Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Well we are going to have some fun pointing out a tonne redundant argument today.
(From the desk of Nathan David) Animals do not desire orgasm, they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)
"Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent".
"Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent". OK, no problem.
Volition: animals desire sex, and make a conscious decision (volition) to pursue sexual relations.
You have a problem: presumption. No-one on this side of the fence ever declared that volition only resides in humans. (You should control that knee of yours).
Perception: animals perceive that they enjoy sex.
Ditto.
Now tells us the answer to the OP.
(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!) a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,
Obviously Mr Nathan has a dog at home who eats while in a coma.
Equally obvious is Mr Nathan's shopping-spree dilemma: when he goes looking for a new pair of jeans, he must first of all eliminate any options, in order for him to make a decision. And so he decides on the pair of jeans on the left, in preference to the pair of jeans on the left.
1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)
if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual orgasm can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.
(From the pen of Casper the DJ Ghost,) Not more NECESSARY more EFFECTIVE. To use an analogy, a bow and arrow will kill, but a gun is far more efficient.
You are comparing apples with oranges: evolution has no perception or intelligence. You analogy is moot. I am not comparing anything I am using an analogy to illustrate the difference between the words "Necessary" and "effective" in the hope you will grasp it. Evidently not.
The inability to grasp lies with you: you may not use an analogy which contains within it a different domain of causality than that which you are trying to represent.
Further, your ‘logic’ is ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’: you are appropriating advantages as viewed through the eye of cognition, to a system void of such cognition. You may not define the cart by the kind of horse in front of it. Your point is invalid, and dismissed.
.. we are discussing something which increases efficiency here not something which is necessary.
False dichotomy: it is “necessary” that your “efficiency” be upheld in order for your argument to remain plausible. Thus your “efficiency” and “necessary” are not mutually exclusive as you maintain, but the latter is inclusive of the former.
And from Mr Megaman, (Those who wish to not learn about the birds and the bees here should skip this section). If orgasm were the only reason for sex, then how would one know to sexually experiment?
You bury yourself here:
If orgasm were not the reason for sex, no experimentation would take place. The incentive to experiment lies in the delay of fulfillment, which is increased by virtue of its filling a need artificially delayed.
But this is for your Dad to tell you (or at least to give you a good book about). Your part is simply to tell us why sexual orgasm would evolve without the a-priori desire for it, or conversely, how the desire for sexual orgasm can evolve without the a-priori existence of orgasm.
Sophorus, (Sophorus likes to cite the touted line on ‘Natural Selection’. She has it down pat.) "Perception of need" is irrelevant. If a population don't develope an incentive to reproduce, it dies out, simple is that.
I almost have a heart attack when I read oxymorons like this. (Would someone kindly explain to the lady just what is wrong with her logic.)
Pleasure and orgasm makes up …a …very effective incentive to reproduce,
Profound.
Now tell us how it is that orgasm can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)
In evolution, perception is irrelevant, and I've repeatedly demonstrated why.
So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Nay but oh little one hood-winked by the pseudo-science of the atheist in scientific garb: you must tell us how it is that sexual orgasm got off the ground in the first place.
And to those like Jet Black (who has notably opted out of the conversation when presented with a little philosophy):
You think that orgasm is simply an accumulation of passively retained stimuli (retained by virtue of its being resident in ever increasing proportions of a population owing to the greater incentive for those with such stimuli to reproduce).
You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons.
In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such.
2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper.
3. Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that orgasm is simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual orgasm is qualitatively different than any other stimuli:
ai) It is cognitively based.
aii) Does not occur via increases to stimulation of any part of the body (including the genitals), unless cognisance is taken of sexual motive.
b) Produces a non-rationalisable synergy: the effect subordinates the participator to it.
Last edited by Colossians; 30th July 2004 at 07:25 AM.
And to those like Jet Black (who has notably opted out of the conversation when presented with a little philosophy):
I find philosophy rather irrelevant when discussion the functional evolution of some phenomenon.
You think that orgasm is simply an accumulation of passively retained stimuli (retained by virtue of its being resident in ever increasingly higher proportions of a population owing to the greater incentive for those with such stimuli to reproduce).
see you are chucking in incentive again, go back to the basics. An organism does something, and this elicits a chemical response in the organism which compels the organism to do it again, or not do it again as the case may be. Often this response is unconscious as we can see with pavlovian conditioning, or if you touch the eye of a snail repeatedly, you see a feedback loop changing the response to the stimulus from a strong response to a weak one. the converse can be also true.
