/sci/ - Science & Math

Nice word salad, christfag.

>>9974537
Nice ad hominem.

>>9974537
He actually made a pretty cogent point: evolution does not necessarily impose accurate cognition upon an organism.
The point is also empirically validated, as people are prone to believe all sorts of inane things.

Well /sci/?

>>9974560
Have you read Blindsight?

>>9974576
I havent, but can you guys address the op post?

>>9974578
Address what?

t. >>9974558

>>9974558
It does if accurate cognition is more useful than inaccurate cognition, which in most cases it is. The claim that truth does not have a part in the selective process is false. Truth, logic, the thought process behind the posts in this very thread, are the results of evolution. They are the selected. They don't exist independently. The claims of probabilities are equally nonsensical.

>>9974599
1. Spandrels.
2. Dysgenics.

>>9974599
Why is the claim on probabilities nonsense?

my understanding has been that abiogenesis is absurd as it violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, but beyond that a repeating informatioin procession system made of hundreds of constituent parts developing out of nowhere because they assume "over long enough time anything can happen"

I dont expect a water cooled supercomputer to just assemble itself out of base materials after billion years, so no reason to think dna should either.

just the logical leaps of evolutionists are insane once you lay them out, but they would cling to this rather than accept an intelligent creator

>>9974606
And?

>>9974609
What is it based on? As far as I can tell it is purely based on the claim that truth is independent of selection, which is false.

>>9974629
>my understanding has been that abiogenesis is absurd as it violate 2nd law of thermodynamics
How?

>but beyond that a repeating informatioin procession system made of hundreds of constituent parts developing out of nowhere because they assume "over long enough time anything can happen"
Strawman argument, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

>>9974629
Stop using words that you don't understand. The earth is not a closed system.

>>9974637
>And?
Your claim is a non-sequitur. It does not refute the claim that accurate cognition is not necessarily selected for. The fact that some people can reason correctly is only proof that at some point, accurate cognition may have been conducive to higher fitness.

>it's another edition of pseudointellectuals that hide behind big words
reminder to sage

>>9974655
>t. brainlet

(1) (2) and (4) are not part of Darwinian evolution. They are incidental facts.

Your probability quantification is bullshit pulled directly out of your ass. Organisms don't have true or false beliefs; they perceive, and those which cannot perceive accurately (e.g. perceiving the presence or absence of a predator, identifying food sources) are at a selective disadvantage.

this is just an incredibly stupid post dressed up in technical vocabulary to sound simultaneously intelligent and too deep to be comprehended.

>>9974533
when will the pope officially endorse postmodernism?

>>9974644
LOL, you first claimed that "truth and falsehood (along with semantic content properties) do not have a part in the selective process" now you are attempting to move the goalposts to 'they are not necessarily involved.'

> It does not refute the claim that accurate cognition is not necessarily selected for.
Why would I need to refute it? In most cases it is.

So your claim of probability is clearly bullshit as it rests on the assumption that truth and evolution-derived cognition are independent, when they are quite dependent.

>>9974668
I am not OP you absolute midwit.

>>9974677
Then what relevance does your response have to my post?

>>9974677
>>9974668
Also,
>In most cases it is.
This is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact, it is a pretty incredible one, considering how people are prone to believe all sorts of inane things, and if any organisms exhibit accurate cognition on this planet, it's humans.

>>9974680
Christ, you're fucking stupid.

>>9974685
>This is an unsubstantiated claim.
If humans exhibit accurate cognition then evolution produces it, you just invalidated your own argument.

>>9974659
You don't need to be an accurate predictor to pass on your genes. You only need to be good enough at it. This meshes well with the fact that predator organisms have (as far as we know) the most accurate perception capabilities (e.g. birds of prey), due to high competition for resources, which makes "good enough" not good enough.

But you still have a tough roe to hoe to reach accurate cognition from accurate perception.

>>9974688
You have no argument, thanks for playing.

