|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I read through the whole article from The Standard Encyclopedia that you linked. Here is the last segment in the article.
quote: Through the whole article they describe the benefit to one’s gene pool by behaving co-operatively and primarily by kin selection, as we can see in this line from the above quote: Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. They do talk in the article about behaving altruistically when there is no benefit to one’s own gene pool but it never actually mentions behaving altruistically when there is a negative impact on one’s own gene pool. As Stile said in his post maybe we have differing opinions on what is science. I read through that whole article and it is one speculation after another about how altruism could have evolved. Yes, it is based on observation of animal and human behaviour but is it science. I would say no, but maybe I’m wrong. It seems to me that it is more like biological philosophy. In reading through more of Robert Wright’s material he uses the term evolutionary psychology. You also again mentioned Wright’s The Moral Animal and you used a quote from it earlier. Here what you quoted again but in greater context.
quote: Here again Wright says that they are switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we are to this switching. He isn’t talking about an altruistic act that is detrimental to the self or to one’s gene pool. In going through all of that I don’t see any explanation for someone behaving in a manner that is detrimental to the self and the gene pool of the self.
Straggler writes: GDR - Are you really going to maintain that there is no scientific explanation for human morality as observed? That altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice etc. etc. lack a scientific explanation? There is a biological theory of how morality that is ultimately beneficial to the self or maybe to one's gene pool could have evolved. I read through everything you gave me and there was no explanation for self-sacrifice that didn't involve some form of ultimate reciprocity at least to the gene pool.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: It doesn't matter whether you se it that way or not - it's a factual thing. Your god is imperfct if he can't prevent suffering. OK if you like, but of course the plan is that suffering will end.
Tangle writes: Yes, you've rationalised it. But I say that if your god thinks that this is the best he can do, he's no god. I've given reasons for why things are the way they are which you don't accept. Fair enough.
Tangle writes: Of course I can know that - he's god. Except in your case he's an imperfect lessor god who can't do some simple things like getting his creation right. How is it that you know what God can and cannot do? If you look at the world, or even the Bible for that matter you can see that it is a world that is evolving. It's a philosophical argument but it seem to me that the fact that the world is evolving is indicative of evolving toward something. God is creating a world where there will be no suffering through an evolutionary process. That may not be good enough for you, but if the other choice is that life here had never come into existence then I think I'll go with the evolutionary model.
Tangle writes: Yes it does, it tells us we are un-conscious in the most definitive way. If you think I'm wrong show me. I can't show you, but I still think you're are wrong.
Tangle writes: Because we can see them happening in our brain in the areas we know manage emotions. You can see activity in the brain with a scan and know that it is related to emotion but that is the result of the emotion not the emotion itself.
Tangle writes: This is irrelevant. The fact is that I can cause you to be angry and watch your brain exhibit an anger. Cause and effect. Once again, if this anger is not in the body, where is it? You might think you've made me angry but actually it triggered a memory and I'm really angry about something else altogether. The anger is part of our conciousness which responds to environment through our brains.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: If you look at the world, or even the Bible for that matter you can see that it is a world that is evolving. It's a philosophical argument but it seem to me that the fact that the world is evolving is indicative of evolving toward something. God is creating a world where there will be no suffering through an evolutionary process. The world is evolving, but evolution has no end purpose for organisms other than to make more of themselves. The reason we know this is because 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. It's pure hubris to consider this enormous waste to have a design behind it.
That may not be good enough for you, but if the other choice is that life here had never come into existence then I think I'll go with the evolutionary model. That is a false choice. Any decent god would actually care for its creation, not leave it to chance and suffering.
I can't show you, but I still think you're are wrong. But I can show you. When you're dead you have no brain activity. Without brain activity there can be no consciousness. It's a really obvious physiological fact.
You can see activity in the brain with a scan and know that it is related to emotion but that is the result of the emotion not the emotion itself. It's absolutely, without question or doubt, the emotion itself. If it isn't where is it?
You might think you've made me angry but actually it triggered a memory and I'm really angry about something else altogether. The anger is part of our conciousness which responds to environment through our brains. Er, yes, it is exactly that. The emotion of anger is triggered by something in the enviroment - me or a memory, I care not - which causes our brain to react in a particular way so that we feel it. Again, if it is not our brain, then what and where is it?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
You might think you've made me angry but actually it triggered a memory and I'm really angry about something else altogether. The anger is part of our conciousness which responds to environment through our brains. From my albeit rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience, I don't see this statement as being accurate. I am not sure how memory could be the predicate for an emotional response since infants can experience emotions of fear and anger in the earliest stages of development, long before they are capable of formulating even basic memories. I can potentially see accessing a memory as having the possibility of stimulating the areas of the brain responsible for emotion, but the memory is just another form of input, not the cause of the emotion in and of itself. If I see someone mis-treating another individual for example, my emotion of anger will be triggered by virtue of the visual and auditory stimuli at that time. I don't have to reference a previous memory to invoke my emotion. From my initial searching on the subject, the area of the brain that appears to be responsible for emotion is the Amygdala. While the area of the brain responsible for memory is the Hippocampus. These areas light up differently in regards to fMRI scans when the subject is undergoing an emotional response of some sort."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: The world is evolving, but evolution has no end purpose for organisms other than to make more of themselves. The reason we know this is because 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. It's pure hubris to consider this enormous waste to have a design behind it. I've seen you say that before and it makes no sense. It is evolution and one design leads to another through natural selection, and so of course some species get replaced by others. Life continues to abound and instead one species it is now a different one. Why is it a waste because instead of having a mammoth we have an elephant. (If that doesn't fit genetically then use an example that does.) One life is replaced by another life whether it is of the same species or not.
