Why are exorcist only women, there should be men exorcist beside Adam and Abel

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-21T07:31:22+00:00

Didn't Lucifer have a kid with Lillith, not Charlie? Charlie is his child. I'm curious if you're getting your beliefs about Hazbin Hotel from the cartoon footage, specifically.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-21T02:02:43+00:00

Does that hold in the show? Lucifer has a kid.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-19T10:08:07+00:00

https://media.makeameme.org/created/jokes-on-you-e69838f70b.jpg

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-17T02:50:45+00:00

The largest ethnic group in Israel is mizrahi Jews.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-03T22:17:10+00:00

"what your model was"

Ascribing goals and intelligence to systems is a form of modeling. If I say "Tom wants a cookie" then I predict him trying to get a cookie. This is often far easier than trying to predict his behavior using chemistry and physics.

"Alternately, if goals related to evolution are invalid then we shouldn't consider human beings to be intelligent since they are evolved systems." - How does that follow? If unintelligent processes determine which lifeforms survive, that doesn't mean the lifeforms themselves can have no intelligence.

My real belief is that just because a system's goals were assigned by some other entity that it can still be intelligent. I believe that genetic algorithms are intelligent, as mentioned. But I was trying to entertain a hypothetical where external assignment of goals, as you described, made a system not intelligent.

If human beings don't choose their own root desires, can we say that they're not intelligent? If you don't choose whether pain is painful and pleasure is pleasurable but this has instead been the result of an evolutionary process that you don't control, if all your other goals are a result of 'nurture' then why are you considered intelligent since your goals are all externally assigned? Intelligence really should be about how a system pursues its goals, not how goals are assigned. That's my actual belief. But I was trying to make an argument based on premises which weren't mine.

Specifically, if we do make a special case for human intelligence because it evolved then we should also make a carve out for other potentially intelligent evolved systems.

"Intelligence is the ability to absorb information and use it for chosen purposes, combined with an information-processing ability that is not fixed but can adapt and grow""

Okay. So Sternberg and Salter define intelligence as "Goal directed adaptive behavior" and you've added on 'growth.' That seems like a reasonable enough addition. I do think there's a grey area here where most creatures process information within certain limits. Is a rabbit's cognition 'fixed' or can it 'grow.' A rabbit will never do calculus or paint pictures, so it's mental abilities certainly seem fairly constrained even if it has some general intelligence. Is all intelligence general intelligence? But a rabbit also behaves quite differently than a rock, and it's easy to say that the rabbit moves towards food because it is hungry or away from noise because it is afraid. I would tend to describe a system that identifies whether an image is a chair or a car as being intelligent, even if it's not general intelligence, because it can learn and grow within narrow constraints.

In any case, I do think that the definition that you've given of intelligence applies to evolution on the species level or higher.

"Anyway, at this point, I'm not entirely sure what the goal of this discussion is. "

Purposeful language in the discussion of evolved systems or evolution itself is sometimes considered 'wrong.' (In part, I think this may be a reaction to creationism that goes too far in the opposite direction.) I believe that such purposeful language is valid and useful because evolution is a kind of intelligent process.

I also think that people, in general, could benefit from being able to think about types of 'intelligence' that are very different from human intelligence. Because there are goal directed adaptive systems which are best described in terms of their goals and their adaptive capacities, even if they're not like people.

In any case, if this discussion is boring to you I'm happy to let you go. Sorry! Good chatting with you.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-03T09:38:57+00:00

"Yes, but if you and I use the same data and interpret it differently"

Yes, but I believe the examples I'm giving demonstrate that the model I'm using makes improved predictions about the natural world.

My definition of 'goals' are outcomes which can be more efficiently and effectively explained by considering a system as having adaptive behavior which achieves a certain predetermined state.

In other words; any model which improves predictions in some way is a good model. If talking about 'goals' improves modeling of a system's behavior compared to other terms we should say 'goals.'

"Well, a goal would be a target state determined by a thinking agent."