>>9974697
See >>9974688
You're an innumerate moron. No one ever said accurate cognition is impossible, only that it is not necessarily selected for.

>>9974702
I already made my point, which seems to consistently fly above your midwit's head.
You're living proof that evolution does not necessarily select for accurate cognition.

>>9974703
No, the claim was that accurate cognition is independent from selection, which is disproved by the fact that a species which derives its fitness from accurate cognition exists.

>>9974706
What point? Where did I say that evolution necessarily selects for accurate cognition?

>>9974709
>the claim was that accurate cognition is independent from selection
No.
>a species which derives its fitness from accurate cognition exists
False.

>>9974712
>Where did I say that evolution necessarily selects for accurate cognition?
When you contradicted me here >>9974599
>It does if accurate cognition is more useful than inaccurate cognition, which in most cases it is.

>>9974715
>No.
False. See >>9974533

"Truth is a property of a semantic content, thus truth and falsehood (along with semantic content properties) do not have a part in the selective process, if materialism and naturalism were the case."

>False.
False.

>>9974712
Basically, you're so fucking dumb you can't even follow a conversation properly.

>>9974719
>When you contradicted me here >>9974599
No I didn't. Do you understand what a qualifier is? I contradicted the OP.

>>9974723
>says the guy who think that 'A implies B if C' contradicts 'A does not necessarily imply B'

>>9974721
Once again, I'm not OP.

>False.
It's not false at all. The claim that humans fitness is "derived" from accurate cognition is patently moronic. The proof is in the pudding.

>>9974730
>I contradicted the OP.
Why the fuck did you reply to me then you moron?

>>9974734
>hurr durr

>OP thinks all probabilities are independent

>>9974698
>You don't need to be an accurate predictor to pass on your genes. You only need to be good enough at it.
you don't understand how selective pressures work, probably because you don't understand how probability works.
>predator organisms have (as far as we know) the most accurate perception capabilities (e.g. birds of prey), due to high competition for resources
this is not accurate. it's nothing to do with competition and everything to do with the fact that predaceous animals need to be able to outwit prey animals, while herbivorous animals only need to be able to outwit plants.
>you still have a tough roe to hoe to reach accurate cognition from accurate perception
saying so doesn't make it true.
instinctive predator avoidance responses show how cognition (of whatever degree) grows directly out of the ability to perceive. you are moving the goalposts.

>>9974735
>I'm not OP
So what? The claim I was repsonding to was OP's.

>The claim that humans fitness is "derived" from accurate cognition is patently moronic.
The claim that accurate cognition does not provide humans with fitness is patently moronic.

>>9974737
>Why the fuck did you reply to me then you moron?
Because OP was not simply saying that evolution does not necessarily produce accurate cognition, his claim was that they are independent, which is false.

>hurr durr
So you have no argument.

>>9974774
>this is not accurate. it's nothing to do with competition and everything to do with the fact that predaceous animals need to be able to outwit prey animals
>'s nothing to do with competition and everything to do with competition
Oh look, another complete midwit.

>saying so doesn't make it true.
Perception =/= cognition. You have yet to bridge the gap.

>you don't understand how selective pressures work
I understand it far, far better than you ever will my retarded little anon.

>>9974784
>So what? The claim I was repsonding to was OP's.
Why did you reply to my post then?

>The claim that accurate cognition does not provide humans with fitness is patently moronic.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/10/1612113114.short
>Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment
>Using data from Iceland that include a substantial fraction of the population we show that individuals with high scores tend to have fewer children, mainly because they have children later in life. Consequently, the average score has been decreasing over time in the population. The rate of decrease is small per generation but marked on an evolutionary timescale.

>>9974784
>OP was not simply saying that evolution does not necessarily produce accurate cognition, his claim was that they are independent,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

i.e. you're quibbling.

>>9974795
>Why did you reply to my post then?
Because your post was about OP's point.

