Evolutionary limitations: a mutation in the wrong context

[Gottservant]

Fact:

A mutation in the wrong context will more quickly drive you mad, than it will cause you to adapt, in every circumstance except where there is no pressure to survive.

You therefore:

a) need pressure to survive
b) need to differentiate between survival and madness
and
c) need to be quick at identifying context

You may even:
d) need to reinforce contexts that are positively associated with survival

d) implies that eugenics is the wrong interpretation of Evolutionary mechanisms

I move that Science begins to investigate the causal link between Evolution and madness, as an objective measure.

Comments welcome.

But fundamentally:

A mutation in the wrong context will more quickly drive you mad, than it will cause you to adapt, in every circumstance except where there is no pressure to survive.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Vergil10]

Let me google that for you

 

[Gottservant]

If you expect me to choke on your ignorance, you are neglecting the fact that I told you something relevant about your theory

 

[Vergil10]

If you expect me to choke on your ignorance, you are neglecting the fact that I told you something relevant about your theory

What you basically claimed above is survival equals madness, if you can't already see the problems with your claim i am not sure i can help you.

 

[Gottservant]

What you basically claimed above is survival equals madness, if you can't already see the problems with your claim i am not sure i can help you.

There is no problem with my claim.

You are speaking gibberish.

EDIT: You cannot be so selective in your hearing, that you forget the cornerstone of my argument (context).

 

[[serious]]

Oh, Hi gott, I see you are posting about evolution. Before we continue, let's see if this post makes sense. I'll highlight in red what doesn't make sense.

Fact:

A mutation in the wrong context will more quickly drive you mad, than it will cause you to adapt, in every circumstance except where there is no pressure to survive.

You therefore:

a) need pressure to survive
b) need to differentiate between survival and madness
and
c) need to be quick at identifying context

You may even:
d) need to reinforce contexts that are positively associated with survival

d) implies that eugenics is the wrong interpretation of Evolutionary mechanisms

I move that Science begins to investigate the causal link between Evolution and madness, as an objective measure.

Comments welcome.

But fundamentally:



Thanks for your time.

Your meds aren't working.

 

[Vergil10]

There is no problem with my claim.

You are speaking gibberish.

EDIT: You cannot be so selective in your hearing, that you forget the cornerstone of my argument (context).

As of now i have shown your post to 30 different people of various religions. a grand total of 0 people understood your post. Trust me you are literally making zero sense, I don't say this to be offensive but i actually think you may need some medical help. Your posts make no sense whatsoever.

 

[[serious]]

As of now i have shown your post to 30 different people of various religions. a grand total of 0 people understood your post. Trust me you are literally making zero sense, I don't say this to be offensive but i actually think you may need some medical help. Your posts make no sense whatsoever.

He's posted previously about his struggles with schizophrenia. I suspect there was a med change june/julyish as there was a sudden change in his posting.

Gott, whatever you are doing, it's not working. Try something else.

 

[Gottservant]

You obviously don't understand the gravity of what I am saying.

I am saying Evolution is more akin to madness than anything else, the only exception is if you are bored (and boredom is not an excuse for survival).

 

[[serious]]

I am saying Evolution is more akin to madness than anything else,

In what way?

 

[Gottservant]

In what way?

In the way that it promotes madness more than survival, through mutation, which is unguided.

Unguided mutation more quickly drives you mad than it helps you survive, its as simple as that.

 

[[serious]]

In the way that it promotes madness more than survival, through mutation, which is unguided.

Unguided mutation more quickly drives you mad than it helps you survive, its as simple as that.

In what way does evolution promote madness? Simply repeating your assertion isn't the same as presenting a mechanism.

Let's take, for example, evolution in bacteria. Do bacteria go mad more than they survive? What does madness even look like in bacteria?

 

[Gottservant]

Madness isn't quantifiable.

You are asking something that can only be resolved by principle (not by science) and I have given you the principle.

But since you don't seem to like the principle, let me give you the reasoning:

Something unpredictable that seems like a good idea needs to be justified, but when there are a number of ways of justifying it and no way to decide between them, it is more likely that you will make a mistake as to how to justify it, therefore it will drive you mad, alternatively something unpredictable that seems like a bad idea that you can't refuse, seems like it will be a problem, for longer than you can justify and so you are more likely to make a mistake in justifying it (against your will), so either way mutation is more likely to drive you mad than cause you to adapt.

hence the principle.

Darwin basically concocted an idea that sounds plausible when all you have time for is something that sounds plausible, the trouble is you don't always actually have time for it

 

[Paulos23]

Gott, I have no idea what your talking about. Evolution doesn't cause madness in that way....

 

[Gottservant]

Sure, assert it and contradict me and then expect me to agree.

Really sane.

 

[[serious]]

Madness isn't quantifiable.

You are asking something that can only be resolved by principle (not by science) and I have given you the principle.

But since you don't seem to like the principle, let me give you the reasoning:

Something unpredictable that seems like a good idea needs to be justified, but when there are a number of ways of justifying it and no way to decide between them, it is more likely that you will make a mistake as to how to justify it, therefore it will drive you mad, alternatively something unpredictable that seems like a bad idea that you can't refuse, seems like it will be a problem, for longer than you can justify and so you are more likely to make a mistake in justifying it (against your will), so either way mutation is more likely to drive you mad than cause you to adapt.

hence the principle.

Darwin basically concocted an idea that sounds plausible when all you have time for is something that sounds plausible, the trouble is you don't always actually have time for it

Then qualify it. How mad is your average bacteria? Why isn't evolution driving them mad?

 

[Paulos23]

Sure, assert it and contradict me and then expect me to agree.

Really sane.

Maybe there is a conection, but you need to define your terms and start testing or finding evidence for it while excepting that you may not find what you are looking for, or that you may find something completely new.

But without physical testing or physical evidence it is just an unsubstanuated claim.

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe there is a conection, but you need to define your terms and start testing or finding evidence for it while excepting that you may not find what you are looking for, or that you may find something completely new.

But without physical testing or physical evidence it is just an unsubstanuated claim.

It doesn't need evidence, it's backed up by the very clear observation that without context, mutation cannot be meaningfully applied.

It's all very well to test things, but first you have to make sure the tests make sense.

 

[Gottservant]

Put it this way...

...say the matrix reveals a glitch, like an atm machine that can't recognize transactions in the middle of the night, do you take advantage of it while the going's good or do you report it as soon as possible?

If you take advantage of it, all the money will have to be paid back once you are found out; if you report it, you will get nothing for your time.

Say you don't report it, because you're an evolutionist and you get fat from all the food you buy and you get an STD from a hooker you hire and you slightly lose your mind from some drugs that you do... still going to say the mutation helped you adapt?

 

[Paulos23]

Put it this way...

...say the matrix reveals a glitch, like an atm machine that can't recognize transactions in the middle of the night, do you take advantage of it while the going's good or do you report it as soon as possible?

If you take advantage of it, all the money will have to be paid back once you are found out; if you report it, you will get nothing for your time.

Say you don't report it, because you're an evolutionist and you get fat from all the food you buy and you get an STD from a hooker you hire and you slightly lose your mind from some drugs that you do... still going to say the mutation helped you adapt?

Where is the mutation in this?