Elon Reeves Musk: Agent of Satan; Foundation of Evil

While emotions do differ amongst individuals, the evolutionary basis for their validity does not. We have all evolved as such because it was rational to do so.

We evolved as such because it was evolutionarily advantageous. That does not make it rational.

To give one example to this point - In many cases it simplified decision that would be life or death decisions - fear would be a great example of this. It is better to have a faster reaction time due to fear that something bad might happen as you will survive more often assuming something might be attacking you whether it is or isn't. If I am an animal in the wild and I think I see something but I'm not sure I should make the decision based on emotion to run or hide. If there wasn't anything there, fine no harm. If there was, I saved myself from death. As you can see this quickened the decision making by not determining rationally whether or not something could harm me and it was a rational way to go about it because of cost-risk evaluation.

The problem is when you then move out of that environment, without sufficient evolutionary pressure to change those emotions.
This results in people using emotional response for a complete different environment, which isn't rational at all.
This can lead to you making the wrong decisions and end up doing more harm than good.

Mind if I use that picture to demonstrate a point?

Quote from: wise on May 27, 2020, 01:28:03 AM

Mind if I use that picture to demonstrate a point?

To show how biased and ignorant you are…

Here you go.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 10:55:09 AM

Here you go.

Let it go.  You’re just stupid crazy at this point.

My model rocket launch vs your fake ass picture.





Vs a rocket that placed witnesses onboard in space by a control facility with people that witnessed and supported placing the rocket in space.



UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight



To the satellites placed in orbit by various countries and companies tracked by amateurs.  Satellites that allowed for communication out in the middle of the pacific when I was in the Navy.  And if the other countries were using floating platforms, we would have tracked them as aircraft. 

Quote

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

Satellites that have added lights to the night sky over the last 50 years.

Quote

A brighter sky

As a cultural astronomer, I am interested in the role of the night sky in cultural traditions around the world. In particular, I am interested in how light pollution and increasing satellite numbers affect different communities.

The number of satellites in orbit is growing rapidly. Since 2019, the number of functional satellites in orbit has more than doubled to around 7,600. The increase is mostly due to SpaceX and other companies launching large groups of satellites to provide high-speed internet communications around the world.



Starlink satellites already leave streaks on astronomical photographs – but growth in satellites and debris will make the whole sky brighter.  Rafael Schmall / NOIRLab, CC BY

Only takes one satellite in orbit to destroy FE.  And the first man made satellite in orbit Sputnik did that decades ago. 


To not understand satellites in orbit are a thing, providing real services and broadcasts from space, and changing the night sky is just stupid at this point.

This can lead to you making the wrong decisions and end up doing more harm than good.

What is “harm” in nature?  A meteorite causing a massive extinction event.  In nature there just is.  😁

What is “harm” in nature?  A meteorite causing a massive extinction event.  In nature there just is.  😁

Even a child would understand what that means.

A simple example would be continually being startled by simple things which you have no rational reason to be afraid of, seriously disrupting your life to the point you don't eat so you starve and die.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2023, 01:03:16 PM

What is “harm” in nature?  A meteorite causing a massive extinction event.  In nature there just is.  😁

Even a child would understand what that means.

A simple example would be continually being startled by simple things which you have no rational reason to be afraid of, seriously disrupting your life to the point you don't eat so you starve and die.

In terms of spiritual evil and good yes.


In a world where my cat’s torment mice and birds. And in return I have friends their dogs kill kittens.  In a world where the USA dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.  The sun keeps shining.  What exactly is “harm” in nature? 

My model rocket launch vs your fake ass picture.



Your rocket is real. It also never reaches space.

Vs a rocket that placed witnesses onboard in space by a control facility with people that witnessed and supported placing the rocket in space.



This rocket has people paid to shill. But when I push select color in GIMP, even with a very low color threshold, it selects the ENTIRE BACKGROUND. That's a matte wall screen.  You can even watch as the entire screen changes color. Real sky does not do that, it has gradients where the sky up top is higher than the sky at bottom. Which actually makes my fake-ass background still more real than their takeoff background.

To the satellites placed in orbit by various countries and companies tracked by amateurs.  Satellites that allowed for communication out in the middle of the pacific when I was in the Navy.  And if the other countries were using floating platforms, we would have tracked them as aircraft. 

There are no satellites! You can literally tell the internet "satellite no background" and it will give you this.



