Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 301 of 318 (282467)
01-30-2006 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by PaulK
01-30-2006 3:21 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Firstly it commits a genetic fallacy in that it assumes that value is judged by the origin of our species.
No, you misrepresent what has been said. This is not being assumed. This is a fact that, as I pointed out, was at the center of philosophical thinking from the beginning. You, like others here, merely refuse to recognize the logical implications of the idea that we were descended from lower life forms. Denial I believe is the word for it.
To simply hold that our position in evolutionary history is the only thing that matters is a strong assertion that demands justification.
Again you can't seem to represent the argument properly. In fact I have no idea what you mean. "Only thing that matters?" It's beyond me to figure out what your difficulty is.
It cannot and should not be taken for granted as you do.
Nothing is being taken for granted. You simply have not followed the argument which is usually the case with you.
Equally it is not part of evolutionary theory that the only value that should be placed on our capabilities is the evolutionary benefit each offers - nor is it at all obvious that that should be our measure of value.
Blah blah blah. Oh sorry, I mean, huh? Oops, no, I guess I mean, hey, at least Quetzal recognized the point.
Hey, if you're ignoring Robin would you do me the favor of ignoring me too? Thanks.
This thread is over anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:39 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 302 of 318 (282468)
01-30-2006 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Parasomnium
01-30-2006 3:12 AM


Re: Mind Body Problems revisited?
Sorry, Parasomnium, it was just too complicated a post to get to at the time, and then I forgot about it. Now we're at the end of the thread. Do you want to start another thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Parasomnium, posted 01-30-2006 3:12 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Parasomnium, posted 01-30-2006 3:36 AM Faith has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 303 of 318 (282470)
01-30-2006 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
01-30-2006 3:31 AM


Re: Mind Body Problems revisited?
There's no hurry. Maybe if the point comes up somewhere, we'll get back to it. Maybe you should first read up in Libet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:31 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 304 of 318 (282471)
01-30-2006 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Faith
01-30-2006 3:30 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
So you claim that the argument is not based on human origins and yet you claim that it is all about "the logical implications of the idea that we were descended from lower life forms".
THAT is a logical contradiction.
Evolution only speaks ot the origins of our species. That therefore must be the centrepiece of your argument if it is a valid argument at all.
As I said if you want to claim a logical contradiction you have to show it. Simply arrogantly asserting that there is one and attacking anyone who disagrees is not a valid argument.s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:54 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 305 of 318 (282472)
01-30-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by PaulK
01-30-2006 3:39 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Who said it wasn't based on human origins? You just make up stuff. You never quote anything, you just rant. Have you any idea what has been said here? Read Message 280 again. The implications of the ToE are all laid out, and they really are very much what evos here say themselves. Denying it sure seems untenable to me. You really want me to go find everywhere the evos at EvC have called Christians arrogant for suggesting that human beings are superior to animals? You think that has nothing to do with their belief in evolution? Are you arguing with Nietzsche that Darwinism brought about the Death of God and the whole existentialist/nihilist attempt to cope with that? You don't seem to care about any of it, even enough to bother to make sense. Sorry, I can't take you seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 3:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 4:28 AM Faith has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 306 of 318 (282474)
01-30-2006 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
01-27-2006 1:08 PM


Re: brain & mind connections don't prove causality
In any case, mind remains incorporeal.
Well you certainly haven't demonstrated that.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 01-27-2006 1:08 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 307 of 318 (282475)
01-30-2006 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
01-30-2006 3:54 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
I shouldn't need to quote short messages which can simply be accessed by following the links back. But in this case it does seem that I acted hastily. I assuemd that when you claimed that I misrepresented the argument you actually meant it. In fact you were not denying that your argument committed the genetic fallacy, instead you insisted that the genetic fallacy was not a fallacy and that in fact the origins did dictate the value we should place on a thing. I am sorry that I did not realise that you would actually contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your response - or that you would respond to the fact that your so-called logical argument relied on a recognised logical fallacy by actually insisting that all the logicians were wrong. I think that is sufficient to indicate just who is "in denial".
Nevertheless it is a fact that you have not even attempted to produce a formal logical argument, your accusations of misrepresentation remain completely unsubstantiated and you have not even addressed all the critiques. It is also a fact that you have effectively admitted that your argument is logically invalid.
quote:
You really want me to go find everywhere the evos at EvC have called Christians arrogant for suggesting that human beings are superior to animals?
Only if you can hsow that it is relevant. Do you want to actually consider the fact that anyone who said such a thing might be basing their opinion on more than the theory of evolution ?
quote:
Are you arguing with Nietzsche that Darwinism brought about the Death of God and the whole existentialist/nihilist attempt to cope with that?
If Nietsche said that the acceptance of Darwinain evolution was in itself logically sufficent to "kill" the idea of God then I would certainly disagree with it. I, however, beleive that Nietsche meant something other than that.
And I have to add that you have no concepetion of what I do and do not care about. And one of the things I care about is logic. And when I see people arrogantly insisting that their opinions are logically proven and everyone who disagrees is trapped in "contradiction" and "denial" I ask those people to back up their claims. And the fact is that your claims were false. You haven't even attempted a proper logical argument in the strict sense of the word. And you would rather throw insults than even attempt to rationally defend your argument.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-30-2006 04:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 3:54 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 318 (282481)
01-30-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
01-30-2006 2:56 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Curious. How much of a nihilist, or what kind of nihilist, whichever applies, are you really? There seem to be different brands. I suppose Shakespearean is one. Then there's Nietzschean and Dostoevskyan and Sartrean. I used to feel a peculiar affinity with Notes from Underground but I never thought of myself as a nihilist. Maybe I was and didn't know the name for it.
I don't like Nietzche. There's something aggressive about him that is disturbing to me. Shakespeare was technically a member of the Church of England, of course, and since he never spoke except in character, it's hard to know what he really thought. There's a strong flavor of nihilism in his tragedies, however.
I don't know what kind of nihilist I am--except non-aggressive.
It all started with Darwin. Yes it did. Darwin was the great watershed
Yes, Darwinism is earth-shaking, radical, and strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:12 AM robinrohan has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 309 of 318 (282488)
01-30-2006 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
01-30-2006 2:56 AM