>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/10/1612113114.short
So educational attainment = accurate cognition? This is moronic since it implies that humans did not have accurate cognition before education was invented.

>>9974798
You're equivocating. OP explicitly claimed that truth is independent of the selective process and then based a probabilistic argument that at the very least requires that claim to be true.

>>9974802
>So educational attainment = accurate cognition?
Educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, which is correlated with accurate cognition.

>Because your post was about OP's point.
My post was a riff on OP's. If you want to address OP's, quote OP.

>>9974804
I'm not equivocating at all. You're complaining about something OP said that can be easily amended (i.e. you're quibbling/not being charitable). And you're doing this all the while replying to me, not OP.

ffs

>>9974805
>Educational attainment is correlated with intelligence, which is correlated with accurate cognition.
LOL, so is accurate cognition correlated with anything that increases fitness? Or is your argument that it is only correlated with educational attainment?

>My post was a riff on OP's. If you want to address OP's, quote OP.
I did already. Are you done?

>>9974809
>You're complaining about something OP said that can be easily amended (i.e. you're quibbling/not being charitable).
Yes, it can easily be amended by reversing the entire conclusion of OP's post which seems to have gone over your head.

>>9974821
>so is accurate cognition correlated with anything that increases fitness?
Right now? Probably not. In the past, maybe, because accurate cognition could be a spandrel.

>Yes, it can easily be amended by reversing the entire conclusion of OP's post
It doesn't reverse it, it merely weakens it.
I'm getting really tired of you.

>>9974842
A spandrel has no clear benefit to fitness or survival, you dunce.

>It doesn't reverse it, it merely weakens it.
So where does the probability of forming a true belief = 0.5 come from?

>>9974862
>A spandrel has no clear benefit to fitness or survival
Exactly my point. Hence why I asked OP if he's ever read Blindsight.

>So where does the probability of forming a true belief = 0.5 come from
OP's ass. Who cares? He's making a rhetorical point. Exact numbers are irrelevant.

>>9974882
>Exactly my point.
Accurate cognition has clear benefits to fitness and survival.

>OP's ass. Who cares? He's making a rhetorical point.
He's making retarded claims with no point.

>>9974931
>Accurate cognition has clear benefits to fitness and survival.
That's an unsubstantiated claim.

>>9974937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cognition#Selection_favoring_cognition

Just stop posting.

>>9974789
nice ad lapidem

unfortunately I happen to be an expert in rocks
nothing personnel kid

>>9974795
>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/10/1612113114.short
>2018
>arguing against selective effects in human evolution by appealing to patterns of childbearing in industrialized nations
o I am laffin
seriously, you think smarter cavemen were staying in school and not having kids until they were middle-aged? like, are you actually illiterate.

>>9974937
sounds like something a guy without accurate cognition would say so he doesn't feel so bad about it.

>>9974951
>posts a wikipedia link filled with speculative just-so stories about cognition pretending it is in any way authoritative
>with a brailnet reaction image
Ironic.

>>9974986
>can't read
Are you dyslexic my dude?

>>9975022
>dismisses the evidence because he doesn't like it
primates in particular have been experimentally observed using their cognitive abilities to exclude free riders in social groups, just as would be expected from that explanation.

>>9975028
>thinking that differential progeny survival based on parent cognitive ability isn't a factor in human evolution
actually read the paper next time instead of skimming the abstract
>To address the
question of whether and how these results could be extended to
other populations and other time periods it should first be emphasized
that the negative selection observed here is likely an
example of gene–environment interaction, that is, both the direction
of the effect and its magnitude could and would change
given a different socioeconomic environment (5, 34, 35). It is likely
that in any population where educational attainment is negatively
correlated with fertility the underlying genetic propensity would be
in decline, but the actual magnitude and characteristics of the
decline could vary substantially. Based purely on epidemiological/
demographical data, there were concerns about this sort of decline
in Great Britain more than eight decades ago (10). However, the
possibility that such a phenomenon could be temporary or transitional
was also raised (10, 29). Indeed, there might be a cyclical
element to this phenomenon, because it is only reasonable to assume
that alleles associated with greater educational attainment
must have been under positive selection at some time during the
evolutionary history of Homo sapiens.

