@Gregor's banner p

Gregor

Fuge, late, tace.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC

¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.

Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1525


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gregor


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fuge, late, tace.

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 October 08 15:34:01 UTC
				


				
					

					
¡Oh! Pues si no me entienden no es maravilla que mis sentencias sean tenidas por disparates.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1525


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Psychology is overrated.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Psychology can be harmful for sure, since it doesn't know very well what it's doing. But I don't think that psychology as a whole is harmful. There are other factors to take into account. For instance, people 500 years ago didn't have cocaine, and even if they had had it, they wouldn't have been able to produce at the industrial levels we produce it today.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sure. Genetics are not tautologic. Recessive genes are defined as a section of genetic information with a low probability of being expressed in the individual. In this case we are defining recessive genes in a non-tautological way, because we are explaining its relation to the probability of a expressed phenotype. As recessive genes and the expressed phenotype are different entities, it is not tautological. This theory could also be false if recessive genes did not relate to the probability of a phenotype being expressed, because this relation is not implied at all by the definition of these terms.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Psychology is overrated.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It would be way cooler to be an alchemist rather than a psychologist. And who knows, you might even succeed at summoning a demon ir something.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Why Rule Utilitarianism Fails as a Moral Stance
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I recently made a post about Darwin related to this. Since there are many definitions of "human being", people usually refer to biology as the "objective" definition, but Darwinian biology can only define mankind by the mere fact that it survives. Insofar as being alive means not being dead, human dignity relies on the conservation of the means by which existence is preserved. The problem is that existence itself becomes condition not only necessary, but sufficient, to human dignity. This is where the prejudice of caring about the welfare of human beings qua human beings comes from. From this perspective human life is sacred, but only the objective share of human life, that which relies on nourishment, breathing, reproduction and defecation - all things that human beings can control. To paint a rather gross picture, this is like changing the definition of "human being" to "poop-making machine", and then congratulating ourselves with big parades to celebrate that we've solved the human mistery by inventing a more efficient way to ingest food and excrete it. Your conclusion is absolutely on point: This not only does not solve anything, it also clouds our vision and that of the future generations from the heart of the problem.


The divinization of mere life has also an impact at a social level, and I believe this was the aim from the beginning. The objective of utilitarism was to be a foundation for law that was objective and did not depend on religion or tradition. A universal law everyone could agree with, and if any disagreements did arise then a simple calculation would suffice to solve it. This allowed the State to take complete control over the life of its citizens. In ancient times there was a divine randonmess to life: Death, disease, famine, love, they were all regarded as private affairs over which the State did not directly intervene. But through the divinization of mere life, the State could take over the management of health, food, marriage, funerary services, etc. Every aspect of objective existence has come under scrutiny of the State in order tu secure the existence of its subjects, and as the subjects need to be alive regardless of their personal convictions or beliefs, they need the State. So when a person decides to invest is his dog rather than in a random person, they can justify their behavior by stating the fact that they pay taxes, which is precisely the fee an individual pays to guarantee the common good. So if you need help, if you suffer ill-fortune and look for a loving neighbor, ask the State. But on the other hand, the State is -supposedly- justified to intervene over the existence of any individual in order to secure the common good. The modern State is a devilish trap: The more it fulfills your needs the more you give up your freedom, until there's nothing but mindless, soulless satsifaction.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know if that is a praise of LLMs or an insult to my writing, but I do have to say that no LLM was used here. I did use a translator for some words and expressions because English is not my native language, and I'm aware that using "In conclusion" at the end is standard LLM style, I was aware of that while writing it, but I had to stop somewhere and I was too lazy to come up with something better. However, I think this is evidently not written by an LLM because I make some very bold and specific references, like Descartes' pitches of water. Of course an LLM could write that but you'd have to give it a very specific  and long prompt, at which point it's just easier and faster to write it yourself.


Now, I don't think psychiatry fails at anything because its raison d'être is to treat people with mental problems, and it has a significant degree of success at that. It's certainly not perfect but it's way better than it was a hundred years ago and it keeps improving. For the rest, I belive that changing psychiatrists for other professions won't help us understand insanity any better, but it is true that modern society has a tendency to overanalize individuals and in doing so it somewhat justifies morally unaceptable behavior. Psychology is the worst offender here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You made two claims:




It’s not a tautology when viewed from a human scale perspective of time.




I rebutted this.




it is obvious that natural selection happens. There is no logical alternative, you cannot not accept it.




This is literally what I said, you are siding with me here. This is the definition of tautology, a claim that is true in every possible interpretation. Unless you meant to say that the only logical thing to do is accept Darwin's theory, on which case I'd say that's not the case at all. Even no explanation at all is better than a tautological explanation.


