Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 151 of 318 (281415)
01-25-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
01-22-2006 10:03 PM


Logic is 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.
I have 3 questions about your illusory logic:
1. Does the same reasoning apply to mathematical processing? If I multiply 5 by 7 in my head, is the answer invalid because the processing was performed by physical events? If not, how is logical processing different?
2. As far as I'm aware there are only two kinds of things that do logic processing: humans (and possibly some other higher mammals); and computers. In both cases the actual processing is performed by physical events. Does that mean that the conclusions arrived at by computers are also invalid or illusory?
3. As you can see I'm having difficulty understanding what kind of logic processing thing could possibly meet your exacting standards. Could you give me an example?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 5:46 AM JavaMan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 318 (281421)
01-25-2006 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Modulous
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
Natural selection is the only observed form of selection outside of human artificial selection, though the latter is not verboten to ToE, if evidence of such selection came to light.
Well, of course, "if it came to light," all our ideas would change. TOE would change. You speak as though TOE was saying, "we don't really know how species evolve. We sort of maybe think that it happened naturally." That's not what it says. It says it happened naturally, unequivocally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Modulous, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 6:49 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 318 (281426)
01-25-2006 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nwr
01-23-2006 7:59 PM


Re: Thoughts are not physical
I wouldn't use "aura of incorporeality" for that
Your sense of self, then, appears to be incorporeal. Your self is not your hands, your ears, your nose, etc. It seems to be something in your head, but not something, if you could take the top off your head, somebody could look down into and locate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nwr, posted 01-23-2006 7:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 1:48 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 318 (281427)
01-25-2006 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
01-24-2006 2:42 AM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
Where there is serious doubt the ToE is agnostic.
I have this book here by Ernst Mayr, entitled "What Evolution Is."
This Mayr is not just some bozo; he, according to the blurb, "has been hailed as 'one of the great shining figures of evolutionary biology' and 'the Darwin of the 20th Century.'" He is Professor Emeritus at Harvard.
Here's what he says about the evolution of consciousness: "How did human consciousness evolve? This is a question that psychologists love to ask. The answer is actually quite simple: from animal consciousness! . . .it is quite certain that human consciousness did not arise full-fledged with the human species, but is only the most highly evolved end point of a long evolutionary history" (282).
We are talking about consciousness here--i.e., mentality. Consciousness evolved. Are you telling me that one fine day the corporeal became incorporeal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2006 2:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2006 5:51 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 318 (281429)
01-25-2006 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by JavaMan
01-25-2006 3:40 AM


Re: Logic is an illusion?
If I multiply 5 by 7 in my head, is the answer invalid because the processing was performed by physical events?
It's not invalid, or at any rate we assume it's not. But if our thought, "5 X 7=35," is caused by automatic electrical physical events, then it was not arrived at logically. It just happened to be true.
3. As you can see I'm having difficulty understanding what kind of logic processing thing could possibly meet your exacting standards. Could you give me an example?
It would be a process that was non-physical. It would be purely mental. It would not be CAUSED. It would be a purely, ground/consequent determination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by JavaMan, posted 01-25-2006 3:40 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JavaMan, posted 01-25-2006 8:08 AM robinrohan has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 156 of 318 (281430)
01-25-2006 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 5:37 AM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
I know who Ernst Mayr was. But the simple fact that Mayr beleives something does not make it part of the theory of evolution - even if there is strong evidential support. At most it is a minor part and one that could easily be dropped if the evidence were otherwise - and not something that must be accepted if evolution in general is to be accepted. He very title of this thread rules peripheral ideas such as this almost entirely irrelevant to the main topic.
Moreover as I have already pointed out there is no need to assume that hypothetical supernatural entities are incapable of evolving and thus one could fully accept Mayr's statements while still accepting a form of substance dualism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 5:37 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 6:02 AM PaulK has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 318 (281431)
01-25-2006 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PaulK
01-25-2006 5:51 AM


Re: A magical story (a SUPERnatural history of life)
I know who Ernst Mayr was.
Well, I never heard of him until I just happened to pick his book up. I've read it and while not understanding all the details, I think I picked up the main points.
I'll tell you something else that Mayr talks about. He talks about the origin of life itself. Why does he talk about that? That's not part of TOE. He does so because, though the origin of life is not part of TOE technically, the two concepts go together like matching gloves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2006 5:51 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 158 of 318 (281434)
01-25-2006 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 4:58 AM


