>>24001But fuck it, even though I'll be met with a peanut gallery retard who can only type one word (like the subhuman retard they are) and a mentally ill case of the dunning-kruger effect who is a contender for the most obstinate human being to ever live (Eugene), I'll point out the issues in this 'rebuttal', just so there's no cope that I was bluffing, or whatever.
Let's illustrate how Eugene oversteps his boundaries (as always) to 'challenge' a field he has no qualifications or understanding towards.
"You mean pseudoscience that has no bearing on what "life" meant to be a sensical proposition. If you declare "all is life", that is a religious koan, not an argument that tells us anything about life. Systems generally are not living systems, nor is life fundamentally defined as a "system" necessarily. The living entity may not have a "systemic" existence to be supposed, and only afterwards is a "systemic" existence surmised because it would be quite impossible to describe a thing without a "system" of some sort. Life at a basic level is not the "thing" but the functions it carries out, which are necessarily forceful events in the world rather than "informational" ones. Even if the force of the living thing is very faint, it is still a force that operates on its own power, rather than "simulated life" where the forceful representation is entirely symbolic and only exists as "life" because there is an interpreter of this information observing life-like behavior. It is the movement of the life-form that is "life" rather than its being or essence, and life is not any movement or the lingering nervous activity of a lump that was once living. Life is a very particular proposition about those functions.
Ecology in its entirety is contrary to life. It has no place in the genuine study whatsoever, and that was its purpose; to forestall basic knowledge about life and how to properly model living systems for as long as possible, retarding human thought, possibly forever."
>you mean pseudoscienceAlready he arbitrarily makes this assumption, even though DST satisfies all requirements of an actual science whilst also testing its own theoretics. Biology in the context cited (DST), is less concerned with ecologically at an intrinsic level and more concerned with biological functions and their development in a broader context. Any associations with ecology are purely incidental, as ramifications thereafter, not primary to the field's empirics.
>that has no bearing on what "life" meant to be a sensical propositionSource: Eugene's own mind. No substantiation, just a classic, overly-arrogant blanket statement. It wouldn't even be a 'sensical proposition' at this stage, anyways.
>if you declare 'all is life'Noone ever said this, this is you presuming a strawman and then proceeding to attack the equivalent of your own mind. DST, the field you're referencing here, never claims this. This is you revealing that you don't have any knowledge of the subject matter or field at hand, because you've conceptually mischaracterized its representation based on an a priori strawman which has no relation to the actuality of the field's contents. But even following through with your own strawman/conditional, the next part fails too:
>that is a religious koan, not an argument that tells us anything about lifeThis being 'religious' in nature would not dispel it away from the category of 'argument', nor would it automatically foreclose the notion of being able to discern, through principles of reason, what life qualitatively consists of and is. You have, once again, in eternal Eugene fashion, taken certain arbitrary, myopic assertions which underscore the self-referential heart of your own worldview to be axiomatic and accepted as a given truth, even though you have presented no such justification thereof. What's more, the statement 'all is life', though capable of religious cross-reference, is not inherently religious in its ontology or logic. But even if it were, this wouldn't invalidate anything, inherently. DST's claim as to the status of life is resolutely agnostic, by the way. Again, it is concerned with investigation of the functionality of various organisms in a more totalized web of relations at the level of development, this type of investigation can be conducted via things like Gene expression. The theory merely concerns the integration of sources of development. Now, Euegene will predictably take this statement and rhetorize it with more conjecture, but luckily for reality, within the field we have a wellspring of testable premises and corresponding results, not mere conceptualization.
>systems generally are not living systems, nor is life fundamentally defined as a 'system' necessarily.DST doesn't claim that a system, as a concept, is intrinsically alive. Why do you insist on speaking with such a matter-of-fact, authoritative tone, when, to anyone who isn't a part of the retarded peanut gallery, it's blatantly self-incriminating? You are once again exposing your lack of knowledge with regards to the thing you felt SO EAGERLY INCLINED to jump on, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING JACK SHIT ABOUT IT. Just more conjecture in place of understanding. But even then, integration of systematic analysis with regards to life would not surrender to your statement, as, at its most abstracted level, the concept of a 'system' is merely descriptive, relationally to life, and is thusly integrated in the category as a facet of it, even if it is not individually reducible to comprise the overall definition of 'life'.