You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons.
rubbish, don'T misrepresent me.
In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such.
a stimuli can be something as simple as the firing of neurons, do you have to percieve being knocked on the knee in order to carry out the reflex action of kicking? no, but there is a stimulus.
2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper.
it does not have to be directly linked to reproduction. the animal cares not about the future of it's species. all that we need is for a response in the animal to certain stimuli (which may be external or as in the case of puberty, internal). If these stimuli and their responses result in differential reprodictive success then that allelic combination will either be reinforced or destroyed.
3. Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that orgasm is simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual orgasm is qualitatively different than any other stimuli:
You don't understand, my point is that the development of this feature is an aggregation of prior responses meaning that we never require the simultaneous appearance of a desire for orgasm and an orgasm from nothing. The orgasm repsponse can be built up on already present responses which have a similar, but weaker effect. Initially we can start off with nothing more than a pleasure response, which results in the feedback loop in which the organism does what it can to get more sex. the orgasm can come as an addition to this in the development of an even more powerful internal response to sex. so the response is still there, and the issue of pleasure is still there.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Animals do not desire orgasm, they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)
So far I don't see you catch anyoneone. He said he subscribed himself to his quoted fellow poster:
How do you evolve desire? By reproductive success.
Take the desire to eat, fueled by an empty stomach. Those organisms that are not impelled to eat die of starvation. Same thing with sex, those that are not impelled to have sex do not pass down their genes to the next generation, and so the lineage of sexually apathetic individuals are bred out.
He awnsered your query before you even asked it.
All I can say for the rest of your replies: Good for you buddy. Good for you.
Last edited by Mistermystery; 30th July 2004 at 09:44 AM.
(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!)
a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,
urgh.
Your inability to read each word i have written is not my problem. The correct word to underline and emphasise is CONSCIOUS. Define conscious then tell me how many animals are capable of it.
1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent
Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)
if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual orgasm can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.
I never said PERCEPTION was absent. I said a CONSCIOUS awareness and decision making ability was. So. Read. Properly. Please ?
Well we are going to have some fun pointing out a tonne redundant argument today.
(From the desk of Nathan David) Animals do not desire orgasm, they desire sex
And why do they desire sex? (I love catching evolutionists in their circles.)
Because the desire for sex evolved long, long ago, as has been explained to you several times. Animals with no desire for sex do not reproduce.
Originally Posted by Colossians
"Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent".
"Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent". OK, no problem. Volition: animals desire sex, and make a conscious decision (volition) to pursue sexual relations.
You have a problem: presumption. No-one on this side of the fence ever declared that volition only resides in humans.
Where did ever say volition only resides in humans? What "presumption" did I make?
Originally Posted by Colossians
Perception: animals perceive that they enjoy sex.
Ditto.
Now tells us the answer to the OP.
Again? I'm tired of repeating myself.
Originally Posted by Colossians
(From The gloaming,) (Watch this one.. I recommend it for the oxymoron of the year!) a creature can either CHOOSE to eat food or not eat food…. As long as you realise the CHOICE is NOT a conscious DECISION,
Obviously Mr Nathan has a dog at home who eats while in a coma.
Do you really think dogs make conscious decisions? Dogs eat when they are hungry and there is food in front of them. When they are not hungry (rare for most dogs) or they do not have access to food they do not eat.
Originally Posted by Colossians
Equally obvious is Mr Nathan's shopping-spree dilemma: when he goes looking for a new pair of jeans, he must first of all eliminate any options, in order for him to make a decision. And so he decides on the pair of jeans on the left, in preference to the pair of jeans on the left.
What are you saying here?
Originally Posted by Colossians
1. Pleasure has no utility where volition is absent.
2. Pleasure is a non-entity where perception is absent Sure, but perception of something is not the same as making a conscious decision,
(Probably why I put it as point 2 instead of point 1. But thanks for pointing it out again!)
if you define perception (from perceive at dictionary.com) as "1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing".
Yes that will do. Now tell us how it is that a sexual orgasm can be perceived as pleasure when perception is absent.
It can't. What's your point?
Originally Posted by Colossians
Your part is simply to tell us why sexual orgasm would evolve without the a-priori desire for it, or conversely, how the desire for sexual orgasm can evolve without the a-priori existence of orgasm.