>>9975048
>dismisses the evidence
Where's the evidence? You linked to a speculative article.

>>9975048
>thinking that differential progeny survival based on parent cognitive ability isn't a factor in human evolution
Why are you putting things in my head by the way?

>>9974533
>(4) Life originated at only one place on earth, all subsequent life being related by descent to those original living creatures.(the common ancestry thesis)
No. All it suggests is that if life appeared in multiple places it would undergo evolution in the same manner.

>>9975060
>let's pretend there isn't any evidence so I can claim not to be dismissing any
also I'm >>9975048 not >>9974951
but the Wikipedia article does cite its sources, and just because I'm feeling sorry for you, here is a good review on the topic:
>https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/2694079/van_Horik_Emery2011.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1535927563&Signature=E%2FCFlya%2BvwrHZs0mU66yQrdH3GI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DEvolution_of_Cognition.pdf

>>9975064
If you concede that differential progeny survival based on parent cognitive ability is in fact a factor in human evolution, you admit that the study you cited isn't representative of pre-civilizational human population genetics. thank you.

also, nothing about the study's actual conclusions disagreeing with your claims?

>>9975105
>nothing about the study's actual conclusions disagreeing with your claims?
The study supports my claim fully. It's why I even linked it in the first place. I give up on you. It seems you can't even read properly.

>does cite its sources
I didn't ask for sources, I asked for evidence. I am familiar with this stuff. It's entirely speculative.

>>9975135
>The study supports my claim fully. It's why I even linked it in the first place.
okay you brainlet, let me explain it in detail.

greater cognitive ability (or at least the proxy of educational skill) correlates with greater age at first reproduction, reducing the total number of offspring produced. however, it also provides a foraging advantage, allowing for offspring to be better-fed, improving offspring survival rates and conferring an overall selective advantage. however, in modern society, offspring survival rates are nearly 100% anyway, so that advantage goes away.

the metric of fitness is not how many offspring you produce, but how many offspring survive to reproductive age.

it is explicitly stated in the discussion section that educational ability must have been selected for in the past (such as by the mechanism above), or it could not have reached that level in modern humans.

your inability to understand this doesn't make it less true.

>I am familiar with this stuff. It's entirely speculative.
that's where you're wrong, kiddo. it's been subjected to predictive tests. see the first graf in >>9975048

>>9975183
>greater cognitive ability (or at least the proxy of educational skill) correlates with greater age at first reproduction, reducing the total number of offspring produced.
i.e. it reduces fitness.
Just fuck outta here.

>>9975224
>the metric of fitness is not how many offspring you produce, but how many offspring survive to reproductive age.
read, nibba, read

>>9974639
>The earth is not a closed system.

dome overhead

>>9974629
>my understanding has been that abiogenesis is absurd as it violate 2nd law of thermodynamics

This is a troll. Do not feed it.

>>9975224
Wrong. The chances of the offspring reaching adulthood themselves is what matters.

>>9975311
>>9976357
Less offspring reach reproductive maturity regardless, so it lowers fitness in the current environment.
You're grasping at straws at this point.

>>9975311
>>9976357
Fewer offspring reach reproductive maturity, so it lowers fitness in the current environment regardless.
You're grasping at straws at this point.

>>9974697
>If humans exhibit accurate cognition then evolution produces it

WEW

>>9974533
0. No one calls it Darwinian evolution. Although he contributed quite a great deal to the theory, modern synthesis has expanded and modified the concept of evolution since then.

1. Not a part of evolutionary theory. This is based on geology. If evolution were shown to be false tomorrow, the age of the earth would be unaffected.

2. Not at all. Simple and complex are human descriptions. Nature doesn't care.

3. Yes.

4. Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.