>The living entity may not have a 'systemic existence to be supposedSource: Eugene's conjecture/arrogant asshole, yet again. You cannot describe something in a way which is apart from a systemic correspondence because to do so would denote its presence in a vacuum, which would be fine in the context of a thought experiment, but unfortunately for you, in reality, nothing exists in a vacuum. That you can individuate the identity of various processes as a kind of cognitive consequence of the encounter with an object, does not mean that they cease to engender further dimensionality and relations.
>and only afterwards is a systemic existence surmised because it would be quite impossible to describe a thing without a system of some sort.Gee, I wonder why that might be… And again, before you rhetorize, no, the answer really is as simple as anyone's intuition would indicate: Entrance into reality necessitates systemic involvement. Your autism, Eugene, will again assume here that something being 'systemic' in any capacity must usher in eugenics, but this is little more than a phantasm of your own reflexive pathology. There is nothing inherently eugenicist about systemization, just because some Germans conceived of it in a particular way and this has somehow left you permanently mortified, does not subtract from objectivity. The description 'thereafter' is not experienced 'thereafter' so much as it is encountered immediately, at the more primordial level of base-experience itself, and from this the description follows merely as an artefact of the antecedent truth, which was already rendered self-apparent at the level of first-order-experience. That cause and effect even observably exists at all is testament to systemic integration. Your ontology would presuppose a kind of windowless set of monads, which would ironically land you in a much more idealist position than any empirical matter would. Nothing is 'surmised' here unless you want to play the role of a person you hate, I.e. Kant, and start fantasizing about some noumenal state of existence which is made exceptional for specific object-interactions, so as to exclude any possibility of systematization. Otherwise, in reality-land, things inextricably interact and interface with one another; this is all a system fundamentally is, latter prescriptions are an error that nobody here was ever originally advocating for, least of all DST (which you chide as 'pseudoscience', despite very blatantly possessing only cursory level understanding of it)–the description simply follows from the empirically apparent experience.
Supposition is irrelevant here, unless you wish to play the role of the Kantian.
>Life at a basic level is not the 'thing', but the functions it carries out, which are necessarily forceful events in the world rather than informational onesIn order to define life by the referent of its functions, i.e. its activity, you CONTRADICT YOURSELF, as this necessitates generalized object status as now entailing the status of life. An effect is doesn't cease to count as a 'thing' just because it doesn't have noumenal distinction; a phenomenal process which is an 'effect' is still categorically a 'thing' in a trivial sense, with the thing being the effect in-itself. The 'basic level' isn't relevant to the demarcation here, because this level is, ironically enough, only retroactively surmised (and to surmise is, as per your own logic, untenable, so you've contradicted yourself once more)–otherwise, if the basic level is merely a non-thing, it would remain inert. Its actionability must necessarily refer through it, and thus, integrate and incorporate into it, and in order for this to be compatible, it must firstly possess an innate means by which to register as viable, and thus, it cannot be removed from demarcation–it must necessarily constitute itself as the effective thing.
>which are necessarily forceful events in the world rather than 'informational ones'An event does not exist without information; you parse information as being purely the reflection of cognitive interfacing, yet this preconceives a kind of atomistic prior form laden upon all things–such a notion of pure antecedence is incoherent given that you would have to effectually presuppose in such a way as to transcend your faculties altogether. Information is contained in an event, and received thereafter. It is not that our reception and comprehension of information is an artefact borne out of cognitive consequentiality, rather, it is a cognitive permission which relates to the revealing of that which already transpired, as evinced by the empirical activity of the objects constituting a given causal event; even if we were not capable of receiving any of this, the information would still exist as content, as testability evinces–our reception is merely our comprehension of the things innate intelligibility (or lack thereof), but information as a core term serves as an index of content. Forceful events also have to occur and derive from and according to something. To posit otherwise is total mysticism, and is more pseudoscientific than anything.
>Even if the force of the living thing is very faint, it is still a force that operates on its own power, rather than simulated lifeThis is literally so tautological as to border on meaningless. It in no way addresses DST or anything holistic other than to observe that there is a self-generative means by which force actualizes, although you have offered no conceptualization of how this process occurs in a vacuum, you've just operationally taken for granted your own assumption which, again, hinges on a kind of atomistic mysticism without any empirical substantiation. From here, at most, you can surmise 'something moves'. Big whoop. This challenges nothing and really says next to nothing.