It can't. As we have told you repeatedly, the orgasm evolved first. Desire for orgasm is not necessary for reproduction. Only the desire for sex is necessary for reproduction.
Originally Posted by Colossians
Sophorus, (Sophorus likes to cite the touted line on ‘Natural Selection’. She has it down pat.) "Perception of need" is irrelevant. If a population don't develope an incentive to reproduce, it dies out, simple is that.
I almost have a heart attack when I read oxymorons like this. (Would someone kindly explain to the lady just what is wrong with her logic.)
There is nothing wrong with her logic. And I don't think you know what oxymoron means, because there is none there.
Originally Posted by Colossians
Pleasure and orgasm makes up …a …very effective incentive to reproduce,
Profound.
Now tell us how it is that orgasm can evolve without the desire for it.
Chance mutation, the same way everything evolves.
Originally Posted by Colossians
In evolution, perception is irrelevant, and I've repeatedly demonstrated why.
So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it.
That's right. Evolution happened for billions of years before there was anyone capable of perceiving it was happening.
__________________ Support our troops. Don't ask them to fight for a lie.
I find philosophy rather irrelevant when discussion the functional evolution of some phenomenon.
That is your problem: you divorce the generic from the specific. Philosophy is the foundation of all. Frankly I find your kind of reasoning austere. You need to learn to think inductively.
An organism does something, and this elicits a chemical response in the organism which compels the organism to do it again, or not do it again as the case may be.
You seem to have a problem in comprehension. And your shifty substitution of “compel” for something more cognitive, is noted. No no Mr Black, it is you who are compelled now to tell us just of what nature is this “compel” when it comes to the supposed evolution of sexual orgasm. Citing the gradual decrease in response of a snail’s eye to touch is not sufficient, and you and I both know it. What is on the table before us, is the peculiar cognitive quality necessary to deem pleasure as indeed, pleasure.
You are running out of time here, and I of patience.
You have 3 very fundamental problems:
1. The absence of perception: Your thinking is like one who believes that forests whose trees fall with no-one present to hear the crash to the floor, will become less full of such weak trees by virtue of necessarily non-attending tree-surgeons. rubbish, don'T misrepresent me.
The representation is accurate: your arguments are circular and redundant from all logical aspects. It is simply that such is illumined, that causes you angst.
Your whole platform is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Which is to say “after the fact, therefore before the fact”. You confuse the utility of the current, with the mechanism for its coming into being. This is a redundancy.
In other words, you must tell us how it is that stimuli (a necessarily relative term) is indeed stimuli when it is not perceived as such a stimuli can be something as simple as the firing of neurons, do you have to perceive being knocked on the knee in order to carry out the reflex action of kicking? no, but there is a stimulus..
This is invalid argument: you equate a current schema which incorporates a response, to that in which no response has yet come into being. You simply beg the question. We are not considering existing ‘perceptions’, but the coming into being of one from first principles, at the fundamental level. This is where your lack of philosophical thinking, brings you down.
You need to tells us the sexual orgasm equivalent of just why it is that the knee developed a reflex response in the first place.
2. Selective association: You must show how it is that stimuli was associated with reproduction, and not with something like reading the paper. it does not have to be directly linked to reproduction. the animal cares not about the future of it's species.
Neither is it able to: it cannot perceive. And I would ask you to be a little less sloppy in your selection of examples: animals are not part of the primordial picture we are discussing.
all that we need is for a response in the animal to certain stimuli
Again you beg the question. It is not possible for a response to pleasure to occur, if such is contingent upon recognition of pleasure. Pleasure is not perceivable, therefore no increased activity will result.
(which may be external or as in the case of puberty, internal)
You may not use an example which already contains both sides of a balanced ‘ledger’, as supporting evidence for the independent evolution of each side of a ledger.
Initially we can start off with nothing more than a pleasure response,
And tells us how it is perceived as pleasure? (Love your circular answers).
And while you are at it, you can tell us why you overlooked the 3 subpoints below.
“Confusion of degree with quality: your premise that orgasm is simply a level (accumulation/aggregation) of stimuli, is false: sexual orgasm is qualitatively different than any other stimuli:
ai) It is cognitively based.
aii) Does not occur via increases to stimulation of any part of the body (including the genitals), unless cognisance is taken of sexual motive.
b) Produces a non-rationalisable synergy: the effect subordinates the participator to it.”
Linear Mode