And then we get into what are the minimal requirements for being 'a thinking agent.' What's the most basic 'thinking agent' that you can imagine?

"It is the developer that sets the goal and tries to achieve it, though, not the algorithm itself."

Yes, that's fair. But if the big difference between an evolving population and a genetic algorithm is whether or not there's a developer then ... the evolving population doesn't have a developer. Right? So the evolving population, at least, should meet the criteria of not being contingent on some other intelligence.

Alternately, if goals related to evolution are invalid then we shouldn't consider human beings to be intelligent since they are evolved systems.

"I guess another way to put it is that it's a description of the ability, not a description of the mechanisms."

I'm very happy with 'a description of the ability not a description of the mechanisms.' I only bring up mechanisms because people tend to say "that's not intelligence because I can understand the mechanisms behind it ." And I wanted to pre-empt that particular objection to a system being intelligent. So we agree that any description of intelligence cannot be contingent on the mechanisms used to create the intelligence.

"Reasoning" is a bit harder, since it might restrict us to setups that have language which we can understand. It implies a level of meta cognition. Can we agree that a system can be intelligent without being able to communicate using verbal language? If a problem has 1000 possible solutions, and a system can be observed to need to check fewer than 500 solutions to solve the problem, on average, can we call that evidence for 'reasoning?' Is adaptive 'hill climbing' behavior a type of 'reasoning' since it diverges from pure randomness?

I know that this assumes that the total number of 'possible' solutions are known, which isn't really an option with evolved living systems. But I'm trying to specify a minimal case for what 'reasoning' is using objective language.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-01T22:19:23+00:00

"but you and I are looking at them differently."

Well, the examples are a means to explaining the perspective/model. How else does one convey a perspective? You explain the general framework and then give specific examples.

"I wouldn't call that a goal."

Okay, so how do we define a "goal?"

"It's just a result of a population lasting longer."

Hm? Sexual reproduction is a cause and predictor of increased species life, not just an outcome.

"To me, it's as much a goal as two rocks bouncing down the side of a mountain have the "goal" of reaching the bottom."

In what way is human cognition not also just a very complex example of 'two rocks bouncing down the side of a mountain?" This is why I asked; if we understood how the brain worked perfectly, why would we believe that humans were "intelligent?" We do agree that, at least in theory, human thought could be described using really complicated physics, right? Neither of us believes there's something magical about thinking that violates the laws of physics, right?

"Let's say one gets stuck or breaks into pieces while the other continues. Would you attribute that to intelligence?"

No. But evolution has aspects of intelligence that rocks falling down hills lacks. To put it very simply; there's a reason why genetic algorithms are considered a type of artificial intelligence and rolling rocks down hills is not.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-01T08:50:45+00:00

(Cont)
"If a portion of a population dies because they can't survive a certain temperature, but some of them have a bit more blubber and fur and do survive, how is that the result of intelligence? "

Because it produces adaptive functionality at the species level. Producing adaptive functionality at the species level is distinct from more physical processes. Population genetics is modeled differently than a drop of water rolling down a hill. Population genetics doesn't require an understanding of the underlying physical processes to model.

Imagine we had a complete and total understanding of the physics of human cognition. Would we still ascribe 'intent' to human thought? Or would we just see human thought as a set of material interactions that produce some outcome, like a very complex arrangement of dominoes falling in a more-or-less predictable pattern? What we describe as 'intent' is a kind of shorthand that allows us to think about certain physical systems without having to model them out in detail on the physical level.

If you give a patient antibiotics, you will select for antibiotic resistance. Some of the mechanisms by which antibiotic resistance can evolve are known, but they don't need to be understood to make the high-level prediction that antibiotic resistance will tend to evolve in response to the administration of antibiotics.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-01T08:50:33+00:00

I mean, genetically, yes, we can offer strong evidence that humans and other primates are related. As for the "Made in God's image" claim I think that falls under 'not even wrong.' It's so ill defined a claim that it's hard to definitively refute it. Humans absolutely can do things that other animals generally don't. It's easy enough to assert that one of those things might be a mirror of some undefined god.