From there, you simply patch it into a space background and you have a satellite in space.



Like so! I would think you were gullible if you weren't so devious about denying what is blatantly obvious.

As for "lights in the night sky," some of these are are lights from particularly tall signal towers. Some are actually aircrafts or whether balloons. Remember, at night, your ability to gauge altitude is severely hampered.You have no idea what you are seeing, actually. But I'll guarantee what you are not seeing. Satellites in outer space. Not only would they malfunction if not explode due to pressure and heat difference and the radiation around the Van Allen radiation belt, not only would the air be too thin for the crafts to stay up properly, not only would the object be so tiny that the light seen from it would be invisible (stars are huge, satellites are not, and you yourself demonstrated that light shrinks when it is at actual distance of 300 ft away), but there is a fundamental reason why even if it weren't true that they cannot make it to space, they WILL not.

Cost.

It is significantly less costly to send a satellite into the stratosphere or mesosphere than it is to send it outside Earth's atmosphere. All of this saved cost can be pocketed by every company that uses satellites.



Further, the same radiation belt that would probably destroy satellites (as I mentioned before)

would also have an EM frequency. This means interference!



You can see towers everywhere. THis is how "satellites" work.

To the satellites placed in orbit by various countries and companies tracked by amateurs.  Satellites that allowed for communication out in the middle of the pacific when I was in the Navy.  And if the other countries were using floating platforms, we would have tracked them as aircraft.

Actually, you were receiving signals from your own boat in all likelihood. From submarines. From nearby aircrafts. From buoys. And so on. You either don't have clearance to know this (useful idiot) or you have signed a NDA and cannot agree with me even if you wanted to.  We the public are told that there's something magical about sending signals from space. But satellites are tiny. And before satellites, they had broadcast towers. Oh look, we still have broadcast towers, and they are more sophisticated nowadays. Almost as though these, not satellites in space, are broadcasting signals.

Btw, even my smart meter gives a signal. My Kindle shows it on a list, and I never saw that userID before the device was installed. Some broadcast towers are tiny, some are huge. Some are well-camoflauged so they ever appear to be trees! If you knew just how many broadcast towers there were, you would never believe nonsense about satellites. Well, except if you're being paid to shill that idea and kept quiet by a NDA.  But you wouldn't do that, would you? 

What’s that law where internet stupidity is undistinguishable from parody? Because Bubba here personifies it. Take this.

“As for "lights in the night sky," some of these are are lights from particularly tall signal towers. Some are actually aircrafts or whether balloons. Remember, at night, your ability to gauge altitude is severely hampered.You have no idea what you are seeing,”

As parody it’s pretty thin, so he nailed adolescent with a poor education, or he means it, in which case though I feel a bit cruel then the former is his best defence.

It makes you wonder if these people have ever gone out to a dark area and truly took time to look up, learn the sky and watch awhile?
In this case clearly not, to suggest watching a satellite go from horizon to horizon could be mistaken for a tall tower is as preposterous as suggesting that Bubba and his ilk could see through any veil the illuminate overlords erected.

But hey carry on Bubs’, you are providing a revenue for someone producing this clickbait and it’s funny in a toddler running into a glass door kind of way. 

In terms of spiritual evil and good yes.

No need to invoke any of your spiritual BS here.

In the context of the discussion, that being evolution, the harm is subjective to the individual.
What is harmful to a cat may be helpful to a mouse, and vice versa.

It also never reaches space.

Because it's a model.

This rocket has people paid to shill. But when I push select color in GIMP, even with a very low color threshold, it selects the ENTIRE BACKGROUND. That's a matte wall screen.  You can even watch as the entire screen changes color. Real sky does not do that, it has gradients where the sky up top is higher than the sky at bottom. Which actually makes my fake-ass background still more real than their takeoff background.

You have already had that refuted.
The rocket has people who have paid to be on it. Not people who are paid.
I demonstrated that the "low threshold" claim is BS by doing the same thing and showing it didn't select as much as you claimed, and even that wasn't even the entire background.
I also demonstrated with footage from a plane that if you take a very wide angle shot you get a good gradient, but when you zoom in, you don't, because you are looking at a small portion of that gradient.

So you are yet to demonstrate any fault with that footage.

There are no satellites! You can literally tell the internet "satellite no background" and it will give you this.

