This overextension of Darwinism is the actual betrayal of Darwin. It has zero explanatory value. How can you describe or explain anything objectively if every concept is gauged by its spreading factor? Concepts are inferences, that's why some of them get repaired or replaced.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @higherOrderNet and
we're never going to agree.
4 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @NegarestaniReza and
This is the critical point.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @cyborg_nomade and
Yes, it's just akin to a conversation between a rationalist and someone who believes in god in this or that guise.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Outsideness and
Nature might as well be a God (Gnon). The more we try to understand it's rules, the higher the probability of reward.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
Whether it's a mindless God or not is irrelevant to this statement.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @higherOrderNet @NegarestaniReza and
God is omnipresent? Reality is omnipresent. God is omnipotent? Reality not only can, but does do everything that can be done. God is omniscient? Reality is already the thing which is to be known.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Baalren @higherOrderNet and
Except that the blind idea of reality is as much idiotic as the belief in a God.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @Baalren and
you really (haha) think there's no reality at all?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I'm consulting with wikipoetry atm, it was apparently debunked by you.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.