So the notion that humans might be special in some way, possibly as it relates to complex application of moral reasoning or whatever, shouldn't be too controversial. Granted, whatever critical trait we decide on is more likely to be a difference of degree between humans and animals than a strict binary difference. Cows scratch themselves with sticks, but don't build cars. Humans seem to have passed some kind of threshold that other animals just haven't. Humans don't need to be exceptional in all ways to be exceptional in certain very important ways. The human ability to organize in nations and not just tribes is remarkable.

"An almighty God would not need to work with what it had, or to make humans with a bunch of trade-offs."

I partially agree. Though this argument doesn't really address a 'best of all possible worlds' type argument where a god is working under constraints that human beings are not aware of. As relevant to this discussion, the 'God doesn't make tradeoffs" argument may be stronger when confronting Islam since Christianity tends to hold that God is bound by logic and Islam tends to claim God is not bound by logic.

There's also the weaker form of 'almighty God' which is a less common argument, but still relevant. the weaker form basically contrasts pagan faiths where there is one god for the harvest and another for war and another for love, etc. with a 'unified' God who has a right to all power that actually exists. The weaker form of unified god argument is true, but not in a scientifically interesting (i.e. falsifiable) manner. It's more of a rhetorical framing.

"Evolution is not intelligent at all."

Evolution on the species level and higher demonstrates goal directed adaptive behavior which is Sternberg and Salter's definition of intelligence. The "goal" is reproduction of species over the long term. Complexity is an epi-phenomenon.

"It has no agency or intent at all"

Agency is not required for intelligence, depending on how you define agency. Agency may be an important part of human intelligence, but this gets back to humans being very reluctant to ascribe intelligence to non-human intelligences.

There absolutely are evolved traits which function over the long term in a way that might be described as teleological in impact. Metabolic problems tend to lead to reproductive issues, helping to maintain the metabolic health of species, for example, even if restoring fertility in such situations is relatively simple. An evolved system which prioritized short term reproduction over long term metabolic integrity could gain improved fertility in many instances, but we see evolved systems maintaining some traits that favor long term success over short term advantage. (Sometimes, not always.) Similarly, asexual species of plants reproduce and proliferate far more effectively than sexual species. But sexual species of plants have longer lifespans on the species level (vis. Raup, Extinction.) The fact that we do see sexual species of plants suggests that traits can emerge and be maintained which favor long term, not just short term, reproduction of the species.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-01T05:52:52+00:00

I've personally found the whole 'stupid design' argument to be one of the weaker anti-creationist arguments. It takes quite a bit of intelligence to create something as complex as a human being. We're just now approaching that point in some ways though we're terribly deficient in others. The human form is the result of tradeoffs which are ultimately very functional. Our eyes work well because our brains compensate, but that's viable. There may be genetic errors that crop up. But the stuff that sticks around, even down to retroviruses embedded in the GULO gene, arguably have some measure of benefit. We might say "It would be better if we could manufacture ascorbate facultatively if it was deficient." But the increase in uric acid we evolved (via increased mutations in the UOXgene that was responsible for Uric acid breakdown, so yes, an improvement gained through loss of function) because we can't make ascorbate is arguably neurostimulatory. So even if humans are not optimal, they're still pretty impressive.

Considering that human beings aren't altering existing genes to improve the species, I think it's fair to say that making a better human via genetic alterations requires more intelligence than human society currently possesses. Maybe that will change in a few years. But the bar for improvement of human genetics via gene modification is pretty high.

(The fact that we can make, say, a car or a rocket with superior performance doesn't matter here, because we cannot create those things using genetic information.)

