RE: The Survival Instinct - Does it Exist?
The entire post is an accumulation of vendettas/arguments that you have amassed throughout the years by taking part in Cyprus Freethinkers by going against me. It centers around the publication of your Book in 2011 "The meaning of life" which again came right after you lost some arguments about the topic. You had no idea about the entire topic before. You still don't. ps. You are defending the popular view, the non-scientific one.
The constant references about how much you study science and life are false, hence the same argument that you made in the group 6 years ago. They remain the same and they are repeated with the same falsehood. You are trying to establish credibility (by vouching for yourself) when your explanation reveals that you have no understanding of biology. none. You rather copy-paste similar concepts that you can find in books of Dawkins (see moths) spinning it into rhetorics in order to make a point. To those who have read the books this looks very much like a cheap intellectual fraud. I noted before how you do this in almost all your posts. The moth simply did not have enough time to adapt to the new environment. It's instincts fell short. Is that simple.
I am actually honored that more that half your posts, including this one, are an intellectual vendetta that you have with me for so many years (even made you to write a book) but as a biologist has pointed out to you, you are wrong. At least have the guts to admit it and don't try to excuse it through something different. There is evidence that instincts exist. Plenty.
I understand you are trying to defend that there is some meaning in life, some answers. It is your "job" as a philosopher and the first "front" to fall in order for you to make a case and excuse the wasted ink in your book is to deny instincts.
I also understand that you are trying to attach some credibility to your arguments (as I had adviced 6 year ago for you to study science) but your arguments and views (and understanding of biology) have remained much the same. Being part of steemstem and taking part in science competitions does not make you scientifically literate. It just makes you a suck up, trying to make your way into a domain in order to sell your crap as valid. You understood that in 2011 when you were going against scientists that no knowledge in science takes you nowhere. Instead of studying though you decided to just fake it. Classy.
To demonstrate this, 3 simple words could have saved you from all the trouble if you actually studied biology. This is a concept that you cannot catch through youtube videos and pop-sci books but zoologists know very well.
Fixed action pattern
It can be studied, falsified, reproduced and explain everything about survival instincts. It is biology 101, proving once more that you just claim to understand science for the sake of credibility while writing senseless bullshit to work around your argument.
Here is more detailed a post addressing your nonsense rhetorics.
Dog bless the blockchain for the eternal track record it provides.
OK I just checked my friend list.
The first two people I added that had anything to do with CFT, and that I could only have met through CFT, are the two above. So clearly I was a member of CFT before I published the book.
But if you know anything about anything, you know how long it takes to write something like that! I know for a fact I was writing the book when I met my girlfriend of that time, and I had met her 3 months before I joined CFT (if the dates above are to be trusted). The book was practically finished. I spent a lot of time formatting it and checking out publishers and so on before I settled on self-publishing.
Anyway, the idea that I published the book after that discussion about the survival instincts is thoroughly debunked. The idea that I stole everything from CFT has not been debunked, at least not from your perspective, no matter how ridiculous it is. First of all, no one on CFT shared my opinions! No one ever even thought my thoughts, much less agree with me!! No one would believe that I got my ideas from there, except you!
But you are a person of ridiculous and paranoid beliefs, so what else could one expect from you.
Ask anyone who was ever a member of CFT, which one of their ideas did I steal?! Heck, ask yourself!! We disagree about most things!
No one ever said anything that remotely sounded like what I was saying there. Even my arguments against God were philosophical in nature whereas yours where anthropological (i.e. not real conclusive proof). I remember when I posted my first article on the CFT website, against free will, I realized you didn't have an opinion on the subject. It's one of the (probably many) things you learned from me :P, and now capitalize from! Or at least one of the many many many things I knew about 5 years before you even got an inkling about them.
Lastly, the dates above don't mean I was active on CFT. Generally, I would like it if there was a way to retrieve everything from CFT, all our posts there. That would settle everything.
You forget to tell your audience that Cft was one the first facebook groups and that you joined and left again and again. Your screenshots are irrelevant. They don't prove anything. They just show your friend connections which in a small place like Cyprus are irrelevant. You yourself admitted that you like Varnavas posts which he admits that he copies me. (we are talking to the exact letter). This is how you got your ideas and through your following you were watching what was going in CFT because it was an open group. Again. You were anti-science. Now you are balls deep in "Steemstem". funny really.