Supernaturalism !=God, ToE != natural history, ToE != naturalism
Well, of course, "if it came to light," all our ideas would change. TOE would change. You speak as though TOE was saying, "we don't really know how species evolve. We sort of maybe think that it happened naturally." That's not what it says. It says it happened naturally, unequivocally.
Science = tentative. What I am saying is the ToE explains how populations change over time. The ToE is a science theory so it puts forward the natural explanations for a thing. If a supernatural entity was involved then science would be unable to explain it. However, a supernatural entity could exist that is entirely uninvolved with the process of evolution. The ToE simply says, here is a how species evolve, here are the mechanisms we have so far discovered that lead to this population change over generations (epigenitics, mutation (random or deliberate) selection (natural or artificial)- however there may be other mechanisms we have not yet explored. The ToE makes no comment on whether or not we are the only species (or entity) to practice deliberate mutations and artificial selection - that is one for the natural historians. If our 'minds' practiced the tweaking I discussed earlier, then the ToE would stand perfectly as it is with no change necessary.
Despite the fact that there is purpose to life, supernatural things and immaterial entities.
If you had quoted me a little more you would have seen I am basically repeating myself:
quote:
The ToE is perfectly fine with other types of mutations leading to change, such as directed mutations (for example humans genitiically modifying crops changes the allelle frequencies of those populations). Natural selection is the only observed form of selection outside of human artificial selection, though the latter is not verboten to ToE, if evidence of such selection came to light.
ToE would not change if historical selection came to light. Population changes would occur in exactly the same way it describes now.
Hence why I said:
quote:
But natural selection can exist as well as supernatural selection. It wouldn't falsify ToE, it would just mean that ToE as it stands is an incomplete theory...and given the tentative nature of scientific conclusions is a perfectly 'natural' state of affairs.
and the other thing:
quote:
That there might be other things that cause the heriditable variations is not anathema to ToE, neither does the possibility of other selection media such as our artificial selection (or selective breeding) jeopardise the ToE at all.
So to repeat myself yet again:
The ToE doesn't say that it happened naturally at all, and you are going to need to actually show how it unequivically states this to move forward here.
The ToE says that populations change through variations heriditable features and a selection medium. The variations can happen naturally (eg random mutation), or they can happen deliberately (genetic modification). The selection can be natural, or it can be artificial (Breeding). These are all ways in which populations change, and they are all within the paradigm of ToE.
There is only ONE thing which states the ToE must have happened naturally....naturalism. However one doesn't have to be a naturalist to logically accept ToE. One does not become a naturalist if one accepts one natural explanation for an observed phenomenon. In order to be a naturalist one must believe that all phenomenon have natural explanations.
You are simply getting the two ideas mixed up. You think the ToE is special because it describes our origins, when it doesn't. Even if it did explain our origins that would only exclude certain supernatural things, not ALL supernatural things. Even if ToE explicitly excludes the Abrahamic God from existence, that doesn't exclude Domovoi, Leszi, Eos, telepathy etc.
You are conflating:
ToE with naturalism.
ToE with natural history and common descent
Supernaturalism with Abrahamic monotheism
These are all massively contested positions, and you are going to have to show them to be true or accept they are not. Otherwise I am just going to continue repeating to you that the ToE is an explanatory framework to explain the causes of population allele frequency change over a number of generations and not a statement of origins or doctrine of naturalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 4:58 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 11:22 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 159 of 318 (281449)
01-25-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by nwr
01-23-2006 7:59 PM


Re: Thoughts are not physical
From an exchange between nwr and Robin Rohan:
nwr writes:
I don't believe that thoughts are any more physical than the money in my bank account.
Robin Rohan writes:
Then where did they come from? How did thinking evolve? What are thoughts made out of?
nwr writes:
Obviously, thoughts originate in neural activity. The neural activity is partly learned and partly evolved.
Why do thoughts have to be made of anything? What is music made of? What are numbers made of? What is the money in my bank account made of?
There are lots of things in our lives that don't match what we think of as physical. If you still want to call them physical, then you owe us a definition of "physical" that fits.
Here's my take on the matter.
Thoughts are not made of physical stuff, but reside in the dynamic arrangement of physical stuff. They are the patterns in which the underlying physical stuff is arranged and is constantly changed.
Thoughts are only physical in the sense that they are caused by something physical. But that doesn't mean that thoughts are made of some tangible stuff. You can't pick up a thought, roll it in the palm of your hand like a marble, and say: "This thing in my hand is a thought".