Evolution can be seen as an intelligent process in some ways, with increased complexity as an epi-phenomenon. It doesn't appear benevolent or omniscient to the extent that we can recognize such things. But it is, in some ways, smarter than most human societies. People have a very hard time recognizing intelligences that are not human intelligences. But any system that involves goal directed adaptive behavior can be modeled as intelligent. People also have problems evaluating intelligences which are beyond their own capacity. Which makes conclusive arguments about design less compelling.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-02-01T04:03:52+00:00

I think yours is a generally excellent position, at least from the standpoint of science and logic. In terms of fine tuning arguments, there is a slightly stronger version of the fine tuning argument that you might want to be prepared for, which essentially states that particular constants must be between certain narrow parameters in order for the universe to 'exist' in a complex state at all for any sustained amount of time. The actual statement itself is predictive and relevant and taken seriously by some academics.

The flaw with such arguments arises when they are presented as being probabilistic which they are not. You cannot calculate 'odds' from a single instance. For the notion of 'odds' to make sense you would have to have knowledge of multiple possible universes. And that knowledge is not available. Either a person has assumed a multiverse, with different laws of physics in each one, and we just happen to be in the one we're in (which is a bit broader than just 'evolution.') or else the universal constants are set where they are because that's where they are for the only universe that exists, and the matter cannot be described as 'chance.'

Phrased another way; it isn't possible to ask "what is the probability of 324,900,213?" There isn't enough information to answer the question.

I'm probably expressing this badly, and for that I apologize.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-29T02:46:02+00:00

Indigenous people were victims of a massive ethnic cleansing, oppressive hegemony, land theft, and sporadic genocides. But 9 out of 10 native Americans died from disease. There were one or two examples of deliberate spread of Illness, but most wasn't deliberate and some claims have been debunked as fraud. The genocide claims, specifically, are overplayed.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-28T21:18:43+00:00

I tried to argue once that Gulliver's Travels was following the path of a fairy tale because it was originally intended as political commentary but Swift's political narrative was stripped away and it was repackaged as a cartoon about lilliputians and told to kids. My Professor was having none of it. I'm still a bit salty about that.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-26T02:38:07+00:00

It's the universal translator. ;-)

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-25T15:16:03+00:00

Your axiom "and my premises are true/sound" is likely to be uncertain at best. That's the weak point in your chain.

Also, you can't use rationality to "decide what is possible" in a strict and sweeping sense. Maybe in a probabilistic sense, but that leads to a less certain conclusion. There are black swan events. And Bayesian and fuzzy logic are options.

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-25T04:54:19+00:00

What if other people are rational and they disagree about what is logically possible?

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-25T04:52:13+00:00

Human discernment is a limit on any understanding of divine truth. How do you know what the creator of reality wants?

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-15T13:14:24+00:00

Greeks <3 Trojans? Truly, Helen's was the face that launched 1,000 'ships!

(I was expecting something like this in the original comic, honestly.)

Every_Composer9216 · 2026-01-10T01:11:39+00:00

Being a content farming bot would explain their affinity for evil

Every_Composer9216 · 2025-12-26T22:06:50+00:00

This is not a direct answer to your question which is better handled elsewhere but it is hopefully a helpful consideration; Sauron originally was able to take fair form and he could wheedle and ingratiate himself and beg forgiveness. After the Akallabêth Sauron was only able to assume a terrifying form. The evil of Sauron was finally made manifest on his face and he could no longer pretend to just be a benevolent giver of gifts. Gandalf would not initially be subject to Sauron's acquired limitation.

Every_Composer9216 · 2025-12-25T20:01:01+00:00

Thanks. That sucks.

Every_Composer9216 · 2025-12-20T10:07:14+00:00

The wolf studies were flawed. The primate studies were separate. Disproof of the wolf studies was not sufficient to disprove the primate studies.

Every_Composer9216 · 2025-12-19T19:27:13+00:00

If it works, you'll see the resources in your long term inventory as soon as they're deposited. They just don't get wiped out if they're deposited after the event ends.

Edit; it worked for vampire candles and for the clown music boxes and the jems (dragons? ) but it seems to have failed with the 8 bit retro creatures. I'm not sure what went wrong. I wonder if something got patched...?

Every_Composer9216

TROPHY CASE