So which one is the "thrust" of your comment?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Fleming mentioned that AFTER bacteria started becoming resistant to antibiotics, which had already happened by 1945. Not to the scale it happens now, but enough to be observed. Again, not a prediction.


Before Darwin people thought God was nature, and they belived He perfomed his own "selection" of living beings. How does this differ from Darwin's explanation? You'd say that God is an intelligent subject and nature isn't, but in any case God's intelligence is unintelligible to humans, so in practical terms is the same. People didn't think everything propsers equally.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Darwin didn't make this distinction between different time perspectives, but even then Darwin's explanation would be: They didn't survive because they don't exist anymore. It doesn't matter what time perspective you use, this holds true in every possible scenario.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Firstly, I don't believe I've misunderstood Darwin's terminology, since Darwin's definition is quite clear and I quoted it literally on my original post, if I remember correctly. If you believe I'm misunderstanding anything please do point it out.


However, I would turn the accusation on you. Evolution and Natural Selection are not the same. Evolution is the fact that animals change during time. Natural Selection is the mechanism that supposedly explains it. I'm not saying anything against evolution, I'm saying that Natural Selection is a tautology. You don't seem to understand that we can't "fuck with evolution". It's literally impossible. Because humans are part of nature, and everything they do is, supposedly, bound by the contrains of Natural Selection. So even if we went extint, that wouldn't be contrary to the principle. In fact, there's nothing contrary to Natural Selection, which is why it is a tautology.


Now, these stories about obscene implications and the collapse of the first world are all very charming, but if you are part of the bunch who are in love with Darwin then think of it this way: If everything fails then cool, Natural Selection triumphed and you won't be around to mess with other species' happiness. But it you as an individual succeed, then cool, Natural Selection has triumphed and you have something to show for it. It is not our task to stop society from "fucking with evolution", and it is better to take care of your own garden


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't need any alternative definition of evolution because Natural Selection is not a definition of evolution. Natural Selection is, supposedly, the mechanism that explains evolution. So evolution is just that, there's nothing tautological about its definition. I don't see any way of defining Natural Selection that would make it non-tautological, and thus this post. I don't offer any alternative explanation for evolution either.


Survival and reproduction are filters but have no explanatory value because every living creature survives and reproduces itself, or dies. That's the definition of being alive: Surviving and reproducing. So when we say that a living creature has a trait that's benefitial for its survival and reproduction, what we are really saying is that a living creature is alive because it has the means to be alive. There are filters that are not tautological. For instance, recessive genes are so called because they have a lower probability of passing a specific phenotype from the parents to the offspring. This allows us to understand why some traits are expressed and other aren't by acquiring new information: Genetics.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't see why Marxism would be a denial of economics, Marx was a legit economist who made some valid points with the resources he had at the time. I would be against believing that Marxism is "the science of revolution", as Marx himself seemed to believe, and I would certainly not base my society on a book by some XIXth century economist. Furthermore, Marx himself was a fervent Darwinist, he thought that Darwin's theory proved his own, and he even sent his book on The Capital to Darwin to try to convince him so - apparently Darwin didn't even read it, but I digress. There's nothing about Marxism that would make it incompatible with the theory of Natural Selection, and the fact that the Soviets rejected Darwin's theory on nationalistic grounds proves nothing, specially when Marx himself is evidence of the contrary.


I don't think Libertarians understand economics nearly well enough, in fact nobody does, and this has lead to a series of unfortunate events that we call our current situation. Bare in mind that nazis, who were socialists, were ardent defenders of HBD. Hell, even Stalin himself wasn't opposed to the idea, and the Soviets tried to look for the differences between the bourgeois and the working class in genetics. Stalin even tried to enhance the human genes by mixing them with apes' (you don't want to know how), in order to create a new species of super-soldiers!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				There’s no psychopathology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't understand why you keep trying to defend psychiatry when nobody's attacking it. I guess you wrote your answer as you read the text because you literally quoted my saying that psychiatry is legitimate. Psychiatry may be quircky and not as epistemologically sound as other branches of medicine, but it is still medicine, still scientific, and still helpful. I would say though that psychopathology is a placeholder. I understand that you have a pragmatic point of view, and you really should. This doesn't really change anything for psychiatrists, and they don't need to worry about this, so I thank you for taking the time to engage in this discussion. But should we really be satisfied by having a placeholder instead of a psychopathology? I don't know if you agree that your belief that depression is a brain disease is just that, a belief, but I believe that's the case because the evidence I've seen is not conclusive. Yes, it's impossible to be depressed without having a brain and depression is something that exists and changes your brain, but here is when it's important to think what comes first. We can agree that treating people with depression should be our first and foremost concern regardless of existential questions, but why stop at that? Why not try to understand what's going on? This shouldn't change the attention and the care we give to depressed people, but it can help us think more acurately about the problem and who knows, maybe even come up with more effective solutions in the future.