Which has nothing at all to do with your ability to see them in the sky.

Regardless, the best you could get with that dishonest BS of yours is that you don't know if there are satellites. You can't get to them not existing.

Like so! I would think you were gullible if you weren't so devious about denying what is blatantly obvious.

The one denying the blatantly obvious here is you.

The photos of actual satellites in space look quite different to your obviously fake crap.

As for "lights in the night sky," some of these are are lights from particularly tall signal towers.

So instead of satellites in space, you appeal to magically tall towers no one has ever seen?

Some are actually aircrafts or whether balloons.

They have distinctive lights, which look quite different to satellites.
And satellites can be seen in predictable locations from multiple locations simultaneously, putting them at an altitude that is too high.
You would need to blanket the world with so many weather balloons, with highly directional antenna to fake it. Just who do you think is paying for all that?

Remember, at night, your ability to gauge altitude is severely hampered.

Not really.
It doesn't matter if it is day or night. Your ability to tell altitude requires either a known distance or multiple locations (a known distance apart).

But I'll guarantee what you are not seeing.

You mean you will baselessly assert pure BS based upon your wilful rejection of reality.

Not only would they malfunction if not explode due to pressure and heat difference and the radiation around the Van Allen radiation belt

Why?
They are designed to operate in that environment.
You will need more than baseless assertions.

not only would the air be too thin for the crafts to stay up properly

They are in orbit. They don't need air to stay up.

not only would the object be so tiny that the light seen from it would be invisible (stars are huge, satellites are not, and you yourself demonstrated that light shrinks when it is at actual distance of 300 ft away)

Light shrinks to an unresolvable point.
It is still there.
The pixels in a good screen are not resolvable. Too small by your standard. But if you just have a single pixel illuminated, you can still see it.
That is because it is brighter than its surroundings.

It is significantly less costly to send a satellite into the stratosphere or mesosphere than it is to send it outside Earth's atmosphere.

If you dishonestly compare a single satellite launched to space, vs that same satellite (with no consideration for the different environment) to the stratosphere, then sure.
If instead you try a more honest comparison, such as the cost to remake and relaunch the satellites due to the limited lifetime of the balloons (or even just recovery and repair), the additional cost (and mass so also affecting of the power system to make it survive the night, the additional cost for station keeping and the additional cost of the greater number needed to cover the same area; then it ends up costing vastly more.
Why do you think Loon LLC shut down? Because it was too expensive and satellites were cheaper.

would also have an EM frequency. This means interference!

Which applies regardless of if it is in space. If that was going to be a problem it means we wouldn't have that tech.

You can see towers everywhere. THis is how "satellites" work.

And we can measure the direction the signal is coming from and confirm it is NOT coming from those towers.

Actually, you were receiving signals from your own boat in all likelihood. From submarines. From nearby aircrafts. From buoys. And so on. You either don't have clearance to know this (useful idiot) or you have signed a NDA and cannot agree with me even if you wanted to.

Or you are just spouting delusional BS to desperately try to reject reality.

We the public are told that there's something magical about sending signals from space.

No, we aren't.

Almost as though these, not satellites in space, are broadcasting signals.

They are not mutually exclusive.

If you knew just how many broadcast towers there were, you would never believe nonsense about satellites.

We already don't believe your nonsense.

No need to invoke any of your spiritual BS here.

You like to invoke how “religion” is needed to make people feel big and important in a large universe.

In a universe where black holes swallow worlds.  Stars are born, die, explode.  What is the harm and impact on the universe should I or you perish?  Really, what is the magnitude of your feelings on the scale of the universe. 

Well, except if you're being paid to shill that idea and kept quiet by a NDA.  But you wouldn't do that, would you?

Oh wait!

Yeah you would!

You would totally shill for the government. You joined the Navy to be a good little soldier, and unlike a character in my book (that's how little self-will you have, that a fictional character has you beat), you just follow your orders and make whatever excuses you need.