It wasn't. And from what a friend told me who bought it,,..it is not a book. it is pamphlet with chapters resembling copy-paste things from long conversations...including CFT. they don't follow up.
You have this idea that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe you are correct. You didn't debunk shit. It was an open group in 2011. You could comment without joining. you could see without joining and most importantly you could follow conversations on your feed. You copy pasted everything to make a quick back on ideas that weren't yours.
Mine for the most part. You took all the perspectives on atheism, nihilism, etc and spinned it into a farce to answer about the meaning of life. You are a fraud. a bad one nonetheless.
I didn't comment on free will because it is pretty clear it does not exist. And I debate free will Dawkins directly when i was a member of another philosophy group "FJC" in 2010. Again. You have been trailing all along.
I wish there was a way but the only proof I have is other people. Mainly Marc, a biologist and zoologist that debunked your entire shit while you run crying, never to come back again, but closely stealing ideas for your book.
You do the same shit all the time. see moths. Every single post your make steals from others while you boast that they are your ideas. pathetic.
Keep up the fraudulent work. There are lots of scammers in here. You will be camouflaged fairly well.
First private conversation with Harris that references the survival instinct, it's evident the conversation just started and Marc just got into it: 10 Aug 2011.
Book published March 2011 (and the journal entries on which it's based go back at least 5 years, as do conversations with friends who I don't wanna drag into this).
I can also confirm this via Ioulia, IF you remember that the whole convo started from a post on the CFT website. I have the post. But the CFT page doesn't have it anymore, so I can't date it.
Have we settled this?
Furthermore, I BELIEVE (but can't be sure), that, even though I had added Varnavas before publishing the book, I suspect I wasn't very active. Again, I think Harris was one of my first acquaintances on CFT.
So, until further evidence is presented, I believe I only REALLY joined CFT after publishing the book.
I understand very well there's ways I could've stalked the group before that. But let's try and keep this conversation rational. For example, even if I provide proof that I only joined CFT on x date, or only made my first comment on x date, you could easily just say something paranoid like "but the group existed from x-1 date, and you could've been part of the group under a fake fb account".
At that point I'll just start repeating "you need to see a doctor".
And of course friendships prove quite a lot. You think I was rejecting people's friendships because I didn't want proof that I was getting all my ideas from CFT? I'm not a survival instinct, I can't think that far ahead ;)
My current theory is Mark just told you something wrong and you believed it because you like to believe bad things about people. Your whole idea that I stole things from CFT is based on this: someone bought the book, saw things that reminded them of conversations I started on fb, got the causality backwards because checking dates is difficult for scientists of Marc's caliber, and so your paranoia got its much-needed food.
In general, I suggest we keep personal accusations on the level of "if you ain't got no proof, don't go shit-talking".
That's because I think evidence is the only way you can keep paranoid people at bay. It's not your fault. Your mind just constantly tries to think bad things about people. Unless that tendency is rained in by proof, it will always do its thing, you have no control over it. Proof acts like a fence.
Have we at least settled the above issue? Do you admit you were wrong about that? Come on, gimme those 3 words! :P
Your evidence is not evidence. There is no evidence unfortunately.
hahaha. you didn't even need to "join" back then idiot. you could write comments and watch topics at will. you got most of the content from proxies since half of cyprus was in cft. it was one of the first groups and most popular.
i actually don't . i can sniff out the bullshiters like you. that;'s all. so far i did what i did to you to 4-5 people. the bullshiters. master manipulators that made the mistake to step into my perspective.
actually i won't because almost all of your posts revolve around one debate. that's fucked up from your past. talk about intellectual austerity mate. ...pathetic
No comment on the personal drama, but in terms of the ideas, I'm inclined to agree with kyriacos more.
I think Alexander is misusing Nietzsche and Popper here. Nietzsche's view was very evolutionary. Our values aren't valuable in themselves, but are heuristics derived from increased probability of survival.
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a
This is a relevant read, because Taleb was greatly influenced by both Nietzsche and Popper, and he claims that the meaning of life is survival.