Furthermore, I think that believing that psychopathology is something different than a placeholder opens room for all sorts of abuses. Psychiatrists are scientists and know the limitations of their discipline (or at least they should), but psychopathology is being used in all sorts of contexts where it has no business whatsoever, and this is in part because it is an epistemologically bankrrupt concept. Just as a currency undergoes inflation and looses value, concepts that are no rigorous enough are more likely to be overused. Psychologists are the worst offenders here, or maybe it's just my perception because I'm a psychologist myself and of course I know many people in my profession, so I'm surrounded by people who very loudily make all sorts of claims. The best psychologists I know are aware that psychopathology is a placeholder, but most don't or ignore that fact. And as psychologists feel insecure about the scientific status of their discipline they overrely on psychopathology to sell their services.


There is something very funny about the history of psychology, because as you must know computers where made with the specific objective to imitate human thought. But then in the 70's a bunch of psychologists saw computers and were astonished at how much they reasembled human thought, and came to the conclusion that the human mind works like a computer. I'm personally against the expression "Artificial Intelligence" because computers are neither intelligent nor dumb. They do what they are programed to do. An animal, for instance, can be intelligent or dumb because it is directly involved in the outcome of its decissions, and they can be wrong or right. Computers are never wrong, therefore they lack the ability to be implied in their decissions. So even if LLMs resemble human speech, we would be wrong to believe that speaking to an LLM is the same as speaking to a person. In that sense, just the fact that we can treat depression as a brain disease does not mean that it is a brain disease. This is only technically correct because it ignores the problem by fixing over it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Psychology is overrated.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's definitely dangerous. People are always looking for answers, and there are psychologists out there willing to provide. How to be happy, how to live your life, even the meaning of life. I believe that this whole "go to therapy" thing is just a way of invalidating the other person: "You only say that because you don't do what my psychologist told me it's best, therefore you are irrational, sick, mad, and not to be taken seriously".


And in the end, if you are a jerk, psychology might just not help you. If psychology were a cure for stupidity, then psychologists would be all perfect human beings. My frequent contact with psychologists makes me a firm believer that this is not the case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Psychology is overrated.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The problem is that it doesn't matter if you analyze thought processes or not. In fact, it doesn't even matter if thoughts exist or not. What matters is getting a working solution.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Psychology is overrated.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think many of the problems I highlighted apply to many of the "human sciences", but the problem with psychology imo is that it's the loudest of them all, and certainly the more popular one. So I do not think that sociology is overrated at all, or at least not as overrated as psychology.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Darwin's argument: Those who survive, survive.


Survivor bias: The logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not.


One of them is a tautology, the other one isn't. Hint: It's not the survivor bias.


As I've said before, ultimately all knowledge is tautological, but this is because of the limitations of language. Darwin's tautology is not necesary, it's a logic mistake. One thing is to accept the limitations of human knowledge and do what you can with what you've got, and another is to be proud of your own limitations as if they were achievements.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think you still don't understand what a tautology is. All evidence in the known universe points at the fact that every red car is not green. Is that statement true and correct? Well yes, if that's what you wanna call it why not. But it's also dumb and useless, unless you want to use it as an example in a logic lecture. There's this common trend on this thread, where people mention Newton for the dullest of examples. For the hundreth time no, Newton did not discover that things fall down when you drop them. But Newton is a good example of a scientific theory that is not tautologic, so you can look that up.


You also seem to have quite a childish idea of religion, where religion = dumb. I guess it's because you like Richard Dawkins, or as I like to call him, Dick Dorkins. No, people didn't believe that praying was a solution to everything, the Angelic Doctor didn't wrote his Summa Theologica exploring the relation between faith and reason just to conclude that reason = big bad. I mean, there have been people who believed that but they still exist today, so being dumb has nothing to do with being religious. Furthermore, there are plenty of biologists and scientists who are religious, I'd say that most have been. For instance, Mendel was a catholic monk, but did he just sit down and pray waiting for the tastiest peas known to man to magically appear? Absolutely not, he went and invented genetics, the absolute madman.