Just from the search engine page. "wifi signals in buoys"

https://news.mit.edu/2018/wireless-communication-through-water-air-0822

Buoys, for instance, have been designed to pick up sonar waves, process the data, and shoot radio signals to airborne receivers

https://www.mit.edu/~millitsa/resources/pdfs/royal.pdf

Alternatively, semi-mobile underwater networks can be suspended from buoys that are deployed by a ship and used temporarily, but...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354676089_Wi-Buoy_An_Energy-Efficient_Wireless_Buoy_Network_for_Real-Time_High-Rate_Marine_Data_Acquisition

The next frontier of maritime networking will see the deployment of large-scale buoy-based mesh networks, with an equal emphasis on both high-speed data transfer and energy-efficiency. One such challenging application is the operation of maritime seismic surveys for oil/gas exploration and academic studies. Large amounts of seismic data are generated at a rate of several Gigabits per second ...

If they are talking about building it in the future, the nature of top secrecy says they've already built crude versions in the past, but only declassified now.

Even buoys can give limited "satellite" signals. As I said. When "satellites" are everywhere, are you even aware that what you are seeing is a satellite? Radar may be able to see things, but it is not built to detect camouflage in purpose.  You know satellites don't exist. I know satellites don't exist. So let's quit this charade, hmmm?

You like to invoke how “religion” is needed to make people feel big and important in a large universe.

No, I point out people go to religion to try to escape reality.

In a universe where black holes swallow worlds.  Stars are born, die, explode.  What is the harm and impact on the universe should I or you perish?

Again, a child can understand the point of discussion. Stop playing dumb.
There is no need for your religious BS here.

Yeah you would!

I wouldn't. Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
Now would you do that? Get paid to shill for the FE?

Considering how dishonest you have been the dishonesty of it clearly wont stop you.

Even buoys can give limited "satellite" signals.

Not when you can determine the direction to the satellite, and see it is not coming from around the same altitude.

You know satellites don't exist. I know satellites don't exist. So let's quit this charade, hmmm?

All the evidence shows satellites do exist.
The best you can get is NOT KNOWING if they exist or not.
You have NOTHING to support your fantasy that they don't exist.

Merely showing you CAN fake it does not mean it IS fake.

So where is your evidence that it IS fake, not merely might be fake?

Until you can provide that, how about you quit this charade of claiming you KNOW it is fake, when you just BELIEVE it is.

Merely showing you CAN fake it does not mean it IS fake.

So where is your evidence that it IS fake, not merely might be fake?

The evidence is me.

I am not a professional artist. I am currently not a professional anything.

Yet within five minutes, once I understand what I am doing, I can make Jupiter in space with a satellite nearby.
Probably about 15 to 50 minutes for stuff like adding shadow near the feet to people to make them look like they are standing on the moon rather than just superimposed.
Maybe about 5 hours to make some kind of animation. You know what? None of this cost anything! Well, maybe internet and electricity. But there are no inherent costs, like there (stupid hanging paragraph) are for say, housing and clothing several people on a space station for months.

So, if you're a government conspiracy who embezzles money from the taxpayer and schemes to one day control their lives, what seems more likely? Spend billions to send people to space, and pay your employees a pittance? Or "spend billions to send people to space," and pocket the change?

I know how people's minds work. The first one isn't even an option. A real launch not only invests billions, it puts lives in real danger. The risk-reward equation is outright insane. Simple logic pokes a hole the size of a barn in that idea.

The "gravity" (buoyancy) isn't in favor of that launch. Air pressure is not in favor. The ship must pass through a radiation field. It could simply blow up. Or they might not have enough oxygen canisters or food packed. Or you know, the fact that as air gets thinner and thinner, the fuel itself may not be oxidized enough. The amount of things that go wrong are crazy.
Since actually doing it is dangerous and costly, there is evidence that it is easy to fake (even for me), and there is tremendous gain to be had through doing so, and tremendous risk for trying to do it honestly (if in fact it even is possible), the truth is rather clear. The proof is me. I can't draw properly with an art program from scratch. I can only digitally edit, and it often has edges. Anyone actually paid to do it can make it appear smooth, easy. Hollywood can make a movie of it that is fully convincing. NASA? Hell, of course they can convince you for a few minutes.

But it gets worse. You know that the moon landing was an incredible piece of propaganda against the Cold War state of Russia? Well, if it's all fake, where does this put US/Russia relations? In secret collusion. In actual fact, this is the actual state of space operations. Globalist cooperation, instead of nationalism.

Quote

Merely showing you CAN fake it does not mean it IS fake.

So where is your evidence that it IS fake, not merely might be fake?

The evidence is me.

I am not a professional artist. I am currently not a professional anything.

Yet within five minutes, once I understand what I am doing, I can make Jupiter in space with a satellite nearby.