Take a look at the picture on the right. The box on the left contains eight marbles, neatly arranged in a pattern that might remind you of the number zero. You might say that the pattern of marbles represents the number zero.
Now, suppose I give the box a good shake. Then, afterwards, the box might well look like the one on the right. The marbles are in disarray and their pattern most likely does not remind you of a number. Yet, in a material sense, nothing has changed: the box still contains eight marbles which weigh exactly the same as before. Matter wasn't added nor removed. But the representation of the number zero is gone.
The question is, was there a zero in the box before the shake? In a sense, there was. It wasn't a tangible zero, but if the pattern of the marbles reminded you of the number zero, then you can say that there was some kind of zero in the box. This kind of zero existed in the same way that patterns can be said to exist, i.e. not in a material way, but in a symbolic way.
However, a pattern can only exist if there is something physical for the pattern to be arranged in. Therefore, without the physical, there can be no patterns, no symbols, no thoughts, and, finally, no minds.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 25-Jan-2006 01:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by nwr, posted 01-23-2006 7:59 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by nwr, posted 01-25-2006 1:28 PM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 171 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 4:38 PM Parasomnium has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 160 of 318 (281450)
01-25-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 5:46 AM


Re: Logic is an illusion?
It's not invalid, or at any rate we assume it's not. But if our thought, "5 X 7=35," is caused by automatic electrical physical events, then it was not arrived at logically. It just happened to be true.
What makes you think that the entirely physical things that invented the abstract set of symbols and rules that make up what we call Logic (i.e. us) aren't capable of carrying out operations using those symbols and rules? And conversely, what makes you think that only an abstract, incorporeal entity is capable of using that system?
An entirely physical calculator can do mathematical operations. An entirely physical computer can do logic operations. So what's the problem with us?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 5:46 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by robinrohan, posted 01-26-2006 7:59 AM JavaMan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 318 (281490)
01-25-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Modulous
01-25-2006 6:49 AM


Just a little theory
Otherwise I am just going to continue repeating to you that the ToE is an explanatory framework to explain the causes of population allele frequency change over a number of generations and not a statement of origins or doctrine of naturalism.
You make it all sound so innocuous, Modulus. The theory of evolution is no big deal; it's just this little explanation of how the descendents of a gigantic lizard, after a couple of billion years, could become something that looks like you and me. No great shakes. I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about it.
According to you, the theory of evoluition has nothing to do with this issue of the supernatural origin of man versus the natural origin of man.
Why does it have no bearing, say you? Oh, it's because scientific evidence is by its nature natural evidence. If we had any supernatural evidence, it wouldn't be science. I'm not exactly sure what it would be, but at any rate not science.
And, of course, science is TENTATIVE. It's so tentative that we can hardly make any statements at all. It's a wonder that anyone can manage to put together a scientific paper, much less a book, it's so damned tentative. Any minute now, some supernatural evidence might be showing up among the fossils. Oh, that's right, it can't show up, can it? Because then it wouldn't be science. It would be this something else that we don't know about.
But then there are these people like me, who suggest in our blindness, that TOE gives us an account of the natural origin of humanity, not supernatural. I read all about it in that book by Mayr. Funny little story.
Not so, say you. It's just a little theory about how populations change. How do they change? Oh, they go from one-celled bacteria or whatever they are to all these other creatures. And it just so happens that one of these other creatures is this thing called a human being. But, really, TOE has nothing to do with humanity, really. Not a thing. That's just me, with my bias, being a NATURALIST.
abe: typos.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 10:23 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 10:25 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 6:49 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 12:02 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 12:06 PM robinrohan has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 318 (281499)
01-25-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 11:22 AM


Re: Just a little theory
The theory of evolution is no big deal; it's just this little explanation of how the descendents of a gigantic lizard, after a couple of billion years, could become something that looks like you and me.
Actually a rather small lizard, but whatever.
No great shakes. I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about it.
Oh, I think it's absolutely clear why some people get so worked up about it; their personal ego is so expansive that they simply cannot countenance the idea that their species doesn't have a magnificent supernatural origin that places the entire universe at their disposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 11:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 12:25 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 12:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 163 of 318 (281501)
01-25-2006 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by robinrohan
01-25-2006 11:22 AM


