Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 120 of 203 (668810)
07-24-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jon
07-22-2012 7:10 PM


Trying to summarize
Jon writes:
But what can you offer to back up your suggestions? Where are the tests you use to figure out jar's unconscious motives?
How can you tell when jar is pushing a cart back into the building solely to the benefit of others from when he is pushing it back for his own unconscious selfish motives?
What test do you use?
I believe that what you are asking of Modulous is exactly what Modulous is asking of jar.
Here's what I see (also using "noble" in place of "selfless" and "bad" in place of "selfish" for my own sanity in comprehension):
Fact 1 -> People have conscious motivations that they are aware of, or become of aware of through reflection.
Fact 2 -> People have unconscious motivations that they are unaware of and may not be able to become aware of.
Mod -> It is possible for someone to have a noble conscious motivation, while also having a bad unconscious motivation.
jar -> I only have noble motivations.
Mod -> How do you test for unconscious motivations? How do you know you never have a bad one, even if all your conscious motivations are noble? I mean.. it's unconscious...
Jon -> Hey Mod... how are you testing for unconscious motivations? How do know you know if they're good or bad?
Mod -> Um.... I don't know, I'm wondering how jar's claiming to know.
I don't really see how anyone can be arguing with what Modulous is saying here. He seems to just be stating that possibilities exist and we don't seem to know which are affecting us at any given time.
Am I missing something? Do people seem to think that "Fact 2" is not a fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:10 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 07-24-2012 3:53 PM Stile has replied
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:56 PM Stile has replied
 Message 124 by jar, posted 07-24-2012 4:09 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 137 of 203 (668860)
07-25-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by nwr
07-24-2012 3:53 PM


Terminology Sucks
nwr writes:
I suggest other terms (such as "psychological drive") for what is not conscious.
I agree that the terminology can be misleading if we do not constantly remind ourselves that when we talk about "selfish genes" we're talking about a thing that has no brain and therefore cannot have a conscious motivation. Maybe it was to help selling the book (Dawkins'), maybe it makes sense if you discuss this sort of thing all the time. I don't know, I'm just trying to use the language setup from the beginning of this thread:
GDR quoting Dawkins in the OP writes:
Dawkins wrote that genes behave as if they are selfish but in his book The Selfish Gene he writes:
quote:
we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents. Blind natural selection, however, makes them behave rather is if they were purposeful, and it has been convenient as a shorthand, to refer to genes in the language of purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 07-24-2012 3:53 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 138 of 203 (668862)
07-25-2012 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 3:56 PM


Difficult to read
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think that's true but his further explanation only confused me and made less sense.
I agree that things have been less than fully clear regarding exlanations in this thread. It's a difficult concept to keep straight. Especially given the terminology and trying to differentiate between selfish conscious motives and selfish unconscious motives/drives. In the second unconscious variety, the word "selfish" doesn't really mean the same as it does when discussing actual conscious motives. Equivocation here is extremely difficult to avoid (especially accidentally), and I believe it's been at the root of much of the confusion.
Plus, I also find it hard to distinguish between the multiple various uses of "selfish" and "selfless"... the words are simlpy too similar-looking and I have to read uncomfortably slowly in order to understand who's trying to talk about what at which particular time.
Understaning context in this thread has been challenging :]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 145 of 203 (668879)
07-25-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
07-24-2012 4:09 PM