Great job showing a complete lack of understanding.

Firstly, your "photoshop" is so obviously fake it isn't funny.
But more importantly, you entirely missed the point.
The point was that the absolute best you get with that is showing that it CAN be fake, not that it IS fake.

Do you understand the difference?

It would be like me showing a video of someone using a hose to water the ground to show that that can wet the ground, to claim that rain is a hoax and it is always faked by people using hoses to water the ground.

A hose being able to make the ground wet doesn't mean it is the only way.

So, if you're a government conspiracy who embezzles money from the taxpayer and schemes to one day control their lives, what seems more likely? Spend billions to send people to space, and pay your employees a pittance?

Or spend even more to fake it, with the money coming from nowhere.

I know how people's minds work. The first one isn't even an option.

Because you reject it because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

The "gravity" (buoyancy) isn't in favor of that launch. Air pressure is not in favor.

Why? Because you don't like it? Because you are desperate to claim it is fake?

Or you know, the fact that as air gets thinner and thinner, the fuel itself may not be oxidized enough.

If only they had thought of that and brought their own oxygen? Oh wait, they did.

Since actually doing it is dangerous and costly, there is evidence that it is easy to fake (even for me)

Wrong.
You have evidence a tiny portion of it is "easy to fake" in a way that makes it obviously fake.
This entirely ignores the rest of what is needed.

the truth is rather clear.

Yes, that you are desperate to reject reality.

But it gets worse. You know that the moon landing was an incredible piece of propaganda against the Cold War state of Russia? Well, if it's all fake, where does this put US/Russia relations?

Yes, imagine how much of a joke it would be if it was fake; with Russia easily able to just call the US out on it.
But sure, go and make even crazier claims.

The more troubling aspect about all this is that because companies like Verizon, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so on are spending alot less sending tech into space, they can spend alot more on harebrained plans. If you asked someone in the 80s (which I'm from) what way should technology head, they would tell you it's definitely heading in the wrong direction, toward surveillance state. The technology isn't even that good! Alexa opened up is mostly just a microphone. They connect that to the net, and Alexa looks up your answer. With all the bullshit money where hardware and software delivers far cheaper products that they claim, if someone like Bill Gates has too much money and unhealthy ambitions, they could for instance invent mosquitoes that jab people with a vaccine, whether or not they signed off for consent. Yesss, this was an idea of his. Or they could make a drones everywhere reality straight pur of The Circle. But that movie isn't even the most dystopic one I've seen. Are you aware btw that there not only is a Soylent company but also a Skynet?

Firstly, your "photoshop" is so obviously fake it isn't funny.
But more importantly, you entirely missed the point.
The point was that the absolute best you get with that is showing that it CAN be fake, not that it IS fake.

But I showed that too! I selected the entire sky with GIMP on a fairly low threshold (40, which was alot closer to the beginning or the bar than the end). This doesn't happen with sky. I can take a picture of the sky right now, and it will have natural gradient of about six layers. It not only can be fake, it is fake. I also found selection zones at every stage of that launch video, including the deck they were supposedly on. Not only the sky but the deck and the shuttle was far more simple than it had any right to be, color-wise. Why does this matter? Well, when I'm doing artwork, typically not even ten pixels adjacent to each other have the same color. Not at 40 threshold. But the entire people inside the shuttle could be selected, the deck shadows could be selected for a very wide range. It was an art project. Digital editors patched the backgrounds in, and sometimes even the foregrounds. Moreover, in some cases, you had 256 colors without any downscaling. It's terrible, and you globalist shills defend it with the same fervor you do with the "birth certificate" of Barry Soetoro. For reference, first of all a Certificate of Live Birth can be made after the fact. There are copy lines on the left side of the page (you get those from copying something from a book),  the 41 is lower than the other numbers (if stamped on with an ink roller, it should be level, unless you stamped the last two numbers after doing research). Same issue down below with the 25. The five is lower, like some two-bit hoodlum stamped it rather than an official. There's also the fact that these terms ( "Caucasian") weren't appropriate. The form would have said "White" prior to about 2000 or so. The big circle is because it clearly looks pasted and then copied onto a green pattern. Obama worked in the exact office where he'd have access to these records. This is printed onto such paper rather than being a correct copy. Also. Why is the Certificate of Live Birth dated April 25, 2011? Wouldn't that make it a reprint? They certified that it's a true copy... or an abstract of the record on file.