pratical applications versus theory
You make it all sound so innocuous, Modulus. The theory of evolution is no big deal; it's just this little explanation of how the descendents of a gigantic lizard, after a couple of billion years, could become something that looks like you and me. No great shakes. I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about it.
You are getting confused between the Theory and conclusions that can be drawn using that theory and other evidences. They are two different things.
According to you, the theory of evoluition has nothing to do with this issue of the supernatural origin of man versus the natural origin of man.
Not quite. Its the application of the theory that leads us to these issues. Science is generally has consensus that we all were once part of the same population...if that is the case the ToE explains how that population has diverged to such an extent. The problem is that the ToE is so perfectly consistent with the idea of common descent and all the evidence is self confirming that people conflate this tremendous conclusion with the theory itself. I assure you it is the ToEs conclusions that get people worked up.
This is irrelevant though - your OP was not about rejecting supernatural origins it was about rejecting all supernatural things and only accepting that which is material and natural and an existence devoid of meaning.
Why does it have no bearing, say you? Oh, it's because scientific evidence is by its nature natural evidence. If we had any supernatural evidence, it wouldn't be science. I'm not exactly sure what it would be, but at any rate not science.
Maybe you misunderstand? If the supernatural exists then science is ill equipped to form explanatory frameworks for those things.
And, of course, science is TENTATIVE. It's so tentative that we can hardly make any statements at all
I don't know where you got this from. Science is tentative so we must always be aware that our conclusions are not hard fact and can always be challenged with superior information. We can make statements such as 'The theory of evolution is the best explanatory framework detailing population changes over generations, it has utility and as such we will employ that utility'.
Any minute now, some supernatural evidence might be showing up among the fossils. Oh, that's right, it can't show up, can it? Because then it wouldn't be science. It would be this something else that we don't know about.
What would 'supernatural' evidence look like? We might find something supernatural, it might be considered evidence, but science wouldn't be able to explain anything about it.
But then there are these people like me, who suggest in our blindness, that TOE gives us an account of the natural origin of humanity, not supernatural. I read all about it in that book by Mayr. Funny little story.
Well its just a convenient way of saying that the ToE can employed to come to conclusions about previous generations and develop (along with physical evidence) conclusions about the origins of the current taxa. The ToE can be employed to do that, though conclusions are tentative they are based on good solid logically consistent science. There is so much evidence that it would be absolutely astonishing if it turned out to not be a valid conclusion that most or all contempory organisms were ancestrly part of a common population.
Not so, say you. It's just a little theory about how populations change. How do they change? Oh, they go from one-celled bacteria or whatever they are to all these other creatures.
Possibly. Assuming that all these other creatures and the one celled bacteria shared a common ancestrial population then we can use the ToE to explain how they diverged and changed. We would need to examine some physical evidence (testing) to confirm whether the conclusions we reach using the ToE are falsified or not.
And it just so happens that one of these other creatures is this thing called a human being. But, really, TOE has nothing to do with humanity, really.
I covered this already in Message 148:
quote:
If we say, humans were created by God. We can then say, 'how has our population of humans changed since Adam and Eve' and the response would be 'The allele frequency variations were caused by variations in the genome coupled with a selection process'.
If we say, all organisms share a common ancestral population. We can then say 'how has our original population changed into the diversity we see today?' and the answer would be 'The allele frequency variations were caused by variations in the genome coupled with a selection process'.
It doesn't matter where humans came from when applying the theory, whatever your population change is, you can try applying the theory and seeing if the result makes any sense.

Sarcasm rarely leads to civilised debate. Fortunately I'm able to ignore the goading tone, but somebody else might rise to it and devolve this topic into something stupid and pointless for the next 10 pages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 11:22 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by robinrohan, posted 01-25-2006 12:16 PM Modulous has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 318 (281504)
01-25-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Modulous
01-25-2006 12:06 PM


Re: pratical applications versus theory
Fortunately I'm able to ignore the goading tone, but somebody else might rise to it and devolve this topic into something stupid and pointless for the next 10 pages.
It might be something stupid and pointless or it might be a situation in which a poster stops engaging in these equivocations such as saying, it's not the "theory" that says such and such but rather its "conclusions"--as if this was some big difference. Are you suggesting that there's evidence for the "theory" but no evidence for its "conclusions"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 12:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 01-25-2006 2:31 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 318 (281507)
01-25-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Just a little theory
Oh, I think it's absolutely clear why some people get so worked up about it; their personal ego is so expansive that they simply cannot countenance the idea that their species doesn't have a magnificent supernatural origin that places the entire universe at their disposal.
Well, in my view the theory is a very big deal. To me it's mind-boggling. To me it shakes the foundations of our concept of "humanity."
Of course, it's been around for awhile, but I mean once one really begins to realize its implications.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 11:26 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 11:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 12:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 12:51 PM robinrohan has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024