Morality evolved
Well, as long as this thread is still alive, I might as well throw in another opinion.
Faith writes:
Darwin was the great watershed. Though so many here deny this, historically it was THE philosophical problem of the times and it changed things radically. People who deny it now haven't solved it, they merely ignore it, don't recognize it. They manage not to notice the contradiction between the logical implications of the ToE and their attachment to religion or conventional morality, which they enthusiastically affirm.
Why is it that people always want morality to come from outside themselves and to be absolute? The logical implication of evolution may be that there is no absolute morality, but that doesn't mean that morality per se doesn't exist. Morality is part of human culture, which is just as susceptible to the principles of evolution as any biological feature you'd care to think of.
Morality evolved, it's real and it's existence does not contradict the theory of evolution.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 2:56 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 310 of 318 (282493)
01-30-2006 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
01-30-2006 1:03 AM


Theory treats us as...
Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, ...
No, what I'm talking about logically follows from the THEORY. This is not about methods of study.
I am staggered that by page 21 nobody who is defending the OP has put forward what this Theory is that they are discussing. I have defined it dozens of times and not one of those mentions humans or animals or 'specialness' or mundaneness. If one chooses to apply the theory of evolution (a theory on how biological systems change over several generations) to human beings, that is choice, not a logical implication of the theory. It is only a logical deduction from Biology (we are biological systems, therefore the Theory applies to us as much as it applies to mould)
According to Evolution, all our capacities for thought and feeling are nothing more than adaptations for the sake of improved survival. The highest value in the evolutionary scheme is survival. Love, for instance, from the point of view of evolution, is of value only in that it tends to enhance bonding, which enhances the survivability of the species.
Not true. First we have to define what love is. A naturalist would define love as above, and as such could apply the theory to it. A supernaturalist might define love as a sensation experienced by two souls that are destined to be joined by marriage. If the latter is the definition of love, then the Theory cannot explain it since by definition love is not a biological system.
I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.
Here goes:
P1. naturalism defines everything as existing in nature
P2. naturalism accepts the ToE
P3. The ToE can only explain natural things in biological systems.
Conclusion: Naturalism uses the ToE to explain everything that has to do with biological systems and defines everything experienced by those biological systems as having some basis in evolution.
That's mine. here is what you are saying
P1. naturalism defines everything as existing in nature
P2. Naturalism accepts the ToE
P3. Naturalism rejects the supernatural
P4. Naturalism does not think humanity is special
Conclusion: the ToE rejects the supernatural and a logical deduction from the ToE is that humanity is not special
Which is non sequitur.
I still don't understand why the bioligical side of humanity and how it came to be has any relevance to a non-biological side. The biological side is covered by ToE. The non-biologicals side cannot be covered by ToE. What is the non-biological side? I don't know, if there is a soul, that would be included, if Love is not biological that can be included, mind might be included, the meaning of life and the purpose for living...and so on.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 30-January-2006 12:35 PM
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 30-January-2006 01:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 1:03 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 8:11 AM Modulous has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 318 (282505)
01-30-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Modulous
01-30-2006 7:27 AM


Re: Theory treats us as...
I still don't understand why the bioligical side of humanity and how it came to be has any relevance to a non-biological side. The biological side is covered by ToE. The non-biologicals side cannot be covered by ToE.
There is no non-biological side. There cannot be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 7:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 8:24 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 312 of 318 (282506)
01-30-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 6:27 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Yes, Darwinism is earth-shaking, radical, and strange.
Why do you think people here have so much trouble understanding this?
There is no non-biological side. There cannot be.
Or why they don't understand this either?
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-30-2006 08:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 6:27 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 8:19 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 313 of 318 (282507)
01-30-2006 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
01-30-2006 8:12 AM


Re: A challenge to Faith
Please don't confuse diagreement with your position with an inability to understand.
I could, with more justiifcation, ask why you and Robin think that your refusal to consider a position renders it an impossibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 8:12 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 314 of 318 (282510)
01-30-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by robinrohan
01-30-2006 8:11 AM


Re: Theory treats us as...
There is no non-biological side. There cannot be.
That's what a naturalist would say.
A supernaturalists might argue that the soul is a non-biological side. If the sould does exist and is non-biological then the ToE is an insufficient explanatory framework to develop a cogent explanation regarding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by robinrohan, posted 01-30-2006 8:11 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2006 8:32 AM Modulous has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 315 of 318 (282511)
01-30-2006 8:25 AM


EEEEEE hehehehehe!
"Witching hour!"
I'll wait a few minutes to close the topic, so nobody loses a half-written reply. But this thread is more than overdue; For those who have not begun to reply, please refrain from replying until a new thread is started.
If there's something useful to be said that hasn't been said, please open a PNT. Please make sure those who didn't participate in the discussion here are given enough information such that they could participate in any thread that's posted to PNT.
Thanks!
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2006/01/30 05:25 AM
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Monday, 2006/01/30 05:27 AM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024