Quote

Firstly, your "photoshop" is so obviously fake it isn't funny.
But more importantly, you entirely missed the point.
The point was that the absolute best you get with that is showing that it CAN be fake, not that it IS fake.

But I showed that too! I selected the entire sky with GIMP on a fairly low threshold (40, which was alot closer to the beginning or the bar than the end).

No, you didn't.
Highlighting the sky with a high threshold doesn't mean it is fake.

Again, when you zoom in on a small portion of the sky, that is what you expect.

If you want to disagree, go take a picture of the sky, and then take it with the maximum zoom you can.

As for the claim that 40 is low, remember, on its maximum level, it should be able to select wildly different colours.
To show just how ridiculous your claims is, I went to Wikimedia commons and searched for an image of the sky. I found this one:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sky,_clouds_and_trees.jpg
I then used the colour picker, set the threshold to 40, clicked about 1/3 of the way down the middle of the image, inverted selection and deleted (to fill with black).
This is what I got:


40 is a very large threshold.
Selecting the entire sky with it does NOTHING to demonstrate it is fake.

So you have nothing to show it is fake.

I also found selection zones at every stage of that launch video

You mean you were able to select regions of different colours.
Again, that doesn't mean it is fake.
You are grasping at whatever pathetic straws you can.

Well, when I'm doing artwork, typically not even ten pixels adjacent to each other have the same color. Not at 40 threshold.

Pure BS, as demonstrated above.
Blatantly lying will not save you.
Even the image you used above has very large regions selected when the threshold is set to 40. Here it is where I have taken the image you posted, used a threshold of 40, and cut out a region and applied a single colour:

5 colour ranges cover almost the entire picture.


And it just demonstrates how insane your claim is.
If your claims were true, and the video was fake, and they combined images/videos together to make it, it still wouldn't have those regions.
If your fantasy is true, the only way to have those regions is to just delete things and put in a single colour; at which point a threshold of 1 should be fine.

Moreover, in some cases, you had 256 colors without any downscaling.

So you have the raw files?
Or do you have a random file you found on the internet which could have already been cut down to 256 colours?

It's terrible, and you globalist shills defend it

No, your arguments are pure BS. As demonstrated above they are just blatant lies.
So people who care about the truth, and know what that truth is, will object to your dishonest BS.

For reference, first of all a Certificate of Live Birth can be made after the fact.

They ALL are made after the fact.
Because they need to record details like the time of birth.
Do you want someone to write out a birth certificate before they are born?

And pro-tip, if you want to comment on the image, try not to cover it with a bunch of crap.
Try to find the original source and link to that.

Quote from: Username on October 17, 2023, 03:42:01 PM

While emotions do differ amongst individuals, the evolutionary basis for their validity does not. We have all evolved as such because it was rational to do so.

We evolved as such because it was evolutionarily advantageous. That does not make it rational.

You are right, it would have been far more rational to evolve in an evolutionarily disadvantageous way.

Emotions are adaptive mechanisms meant to enhance survivability (among other things). This adaptation can be seen as rational in the sense that it increases the likelihood of survival, which aligns with rational decision-making in the context of evolutionary success.

Likewise, in neuroscience we see that emotions have a neurobiological basis that serve specific adaptive functions. For example, the amygdala's role in relation to fear fear illustrates how emotional responses have a basis in the brain's structure and function, contributing to decision-making processes. This indicates a rational basis in our biological systems to process emotions.

Continuing down the ways you are wrong - emotions play a crucial role in social interactions. They facilitate communication, bonding, and cooperation, which have been essential throughout human evolution. Social cohesion and cooperation have often provided survival advantages, and emotions contribute significantly to these dynamics, thus being rational in the context of societal benefit.

While emotions are not always rational in every context, individuals often evaluate and regulate their emotions through cognitive processes. This process involves understanding, interpreting, and, in many cases, controlling emotions to make reasoned decisions, which, again, aligns with the concept of rationality.

Quote from: Username on October 17, 2023, 03:42:01 PM

To give one example to this point - In many cases it simplified decision that would be life or death decisions - fear would be a great example of this. It is better to have a faster reaction time due to fear that something bad might happen as you will survive more often assuming something might be attacking you whether it is or isn't. If I am an animal in the wild and I think I see something but I'm not sure I should make the decision based on emotion to run or hide. If there wasn't anything there, fine no harm. If there was, I saved myself from death. As you can see this quickened the decision making by not determining rationally whether or not something could harm me and it was a rational way to go about it because of cost-risk evaluation.

