What we must accept if we accept evolution

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"?

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 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-25-2006 11:26 AM

It might have at least been an impressive big one. Maybe the small one came from the big one?

Well, they are either something or nothing. If one is not a dualist, I would think one would have to be a materialist: everything is physical.

The calculator does mathematical operations in a sense: but what it's really doing is going through some automatic algorhythm. That's not a logical procedure. It's a physical procedure, like ice freezing at 32 degrees F. The difference, of course, is that this algorythm was set up by some thinker.So in this way the analogy between the brain and calculator would hold. The natural algorhythm of the brain was set up mindlessly by evolutionary pressures.Sometime back in history the first logical thought occurred. But calling it a logical thought is misleading. Its truth was accidental.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2006 07:00 AM

Patterns, yes. Or one might call them events--physical events. However, thoughts are unique physical events in that they are always "about" something. You can't have a thought that's not about anything. There wouldn't be anything to think.Other events are not about anything. A leaf falls from a tree: this event has no meaning in itself. Then a thinker comes along and invests this physical event with aboutness: "This event--the leaf falling from the tree--signifies the coming of autumn."But being caused physically, thoughts remain physical events. Indeed, they have to be if consciousness evolved. Evolution tells us consciousness did indeed evolve. Evolution includes materialism.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2006 07:07 AM

I think I understand you. You're saying that I reject the observable fact that we "do logic." I said our "sense of logic" is an illusion. We think we are doing logic but what's really happening are a lot of physical reactions to stimuli which are not logical but automatic. Now it's true that we can go through processes that yield results but it's in a fashion analogous to a calculator.This process evolved through natural selection. Certain thoughts proved to be useful--therefore "logical." And in fact, the reason they are useful is that they are logical. The accidental thought, "This stick would make a good weapon" is objectively logical. The stick did make a good weapon. But that's not our doing except that our brains were the physical vehicle that accidentally produced a physical event called a logical thought.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2006 07:29 AM

Here's the choices, as I see them:A thought exists or doesn't exist--if it doesn't exist, it's nothing at all.If it exists, then either it's physical or it's mental. If it's mental, it's incorporeal. If it's incorporeal, it's supernatural.

I thought it up.

Ok, nwr, I think I got it. I think we agree, actually. There was some confusion about the definition of the term "thought."A thought is a physical event in the brain--say, an electrical impulse. However, what the thought is about is not the same thing as the thought itself, even though you could not have a thought that was not about something.We can have thoughts about real things and we can have thoughts about unreal things. If I think about this chair I'm sitting in, I'm thinking about something real. But I can think about all sorts of things that are not real--that do not exist at all. I can think about giant mushrooms growing in my backyard. No such mushrooms exist.Or, I can have an abstract thought. "Symphony" is an abstraction: it doesn't exist. Nor does "money." Only individual things exist, not types of things.

Or just enough. Clarity has been achieved.

Just because it's "random," this doesn't mean it's not caused. Mutations are unpredictable because we don't know enough about the causes to be able to predict them.Think of a roulette wheel. Where the little silver ball lands is said to be random. But a very complicated series of physical conditions cause the ball to land in some slot. Theoretically, if we had some super-fine instruments to measure things like angles, velocity, and so forth, we could predict where the ball would land.We can't make these predictions, but if we knew enough we could.

I'm saying the theory of evolution logically includes materialism. At one time in the history of earth, there were no "minds." Consciousness evolved. If minds are incorporeal, then one day in the history of evolution, corporeality produced incorporeality. That seems impossible.

I'm very busy right now, but I wanted to get in a general comment. I will respond to individual posts as soon as possible. Modulus, I was not ignoring you--I mean to respond.This thread is about what we must accept if we accept the theory of evolution. In my view, we must accept a lot. Some people, I think, want to hedge and have it both ways. They believe in evolution, but they also want to retain some cuddly human qualities like mind and free will and, in some cases, even God. To me, this is mere sentiment. All these notions have to be thrown out.If evolution is true, we are physical organisms and nothing but that. Even our reasoning is theoretically suspect since our logical beliefs are caused. If they are physically caused then they have not been deduced or inferred. We exhibit a fair imitation of logical thinking--very like a computer. A computer may seem like it's thinking but of course it's not really thinking. It's just going through some physical operations automatically. That's what we do; that's what we have to do if we are purely physical, and that's what we are if we evolved from nothing but physicality.To say that the "mind" is corporeal is a euphemism. A corporeal mind is just another term for "brain." How else are we to distinguish "brain" from "mind" except by saying that one's corporeal and the other's not? I suppose you might say that the mind is part of the brain, but that doesn't matter. It's just brain-stuff.Our thoughts are physical events. If we had brain-feelers, we might feel something physically when we thought. I visualize it like the rumbling sensation we have in the stomach when it's acidic. Let's say I had a very nasty, unpleasant thought. If my brain had feelers, it might feel like a rumbling in the head to me. But such is not the case with the brain, so as a result we have this sense of incorporeality. Is it any wonder that we would as a species so naturally tend to believe in the ghosts and the gods, who are incorporeal? We feel like we are incorporeal too.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-27-2006 12:25 PM

Our ancestor was a one-celled life form. OK. That's not a problem, since it's very natural to pretend such. What it says is that consciousness evolved. Now how the physical can become spiritual is a bit of a problem. The "spiritual" is not natural--it's supernatural. So the supernatural did not come from nature. You can say it came from God if you like, but this is no good god. There are logical problems with a non-conventional definition of "God." Another theoretically suspect theory. (It's all a madness.) The fact that we are physical organisms. If beliefs are caused, then there is no reason to say they are logical. There were not arrived at through a logical process but through a physical process. They can only be true accidentally. A deduction or an inference is not physical. It's incorporeal. We ruled that out. Thank God.