Tangle writes: That is a false choice. Any decent god would actually care for its creation, not leave it to chance and suffering. I don't see the final outcome as one left to chance and although suffering still exists I don't see that he just leaves it alone. I believe that Tom creates and/or touches people's hearts to work at alleviating the suffering until such time as all things are renewed and suffering is no longer part of our existence.
Tangle writes: But I can show you. When you're dead you have no brain activity. Without brain activity there can be no consciousness. It's a really obvious physiological fact. It isn't obvious at all. That is your view. Here is a link to a guy named Robert Lanza that talks about him and the book he wrote. I own and have read the book. Here is a quote from the book:
quote: Here is a book by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner who talk about consciousness being fundamental to our perceived reality which makes it distinct from our perceived reality. Here is a review of theit book Quantum Enigma In the book they quote Martin Rees who makes this comment: quote: In other words is is consciousness that is the fundamental aspect of our reality, not the other way around.
Tangle writes: It's absolutely, without question or doubt, the emotion itself. If it isn't where is it? It is part of our consciousness. Edited by GDR, : typosHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: It is evolution and one design leads to another through natural selection, and so of course some species get replaced by others That's the way evolution works - but it's messy, wasteful and inefficient; it's not the way any designer would work if the intended output was us. There was absolutely no guarantee that mammals would exist at all; without the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs mammals as a group probably would never have risen. Did you know that 96% of all live on earth was killed in the 'mass dying' in the Permian. That's not design or intent with a purpose. The way evolution works tels us that it isn't part of a plan with and end purpose, because there's no way to predict an end product. Now if you tell me that God CAN predict it or that he nudges it so that he gets the right outcome, then I'm going ask why he just didn't do it a simpler way to start with?
quote: Now comes the biggie, the oldest question of all. Who am I/ If I am only my body, then I must die. If I am my consciousness, the sense of experience and sensations, then I cannot die for the simple reason that consciousness may be expressed in manifold fashion sequentially, but it is ultimately unconfined. This is pure woo and wishful thinking.
In other words is is consciousness that is the fundamental aspect of our reality, not the other way around. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and I don't think you do either.
It is part of our consciousness Yes it is and consiousness is generated by our brain. When our brain is dead we are no longer conscious. That is what is called a non-controversial fact. There is no evidence of anything else is there?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So basically your theistic beliefs have forced you into a position where you need to deny that there is a scientific explanation for human moral behaviour as observed.
When one's theistic beliefs require one to deny scientific findings and conclusions then the game really is up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: The way evolution works tels us that it isn't part of a plan with and end purpose, because there's no way to predict an end product. Now if you tell me that God CAN predict it or that he nudges it so that he gets the right outcome, then I'm going ask why he just didn't do it a simpler way to start with? Straggler and I have read and commented on Robert Wright's book The Evolution of God, and he writes from a secularist's POV about how our beliefs about Tom, (our non-specific god) have evolved over the years. In the book he writes this:quote: The point of that is that it isn't just that evolution has processed in such a way that we now have more intelligent life forms but our understanding of Tom and morality has evolved as well. I believe that it suggests that as we progress we are progressing towards some point. I understand and accept your critique of the way physical evolution has been messy but I contend that if you focus on the messy bits and look at the overall picture that progress is being made. However, even if you accept that there has been progress it doesn't prove that there is an ultimate goal to be reached. As I said, I think it suggests it, but in the end it is faith.
Tangle writes: This is pure woo and wishful thinking. That's fine but my point was that there are man of science who from a scientific POV believes you are wrong. Here are his credential from the back cover of his book.
quote: This is about the co-author of the book. quote: These are the guys whose view you dismiss as just being "woo".