The problem is when you then move out of that environment, without sufficient evolutionary pressure to change those emotions.
This results in people using emotional response for a complete different environment, which isn't rational at all.
This can lead to you making the wrong decisions and end up doing more harm than good.

Yes. However, that's not the point of the conversation at hand. Simply showing that emotions do not necessarily complicate and can augment rationality in certain scenarios is enough to make my argument. Obviously I am not advocating to use emotions as rationality in all situations at all times.

Even if it was the point you'd be wrong because this is mitigated by social-based strategies, cognitive strategies and learned behaviors.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 18, 2023, 04:01:13 AM

Quote from: Username on October 17, 2023, 03:42:01 PM

While emotions do differ amongst individuals, the evolutionary basis for their validity does not. We have all evolved as such because it was rational to do so.

We evolved as such because it was evolutionarily advantageous. That does not make it rational.

You are right, it would have been far more rational to evolve in an evolutionarily disadvantageous way.

Emotions are adaptive mechanisms meant to enhance survivability (among other things). This adaptation can be seen as rational in the sense that it increases the likelihood of survival, which aligns with rational decision-making in the context of evolutionary success.

Likewise, in neuroscience we see that emotions have a neurobiological basis that serve specific adaptive functions. For example, the amygdala's role in relation to fear fear illustrates how emotional responses have a basis in the brain's structure and function, contributing to decision-making processes. This indicates a rational basis in our biological systems to process emotions.

Continuing down the ways you are wrong - emotions play a crucial role in social interactions. They facilitate communication, bonding, and cooperation, which have been essential throughout human evolution. Social cohesion and cooperation have often provided survival advantages, and emotions contribute significantly to these dynamics, thus being rational in the context of societal benefit.

While emotions are not always rational in every context, individuals often evaluate and regulate their emotions through cognitive processes. This process involves understanding, interpreting, and, in many cases, controlling emotions to make reasoned decisions, which, again, aligns with the concept of rationality.

Quote

Quote from: Username on October 17, 2023, 03:42:01 PM

To give one example to this point - In many cases it simplified decision that would be life or death decisions - fear would be a great example of this. It is better to have a faster reaction time due to fear that something bad might happen as you will survive more often assuming something might be attacking you whether it is or isn't. If I am an animal in the wild and I think I see something but I'm not sure I should make the decision based on emotion to run or hide. If there wasn't anything there, fine no harm. If there was, I saved myself from death. As you can see this quickened the decision making by not determining rationally whether or not something could harm me and it was a rational way to go about it because of cost-risk evaluation.

The problem is when you then move out of that environment, without sufficient evolutionary pressure to change those emotions.
This results in people using emotional response for a complete different environment, which isn't rational at all.
This can lead to you making the wrong decisions and end up doing more harm than good.

Yes. However, that's not the point of the conversation at hand. Simply showing that emotions do not necessarily complicate and can augment rationality in certain scenarios is enough to make my argument. Obviously I am not advocating to use emotions as rationality in all situations at all times.

Even if it was the point you'd be wrong because this is mitigated by social-based strategies, cognitive strategies and learned behaviors.

For allegedly trying to show all the ways I am wrong, you certainly aren't doing a good job of it.
The point is that evolution doesn't care if it is rational or not.
Evolution only "cares" about having things go on to procreate.
And this can backfire, and is highly situational.
Emotions being a mechanism to enhance survival in specific situations, does not mean the emotions are rational. It does not mean emotions are a rational basis for making decisions.

The fact you need to change it from emotions being rational in the sense of making decisions, to conclude that someone's aims are nothing but nefarious; to emotions being useful for social interactions; shows just how hard it is to pretend emotions are rational.

And yes, that has everything to do with the point at hand.
The point is that emotions did not evolve in the context you are trying to use them.

Even using your example of fear and death.
There are plenty of situations where things being so different to where we evolved that such fear doesn't exist and people are overconfident and die; or conversely situations where there is no reason to be afraid, yet people can be paralysed with fear, with that potentially leading to their death.
Decisions made by emotions are not rational. Just like making decisions by flipping a coin.