What we must accept if we accept evolution

A theory coming from the study of the physical world maybe. But yeah science, evolution, same issue.

Oh, OK. That's a little different than I'd thought but I get what you mean. I've always thought it impossible to really believe something for emotional reasons, but self-deception/rationalization for self-serving reasons is certainly recognizable.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-22-2006 09:39 PM

Ok, I'll make a case for it. It is impossible for physicality to evolve into mentality. We have two different types of reality here.The physical world is about automatic reactions to stimuli. Everything that happens is like water running downhill. The logical mental world is quite different. It seems to be about grounds and consequents. One cannot evolve into another. Therefore, since evolution is obviously true, there is no mental world. It's an illusion.If our aura of incorporeality was accurate, then we would have a distinct self which makes these logical deductions or inferences. But this cannot be because our thoughts are physically caused. If they are physically caused, then our conclusions are not logical except by accident. But logical thoughts are not supposed to be true just by accident; they are supposed to follow ineluctably, as the night follows the day. Therefore, our sense of logic is an illusion.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-22-2006 09:04 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-22-2006 09:05 PM

The claim that it is impossible for physicality to evolve into mentality assumes one of two alternatives within the philosphy of mind. On one hand substance dualism, on the other eliminative materialism. Why do you reject other views (such as property dualism) out of hand ?Even if mentality is different from the basic operations of simple physical entities it cannot be safely concluded that mental operations are not a higher-order behaviour of complex organisations of matter.Worse for your case, even if you proved this side of the argument only one alternative - eliminative materialism - could support your case. If we accept the existence of mental substance we cannot say that it could not evolve, coevolve with matter or simply associate itself with physical brains as they evolved. Thus evolution does not even provide strong support for materialism, let alone logically entail eliminative materialism as you claimed.n

That would still be materialism I would think--an organization of matter is materialistic."Mentality"--apart from our private experience of it--makes no sense.

Apparently, I need to repeat my question. Are you saying that evolution is the cause for 'materialism' as you define it? And, does that mean that the 'survival of the fittest' concept only arose after evolution?

Either you misunderstood my point or you are begging the question.You argue that mind is impossible within a materialistic explanation - but I point out that your argument is badly incomplete because it does not consider all the explanatory possibilities within a materialistic framework. And naturally those possiiblities must themselves be materialistic.To respond that they are materialistic is either trivial and irrelevant - or if you understood the point and intended the answer as a refutation it begs the question.To say that "mentality" makes no sense apart from our private experience is to assume that no toher account is possible. Aside from the fact that such a posiiton is still compatible with property dualism it assumes that no other account is possible which is further than I would be willing to go at this stage.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Some of the terms you are using I'm not familiar with. I'm not sure what you mean by
"property dualism."

it makes plenty of sense. the search for "truth" is completely unrelated to the attempts of science to observe, record, and comprehend the world around us. science is not interested in "objective truth" but merely understanding and explaining phenomena. there is no "objective truth" in science because we can only view the world in our own subjective eyes. evidence can be demonstrable, repeatable, and all that jazz, but this is not "truth" nor does it claim to be.

Independent of what?If you're saying that in order to accept that someone has the ability to choose, then there must be some agent separate from the physical body that does the choosing, aren't you begging the question? Why can't the ability to make choices be a property of an entirely physical body?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I hope you're being deliberately provocative here - otherwise I fear for your sanity!Honestly, your mental world isn't an illusion. It's about the realest thing there is. There's only a problem here if you need to think of your 'mental world' as something that exists independently of your physical body. And why would you need to think that?

I don't need to think it. What is an illusion is the aura of incorporeality: everything is physical. If we evolved, everything is physical.

But the scenario you have described is not the theory of evolution.The theory of evolution is not about minds; it's about physcial things and only physical things. I suppose you might say that the evidence for the theory of evolution could be used as evidence for another (fanciful) theory. But then it wouldn't be the theory of evolution.

I agree, with two questions:What if God set evolution in motion. Could it eventually arrive at a mind that reflects God's? {abe: maybe you've answered this somewhere. I've been getting lost trying to follow this thread}What exactly do you personally believe in all this? Do you believe that the aura of incorporeality IS an illusion? {abe: your own mind, feelings, communication with others etc.}This message has been edited by Faith, 01-23-2006 01:20 PM

It's a term from the philosophy of mind. To put it simply property dualism is the view that mental/physical duality is a duality in properties, not substance. Thus it is a materialistic view (since it rejects the idea of mind as a "substance").