And yes of course, I do have sources for that. It's not a polemic claim at all, there's nothing incompatible between the idea of evolution and creationism. For instance:




If the origin of species was attributed to divine action, the temporal emergence of these species was not necessarily instantaneous. Such a doctrine was the basis of Augustine of Hippo’s (354–430) theory of the original creation of primordial seeds (rationes seminales) of each species at an original moment in time, but with the emergence of species in historical time a possibility (Augustine, VI.13.23–25, [GL, 175–76]). This theory of a temporalized creation, put forth explicitly in detail in his treatise The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, allowed Augustine to argue that species emerged sequentially in historical time rather than all at once.




Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin/#MediRevi


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, if you are going to mix up taxology and taxidermy at least be a good sport about it. The difference is not trivial, and there's a minimum of knowledge required to understand the history of biology. You don't have to believe me, go ahead and check Wikipedia again, it clearly says taxonomy. You can also look up the definition of it while you are at it. Taxidermy is only mentioned once on Linnaeus' page, and it's only a reference to a trip bro took to Hamburg where he was shown the taxidermied remains of a seven-headed hydra by the mayor of the town. Wild stuff.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lol, that's cute. You meant to say TAXONOMY not taxidermy. Of course neither Linnaeus nor Aristotle spoke about evolution or natural selection, I never said they did. I said they knew about the branching tree of life, because that's what taxonomy is. But don't worry, there are also a bunch of people who spoke about the evolution of species before Darwin. Would you like me to list them? And just so you know, Aristotle was a huge nerd and spent his free time studying and collecting mussels in the Mediterranean.


And yes, I'm only criticizing Darwin for his theory of Natural Selection.


You know, there's really no proof that we don't live in the whacky god-controlled universe, so the discussion is not over. I'm noy saying Darwin had an economic agenda, but the implications of his theory are economic. That's why I said that there were conscious and unconscious consequences for Darwin's theory.


You say:




Creatures survive because they can reproduce and survive in the environments where they live.




And why is that? Well, because of Natural Selection of course! Now change Natural Selection for "God", and how does that change anything? If this is a popularity contest then yes, Darwin is winning by a landslide. But Darwin wasn't arguing against the idea of a watchmaker God, that was Dorkins. Darwin was agnostic, and never meant to refute the idea of God. I honestly don't care about winning any debates here, who cares if I'm right and some XIXth century fella was wrong.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well of course you don't need to read Newton for that, but you still have to study his law of universal gravity to understand gravity. So Newton is still relevant to physics, even if many of his laws have been revised. Natural Selection, on the other hand, is useless, and we only keep the words. You see, there's this thing when two different things can be true at the same time, just like when I say that there are things that are predictable and things that aren't. You really seem to struggle with this concept.


I don't impose any arbitrary threshold of validity. I use Darwin's. And Darwin didn't say "my theory can predict the evolution of species in x amount of years". He claimed he could explain the origin of ALL species. So how did I arrive to the threshold of validity I use to put Darwin's theory to the test? Well, from Darwin of course!


And if I never claimed to be the King of Science, science is too full of nerds to be of any use to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We could also predict the change in coat lenght without the theory of natural selection...


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It may be an emergent effect but it is a tautologic. Like, every red car being red could also be understood as an "emergent effect", but why would you?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, the "even tautological" part kills it, but people insist that meaningless tautologies are important, and there's no changing that.


Why would Lamarck propose that? Because it actually explains something, even if we don't have prove of said explanation. Do acknowledge the fact that modern biologists do not think Lamarck was at all ridiculous.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, no. If Lamarck were proved to be correct that wouldn't make Darwin wrong. In fact, modern synthesis uses both darwinian and lamarckian ideas. So please explain how Natural Selection could be proved wrong in a possible universe.


The theory of Natural Selection is not just language, but that's the only useful part of it. What you call "core metaphysical assumptions" we could do without and nothing would change. Of course, there are metaphysical assumptions that are necessary, but Natural Selection is not one of them.


There's no such framework. Reverse-engineering is that, reverse engineering. It wasn't invented by Darwin. Everything we can do with Natural Selection we can do without it. I'm quite clear about arguing that the theory of Natural Selection is a tautology, so I don't see how you would be confused about my intentions. It may be that I don't understand this subject well enough, but you certainly haven't proven me wrong. Now, if you could prove that Natural Selection may be false, then my argument would be dead.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Theory of Natural Selection is a tautology.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not saying evolution is a tautology, I'm saying the theory of Natural Selection is. People think that the theory of Natural Selection = The theory of evolution, but they are two different things. In fact, there's no "theory of evolution". What you say is true but it says nothing about the subject at hand, the theory of Natural Selection.


I won't get into the mathematics argument because I've already addresed it in other comments.