” By the fact of you admitting that we don’t experience it that way and then pulling out the unfalsifiable and speculative claim of the unconscious brain doing it, you have actually undermined the case for your own position.

>> No.16528977

>>16528963
>you are just assuming that the brain does this unconsciously?
Dreaming makes no sense otherwise.

>> No.16528994

>>16528955
No shit, and that's why there's no longer an agreed upon definition of 'species'. It's all semantics, subjectivity, post-modernist rhetoric, and the ends justifying the means.

>> No.16529049

>>16528977
> Dreaming makes no sense otherwise.

1) Only if you are only considering physicalist-compatible explanations for it which is begging the question

2) There still could very easily be as yet undiscovered physicalist-compatible explanations for it which don’t involve the unconscious brain, i.e. it is something one’s sentience is consciously involved in but we just don’t understand how yet

3) That’s a really, really weak premise for your argument to hinge on, that you are alleging that we perceive pain as bad because of comparisons which we make unconsciously (comparisons being a type of thought, unconscious thought is an oxymoron); and the evidence that you are trying to bring forward in spite of your claim being contradicted by our self-evident conscious experience of pain; is that otherwise we can’t explain dreams. It is a “God of the gaps” argument.

>> No.16529095

>>16528955
Demarcate exactly what line you think qualifies as "speciation"

>> No.16529248

>>16529049
>1) Only if you are only considering physicalist-compatible explanations for it
That's what I'm considering, since there's no reasonable explanation for how it works otherwise. Yes, it's an assumption, but we have dreams to refer to, and they do seem to strongly indicate that 1) the brain remains active outside our conscious perception (i.e., while we sleep), and 2) the finest aspects of conscious perception (i.e., the relativism of properties of objects in perception) can be manipulated during this unconscious activity, suggesting that something vital of conscious perception is stored in the brain. And if it can be stored in the brain, and can be manipulated as finely as it is while dreaming, then what conscious perception and its objects are made of must be something physically compatible with the brain.

>That’s a really, really weak premise for your argument to hinge on, that you are alleging that we perceive pain as bad because of comparisons which we make unconsciously (comparisons being a type of thought, unconscious thought is an oxymoron)
What is the alternative, given what I mentioned above?

>> No.16529262

>>16523962
Nice bait.

>> No.16529431

>>16529248
>That's what I'm considering, since there's no reasonable explanation for how it works otherwise.
You are just arbitrarily defining non-physicalist explanations as unreasonable which is circular reasoning that presupposes as valid only the conclusions which you would prefer to accept. Under the occasionalist Islamic model Allah directly causes the content of every single dream of every single person ever, without needing the explanation of secondary mechanisms. Or in the Upanishads it says that the Supreme Self (Brahman) remains awake when the mind sleeps and goes on creating the dream-content. Who are you to say that these are not reasonable? Why are they not reasonable? And these are just 2 of countless examples which could be given. It could all just be drawn from a Jungian collective memory, without involving unconscious brain comparisons.

>and they do seem to strongly indicate that 1) the brain remains active outside our conscious perception (i.e., while we sleep),
Nobody implied otherwise, It has long been well known that the brain is never completely inactive, that we can detect the firing of neurons in sleep does not provide any support to the theory that the brain is making unconscious comparisons though

>and 2) the finest aspects of conscious perception (i.e., the relativism of properties of objects in perception) can be manipulated during this unconscious activity,
Where is the evidence of this? I agree that in dreams there can be unusual perceptions which go against our normal understanding of how things work, but there is no indication that these unusual changes in dream change our waking perception of pain, heat etc. That the normal rules governing how objects interact seem to be more malleable during dreams doesn't reveal any information about how we perceive things and sensations while waking.

>suggesting that something vital to conscious perception is stored in the brain. And if it can be stored in the brain, and can be manipulated as finely as it is while dreaming,
Where is the evidence that something vital to conscious perception is actually being manipulated, and not that simply the only thing being manipulated and changed is the differences in the types of things which that conscious perception observes?
>then what conscious perception and its objects are made of must be something physically compatible with the brain.
Point 1 doesn't support this conclusion and neither does point 2 or point 3

>> No.16529503

>>16523972
>durr durr hurr DURUrurduDRURu

>> No.16529524

>>16529503
Do you know the story of Nimrod and the mosquito?

>> No.16529810

>>16529431
>Why are they not reasonable?
To be reasonable means to be agreeable with reason. We can observe dreams, so if a claim goes against the existing observations or utterly ignores them, it's not reasonable to consider it. "Dreams come directly from Allah" ignores all the observations of dreams (some more which I will provide below) so it's unreasonable.

>I agree that in dreams there can be unusual perceptions which go against our normal understanding of how things work, but there is no indication that these unusual changes in dream change our waking perception of pain, heat etc.
I didn't imply that our dreams change conscious perception, only that both are coming from the same organ.

>That the normal rules governing how objects interact seem to be more malleable during dreams doesn't reveal any information about how we perceive things and sensations while waking.
Yet the processes involved in both have the same effects, which is perception of objects with properties in general. Also, all the properties that we dream about are sense-based and judgement-based. When do we start having such dreams, before or after we've had experience with our senses and with judging / forming bonds with others? Do we dream about properties and relationships we haven't experienced during conscious perception? No. Why? Well, possibly because there is a causal connection between the two events, of which the brain acts as a mediator, as the organ which first receives data from perception, stores it, and then uses it while we dream. This seems more likely than the claim that there is no connection between them at all, and that it's all merely coincidental.

>Where is the evidence that something vital to conscious perception is actually being manipulated, and not that simply the only thing being manipulated and changed is the differences in the types of things which that conscious perception observes?
The dream itself is the evidence. The dream can show me places I've never been to or beings I've never met but are clearly made up only of properties I've already perceived in some way. These properties can also appear in forms which are exaggerated to a degree I've never experienced before. If the very same principle of perception is not at work here in the unconscious activity to produce this, then what is?

>> No.16529859

>>16522408
Because he looked like an ape.

>> No.16529884
File: 81 KB, 640x868, 1601326557965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16529884

>>16524904
Based and antiquitypilled