5. Yes.

>>9976384
>Illiteracy: the post

>>9974629
Whever told you that does not understand the laws of thermodynamics.

>>9974644
It is not ALWAYS selected for -- sometimes cognition is not a part of what is being selected for at all.

>>9976419
3) No. Genes, gene families and genomes have duplicated in the past and will duplicate in the future to bring about radically different organisms in a very short span of time (evolutionarily speaking)

>>9976404
Go read the OP, it's assuming evolution is true.

>>9976384
Less offspring reaching adulthood to reproduce because less offspring is being produced != the overall fitness of the offspring in the current environment being lowered.
We've become more efficient in getting our offspring to the reproduction stage, whereas before females farted out eggs just to get a few (maybe as few as those that get to adulthood now) to the reproducing stage.
So no. You're putting less numbers equal to less fitness, but that's just a wrong comparison.

>>9974685
You seem to imply that evolution should/would produce perfectly accurate cognition by the time it got to us (which in turn sort of implies that we are the final result of evolution, rather than just where things are up to at the moment in a continuing process.)

Which is silly; evolution does not produce a perfect set of abilities. Predators sometimes can't catch a prey animal, sometimes bears bears eat the honey even though the bees have evolved stingers and swarming behaviors. The very mechanism of evolution presupposes variability among the population, not identical traits and capabilities.

>>9976780
>What is selective breeding?
>What is human evolution?
>Implying that we didn't select mates on: tool usage, being taller (bipedalism initially), cognition, ...
>Implying cognition wasn't artificially sped up because of our preferences for mates

>>9974735
>accurate

Compared to who?

>>9974774
>only need to be able to outwit plants

That assumes a passivity among the prey that I don't think is in evidence. Not getting eaten would seem to make it worthwhile for the rat to try and outwit the snake.

>>9974637
I think truth is independent. I think its an abstract concept which is too contentious and also difficult to quantify to make a meaningful link between selection and this thing called truth. Im not sure i can even define truth but id say cognition can be about natural selection without necessitely relating it to truth, for instance if you look at the minds of simpler animals (or any animal imo) or plants then i think its hard to argue that cognition has anything inherently or deeply to do with truth.

>>9974644
desu I think the fact in philosophy and linguistics its well observed how the language we use can lack logic and can be contradictory shows that even that reasoning is not necessarily about truth.

>>9976816
Truth only exists as an idea within your cognition.

>>9976777
>Less offspring reaching adulthood to reproduce because less offspring is being produced != the overall fitness of the offspring in the current environment being lowered.
Gp grab an population genetics textbook you retard.

>>9976780
>You seem to imply that evolution should/would produce perfectly accurate cognition by the time it got to us
No.

>>9976777
>Less offspring reaching adulthood to reproduce because less offspring is being produced != the overall fitness of the offspring in the current environment being lowered.
You fail at basic evolutionary biology.

>>9974709
I think even if it wasn't independent, it would be sort of like a vicarious correlation. If you think about it from when life started to first evole, how can perception be said to be selected for truth.

>>9974789
I think youll find perception and cognition are continuous.

>>9976833
>>9976828
If a species invests in offspring that reaches the reproduction stage nearly 100% of the time, it'll be more fit than a species that invests in a buttload of offspring where reaching adulthood is 1%
Why the fuck else would you get this kind of reproductive strategy?
>Woops, guess my reproducing offspring is just going to make offspring that will die off instantly..

Is the OP image from a porno or something?

I know that's Maddy O'Reilly but I wanna know who the other twat is

>>9974533
>the probability for any belief consisting of neurophysical properties and semantic true (false) content properties is at best 0,5
because it’s either true or it isn’t right fag? kys

>>9974774
>predaceous animals need to be able to outwit prey animals, while herbivorous animals only need to be able to outwit plants
Sounds like a herbivore that would get wiped out very quickly

>>9976857
see >>9976828
you have no idea what you're talking about.