Re: Trying to summarize
jar writes:
but my point is that as a human I am charged to at least try to do what is right and not simply fall back on "memes" or "depraved on account of I'm deprived" or "The Fall" or "Original Sin" or any other label.
I agree, and this is a good point. (But I also think no one is arguing with you about this particular point).
There are things that are influenced by unconscious acts, by upbringing, by factors out of someone's control, even by genetics, but motives are a conscious act and under someones control. The behaviors I mentioned are conscious acts and under my control. I can determine what the motives for those acts are.
Yes, "motives" (as generally discussed) are. However, the point being discussed here goes something like this:
Facts:
1. Cells evolve.
2. Cells do actions in order to continue their replication.
3. Animals are evolved and are made of cells.
4. Animals do actions in order to continue their replication (I'm going to call these "instincts" as I think that term better represents what we're talking about).
5. Humans are animals.
Therefore, humans are also evolved and made from cells.
Therefore, humans also have instincts.
6. Humans are intelligent enough to have a conscious mind that can reflect upon and sometimes even override our instincts.
Summary of ideas:
Humans have instincts.
Humans have a conscious mind.
Sometimes humans are not consciously aware of the impact their instincts may have on their actions.
When we do an action, it may be because we've consciously decided to, or because of our instincts, or some combination of both.
A - It may be possible for an action to be 100% instinct and 0% conscious, but this is currently unknown.
B - It may be possible for an action to be 0% instinct and 100% conscious, but this is currently unknown.
C - It may be impossible for any action to be 100% instinct and 0% conscious... therefore all human actions would involve some level of conscious motivation, but this is currently unknown.
D - It may be impossible for any action to be 0% instinct and 100 % conscious... therefore all human actions would invove some level of instinctual driver, but this is currently unknown.
Currently, it is impossible to "know" how much of our actions' motivations/drivers are based on our conscious decisions or our instincts.
Obviously, Dawkins has labelled "instincts" as "selfish genes." Dawkins likely is doing this from taking facts 1 to 5 above and saying that doing actions for the sake of replication is a "selfish act." I'm trying to be careful not to equivocate by simply using the term "instinct."
Mod's position seems to be that he agrees with the above statements (A-D), yet it is his opinion (that is, he accepts that he has no evidence) that D is absolutely true and, therefore, that B is absolutely false. It should also be pointed out that even if D is true and B is false, people can still be "100% altruistic" if their conscious motivations account for such. We simply need to remember that there is a certain amount of equivocation going on when Dawkins steals the term "selfish" and applies it to genes.
Your position seems to be that you already know that C is absolutely true and, therefore, that A is absolutely false. I think Mod has been asking you to provide evidence for such an assertion of knowledge.
If this is true, or if you disagree with the bolded statement under ideas A-D, I would also be interested in learning the basis for this knowledge you seem to claim to have.
Or, possibly, you also agree with ideas A-D and are simply expressing your opinion that C is absolutely true and A is absolutely false? This would be very understandable with how difficult it is to discuss this issue around the equivocation of the term "selfish" when used with instincts. (Taking the general meaning of the term "selfish", it is impossible for instincts to be selfish as they do not think or have any conscious aspect.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 07-24-2012 4:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 2:04 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 147 of 203 (668881)
07-25-2012 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by GDR
07-24-2012 8:28 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
GDR writes:
Would you agree if it was phrased this way? Out of the selfish genes of our birth we can become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
I would.
We need to remember the equivocation that is going on with Dawkins' use of the term "selfish genes." If we keep the general definition of the word "selfish" as we usually use it in every day life, it is absolutely impossible to have a "selfish gene." The term simply doesn't make sense (it's an oxymoron) since we are taking a word that implies conscious behaviour and applying it to something that has no consciousness.
When Dawkins says "selfish genes" he's talking about the processes and chemical reactions that occur within our bodies that are simply out of our control. A closer more general term would be "animal instincts." And, if we rephrase your statement with this in mind we get:
Out of the animal instincts of our birth we can become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
And, since we all know humans have intelligence which allows us to reflect upon and even sometimes override our animal instincts... this is obviously a simple and true statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 07-24-2012 8:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 2:28 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 2:33 PM Stile has replied
 Message 150 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 2:49 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 07-25-2012 5:01 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 151 of 203 (668890)
07-25-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by jar
07-25-2012 2:04 PM


Instincts and Consciousness
jar writes:
Maybe you should stop trying to state what my position is.
Maybe. But I don't think I will. I like to try and understand what other people are talking about when they are vague. One of the best ways to do that is for me to say what I think they mean and see if it's anywhere close to what they actually mean. Stopping that and simply imagining what it is you're trying to say without any further input from you seems... inefficient.
In the examples I have mentioned I believe that it is 100% possible to determine if my motive for those particular examples is 100% conscious because I do not always behave the same way. When I do not behave the same way I can also determine why I behaved differently.
If you simply believe that this is true, then I don't see any reason to argue. I do have some questions, though:
When I do not behave the same way I can also determine why I behaved differently.
Do you think it is possible to mistakenly identify a reason for doing something as a conscious motivation when in reality it was an instinctual action?
I think it is possible for such a rationalization to occur without one knowing it. If not... how can we tell the difference?
Do you think instincts are limited to only one possible outcome, always, given the same situation?
I don't think this is true.
Any given deer running out into the middle of the road at night and seeing headlights may freeze, or may bolt into the bushes.
I would guess that some deer have escaped by bolting into the bushes at least once or twice before the night their instincts tell them to freeze up and they get hit.
So... then it seems possible for a human to "not always behave the same way" and also "determine why they behaved differently" while their actions were even 95% instinctual (let alone 20% or even 1%...).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 2:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 3:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 153 of 203 (668892)
07-25-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
07-25-2012 3:06 PM


Re: I am also not a deer.
jar writes:
I don't see how the specific behaviors I've mentioned could be anything but conscious decision.
Personally, I agree.
I actually think that we are capapble of having actions that are 100% conscious, and also having other actions that are 100% instinct. With most actions falling somewhere in between.
But, I don't know that, and I also havn't heard of any specific, conclusive scientific progress on figuring it out.
I was basically asking those questions to see if maybe you have heard of such a thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 3:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 3:31 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 154 of 203 (668895)
07-25-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Modulous
07-25-2012 2:33 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
Stile writes:
When Dawkins says "selfish genes" he's talking about the processes and chemical reactions that occur within our bodies that are simply out of our control. A closer more general term would be "animal instincts."
No, he's really talking about genes, and genes specifically. I wouldn't say that 'animal instincts' is either closer or more general. Some selfish genes do go into constructing the brain structures that give us our instincts, but some selfish genes go into making toes.
Right. I have not read the book so my thoughts here are more focused on this behaviour discussion. By "processes and chemical reaction" I was trying to incorporate the "making toes" idea while also incorporating the "brain structures that give us our intincts". I do agree that the "instincts" term would not be helpful in other non-behaviour discussions of Dawkins' ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 2:33 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024