It's on topic, as the most basic reason you are wrong on these kind of issues is that you deny complexity exists and prefer to think in simple, linear terms.
I gave you an example of a complex system (large organizations) in my previous post but you continue to claim that I deny complexity exists. Why do you think that repeating baseless claims is valid as debate?
This is why you think IQ = intelligence as well.
IQ has nothing to do with complex systems. If I'm wrong about this explain why. If you can supply a reason that makes sense, the readers of this thread will understand why you made that claim.
This way of thinking works in certain situations, but it has long been recognised in both the scientific and practical spheres that there are numerous situations in which such a way of thinking doesn't reflect the reality.
I won't ask you to support this claim because you can't possibly do it. It's just nonsense you fabricated.
Nope, not about 'randomness'.
Randomness and complexity are connected concepts. Here's a book on the topic:
The discrepancy method is the glue that binds randomness and complexity.
The Discrepancy Method
Every time you try to insist you understand it, you inadvertently prove you do not. Yet are absolutely certain that this area of scientific enquiry you don't understand, and admit you have no interest in trying to understand better is completely irrelevant.
You claim that you understand complexity theory better than me but you never get beyond that claim. It's my impression that you don't understand it at all because you think the theory applies to every topic we discuss. Then, you're unable to explain WHY it applies. For example, why do you think society is a system that will yield answers to complexity theory? How about offering an example or two of some discoveries about society resulting from complexity theory?
Ironic that you never miss an opportunity to disparage 'conservatives' as being stuck in outdated ways of thinking while steadfastly maintaining a 19th C view of the sciences and admit to being uninterested in challenging it based on new evidence.
Yet another unsupported claim. In the past, you have been able to make points that can be debated. But on the topic of complexity theory, all you've offered can be summed up in the claim that I don't know what I'm talking about but you do. That doesn't even qualify as juvenile debate.
Others argue that inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. In particular, ecologist Robert Ulanowicz says that science must develop techniques to study ways in which larger scales of organization influence smaller ones, and also ways in which feedback loops create structure at a given level, independently of details at a lower level of organization. He advocates (and uses) information theory as a framework to study propensities in natural systems.[23] Ulanowicz attributes these criticisms of reductionism to the philosopher Karl Popper and biologist Robert Rosen.[24]
Stuart Kauffman has argued that complex systems theory and phenomena such as emergence pose limits to reductionism.[25] Emergence is especially relevant when systems exhibit historicity.[26] Emergence is strongly related to nonlinearity.[27] The limits of the application of reductionism are claimed to be especially evident at levels of organization with greater complexity, including living cells,[28] neural networks, ecosystems, society, and other systems formed from assemblies of large numbers of diverse components linked by multiple feedback loops.[28][29]
What point have you made by quoting people on topics unrelated to our discussion? Were they intended to imply that you have expertise on the topic of complexity theory?
As noted, any time you try to discuss complex systems, you prove you don't understand what they are in the most basic sense.
Yes, you've posted this opinion many times. You really need to suck it up and realize that your opinions don't qualify as debate no matter how highly you value them.
If what you say above is 'true', then either Complex Systems (in the scientific sense) don't exist, or the brain is not a complex system. Which is it?
Your statement is a false dichotomy since you don't allow the possibility that a complex system (in the scientific sense) might include simple functions.
There are no 'simple' plain or pleasure functions in the brain that can be understood in isolation. There are numerous, complex interconnected systems that we only have a limited understanding of, especially regarding their interactions.
So, you deny my simple explanation because it's simple, something you understand. And, you've made up your mind that the brain is too complex to be understood except by complexity theory which you're read about.
The parts of the brain that evolved to deal with 'morality', co-evolved with those to deal with navigating coalitions, maximising our chances at reproduction, other self-interest and countless other biological functions.
Agreed. Morality is probably associated with survival.
Why can we assume that? Given the co-evolution of many different, interconnected brain functions, why should we assume without any evidence that 'morality' always wins the day?
We should accept conscience (moral intuition) as our guide because it's probably also a guide to the survival of our species, because it's the only moral guide we have, and because we are rewarded with contentment when we do.
We know that numerous brain functions deal with self-deception, and that self-deception confers evolutionary advantage. From long experience, we know humans easily believe that which is beneficial to them is 'right'.
Your meaning isn't clear. Can you offer examples of self-deception that offers evolutionary advantage, please.
As for people who believe that what is beneficial to them is right, we don't value their opinion on morality because they are biased. That's why we use unbiased people to make these judgments in courtrooms worldwide.
Why should we assume it is impossible for one of the other competing functions of our brain to override our 'morality'?
Two bodily functions performing the same task in competition? It doesn't happen.
Why should we assume 'morality' is unconnected to any other brain function and can be understood in isolation?
Moral judgments are a combination of intuition and reason, each performing specific tasks. The final judgment in most cases is intuitive, but that's reason's job in moral dilemmas.
Why should we assume the perfect predictability of a complex system based on incomplete evidence?
We have only one system to aid us in discerning right from wrong and fair from unfair. We have to assume it's correct because we have no other moral authority to compete with it.