Tangle writes: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and I don't think you do either. It isn't that difficult to understand. I agree with various scientists that I have read that our reality is a result of the fact that it is perceived by consciousness. I'll repeat the Martin Rees quote.
quote: Is that really that hard to understand?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I read through everything you gave me and there was no explanation for self-sacrifice that didn't involve some form of ultimate reciprocity at least to the gene pool. It does, it literally goes over that very subject in what you quoted. But as has been the case in this entire thread, you're less inclined to learn something and more inclined to reject something just so you can hold on to your beliefs. Or you simply just don't understand what you read when you read it. In any case, let me show you where it covers all of that. The article says:
quote: In other words, ones beliefs such as "help others so you can get into heaven", or get to valhala, or be greeted by the gods with food and women after fighting for your country, etc. influence your behavior. It goes on to explain how adoption does NOT benefit the species or gene pool:
quote: And is further covered here:
quote: And it concludes with the very explanation that you say it didn't cover:
quote: In other words, one way your genes increase their future representation is by making humans self-sacrificing. So what it's saying is, there is NO ultimate self-sacrifice that ISN"T beneficial to the gene pool. There is an extensive scientific explanation to altruism that AGAIN is both addressed at the genetic level and through human behavior that is ultimately influenced by cultural beliefs, etc. Something you said didn't exist at all. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The point goes back to what Straggler and I told you: altruism evolved when humans were still in small groups of kin.
Fast forward to today, when there is 7 billion people on the planet and millions of years of cultural, religious and philosophical influence on our behavior, and you get a complex version of what was ultimately simply kin-selection. Which is the point we've been making the entire time we've been discussing altruism. Let it be noted that you have done zero to contradict this, and we continue to present scientific evidence of biological altruism. Also to note, that you have provided zero evidence to support your notion that A) Tom exists, and B) that he gave us altruism. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: , but in the end it is faith Yes, faith and the rationalisation of the facts to suit that faith.
That's fine but my point was that there are man of science who from a scientific POV believes you are wrong. There are thousands of men of science that believe in Tom; so what?
These are the guys whose view you dismiss as just being "woo". Correct. Newton had a whole load of weird metaphysical ideas about magic and alchemy - he was very badly wrong about them too.
Is that really that hard to understand? Bloody right it is, it makes no sense at all does it? But you haven't answered the main question - where is consciousness if it's not in the brain?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: When one's theistic beliefs require one to deny scientific findings and conclusions then the game really is up. Keep in mind that the forum is Faith/Belief. You do have a valid point, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: So basically your theistic beliefs have forced you into a position where you need to deny that there is a scientific explanation for human moral behaviour as observed.When one's theistic beliefs require one to deny scientific findings and conclusions then the game really is up. In my last post made some observations and asked a couple of questions to which you don't respond. You just keep making this accusation which I don't accept. Yes there is a materialistic explanation based on observation which may or may not be correct. I am not rejecting any science and yes I have my doubts about the explanation as do many like Francis Collins who have, unlike myself, the knowledge to comment on these issues from a biological and evolutionary POV. Let's however say that you are correct and there is a scientific explanation for human moral behaviour, although I believe we are talking more about pure altruism. (The idea of helping others to the detriment of the self and one's gene pool). We know that there is a huge segment of the human population with a world view based on selfishness so we know that regardless of how morality or altruism evolved there is a choice to be made. We can choose between being altruisticly driven or by being selfishly driven. So ok, there is a materialistic answer for how morality evolved but that still tells us nothing about whether or not that is part of an intelligent plan, nor does it answer the question about whether or not Tom is able to connect with us as the still small voice of our conscience. The fact that I question the explanations that are on offer has nothing to do with my theistic beliefs. I just don't see them contradicting the idea that true altruism is detrimental to the individual or the his/her gene pool and I don't buy the explanation that we are all one big happy gene pool. Again however, those beliefs are separate from my theistic beliefs. I look to science to provide answers to how Tom did it and sometimes scientists will get it right and sometimes not. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
We know that there is a huge segment of the human population with a world view based on selfishness so we know that regardless of how morality or altruism evolved there is a choice to be made. We can choose between being altruisticly driven or by being selfishly driven Actually, the question of choice there is somewhat up for debate. Individuals with various forms of psychopathy lack the ability to have empathy, thereby making any altruistic behavior difficult. I don't think this is a 'huge segment' of the population, as you suggest since if individuals with inherent selfishness existed in large quantities, our society would likely collapse. The concept of psychopathy and its genetic component actually gives further credence to the scientific explanation of altruism, as opposed to the 'faith based' alternatives you are suggesting."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: We know that there is a huge segment of the human population with a world view based on selfishness so we know that regardless of how morality or altruism evolved there is a choice to be made. We can choose between being altruisticly driven or by being selfishly driven. It isn't black and white, good and evil is it? We're all both selfish and altruistic depending on circumstaces, upbringing and temperment. For some the choices are simple to make, for others they're harder and a few have no choice. All this is perfectly explicable given what we know of our history and impossible to explain if you believe in a god. (I mean a real god of course, not the crippled version you subscribe to - a flawed, impotent god can, of course, cock things up this badly.)Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024