>rather than the simulated forceful representation being entirely symbolic and only existing as 'life' because there is an interpreter of this information observing life-like behaviorExcept, by your OWN standards there is no such thing as this behavior which wouldn't violate your previous statement, i.e. forceful action being purely and exclusively defined as life would mean that it is phenomenally symbolic and contingent upon interpretation–i.e. the very thing you're now attempting to discredit! All attempts at defining life will bode symbolic registration, to do otherwise would be to exist outside of language and cognition. You are more or less masturbating over the notion of observing that which you would have to paradoxically maintain as 'tainted by' the observer. If you mean to concern yourself with the empirical veracity of the matter beyond such signifiers, i.e. the category as a point of noumenal contention, then, for one thing, DST would still not be at odds with you here (you know, the thing you cast aside as 'pseudoscience', despite it not existing in relevant antinomy to much of what you're ranting about), but moreover, nothing about the forceful representation was rendered as symbolic by anything other than where your own standards would leave. You seem to be confused that because certain descriptors are attached in a posteriori manner, that this warps them to the status of 'symbolic', but this is obviously untrue as such descriptions are mere storages of actually existing processes, processes which would have to be immanently and innately endemic to any physicality according to your own nebulous definition about the non-essence of pure functionality, especially given your earlier statement about 'the force's own power'. There does not need to exist a discrete monad in order for verifiable properties to emanate from the correspondences and attributes of various forms within and beyond nature.
And this would apply just as thoroughly and pertinently to the 'movement of the life form rather than being or essence' part you typed up, as well. What's more, this rejection of reducibility-to-essence in no way contradicts DST, in fact, it ACTIVELY COMPLIMENTS IT YOU FUCKING PSEUD. The presence of particulars does not mean a reducibility to their essentialization, it only needs to mean the provision of things-as-effects and effects-as-things, operating in causal interrelations which are themselves constitutive of both forms and outwardly expressed, empirical content, by way of objects manifesting in an animate function within the real world, i.e. living matter, the likes of which needn't even hold contradictory to your own description, if only you could conceptualize beyond atomism (in the philosophical sense of the term). The issue isn't the movement of life-form itself, it's your restrictiveness with regards to what would conceptually register therein, a restrictiveness which doesn't demarcate against its own intrinsic contradictions and which doesn't substantiate its own grounding, least of all empirically.
>ecology in its entirety is contrary to lifeAs a literalist 'word'? Yes, it's just a word. As far as its actual conception of life? No, ecology is not about stultifying the means of life down to strictly algebraic essences, i.e. >to forestall basic knowledge about life and how to properly model living systems
(again, 'basic knowledge about life' is just taken for granted as being whatever Eugene conjecturally instills in our 'understanding', once again just more vague inanity bereft of substance. Living systems? You were opposed to the notion moments ago. 'Properly' according to your standards would consist of speculative gawking as to whichever phenomena unfolds as an event before our eyes. Ecology doesn't need to provide a perfectly mathematized version of reality in order to relate to the nature of life and remark observationally upon it, such matters are themselves the only sufficiency to accounting for any kind of model. You don't even know what Dark Ecology is, ffs, Eugene. It explicitly advocates for non-essence, for contingencies and a reading 'inbetween' of life's processes so as to realize that which delimits life in nature, by way of its actual processes! So arrogant yet ignorant. Definitionally, ecology only concerns these sorts of relations, and the term of 'life' arises as an aftereffect which was already carried in the nature of forms within the world; empiricism merely reveals this to us in readymade retrospect. But that which was prior to our observation was already actual. Your aversion to the inelastic type of ecology is specific to an outmoded English romanticist school of thought, and your opposition is therefore so outdated that it doesn't even relate to the ORIGINAL TWO THINGS YOU CALLED PSEUDOSCIENCE.
DST AND DARK ECOLOGY INVERT AGAINST MANY OF ROMANTIC ECOLOGY'S PREMISES, WHILST STILL BELONGING TO THE SCHOOL OF ECOLOGY. READ A FUCKING BOOK.