Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The implications of Evolution
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 61 of 95 (796551)
12-31-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coyote
12-30-2016 10:14 PM


Re: On ramifications...
You're right. Based on your earlier posts, the consequences (or ramifications) of the theory of evolution are too frightening to behold, so let's just pretend that evolution never happened and we'll all be happy, OK?
I don't see why you are trying to pin me down to one argument here when I am having *a general discussion about (possible) implications of evolution.*
The case I recently highlighted of the Nazi's is not the case that the ramifications of evolution are frightening rather the theory itself was utilised in a frightening and deadly way.
There is the issue of whether the implications of evolution are negative and then there is the case of whether theories of the implications evolution are pernicious and destructive.
The theories of a hierachies of races and the idea the mentally ill disabled were useless etc are theories under the banner of evolution that were destructive and pernicious.
There is a difference between observing forms of evolution and using various ideas about how evolution happens to make a social theory.
I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative. It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal. It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal". Claims about evolution are more relevant to humans than claims in physics.
A theory in physics is unlikely to have an immediate effect on peoples behaviours and attitudes. Newtonian physics raised some issues like that of Freewill but didn't have a huge impact on social values.
I don't see what the relevance is of the idea we evolved to our present day life anyway. Theorists are trying to make evolution change the way we think and act and view reality. However I don't know who most of my ancestors were. If I found out one of my ancestors was Jack the Ripper it would be a fascinating fact but not alter my behaviour. There is one thing to deny a fact that will have an immediate consequence if ignored and being skeptical aboput speculations about what happened over millions of years. Science can postulate theories and facts but it can't say we must belive them that is a value judgement. As I mentioned I am an antinatalist I think having children is unnecessary, unjustified and harmful and is the only thing with negative ramifications. I think it is cruel to have children in the first place and then it is an extra layer of bad to degrade their life more by using evolution to downgrade their status and add an extra layer of futility to their life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2016 10:14 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2016 10:20 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2016 11:27 AM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2016 12:29 PM AndrewPD has replied

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


Message 62 of 95 (796552)
12-31-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AndrewPD
12-30-2016 10:39 PM


Re: Theories
I like chocolate because of the conscious sensation it gives me.
Well that's a tautology. But evolution can partly explain why so many others agree with you!
So we can have a lot of thoughts sensations and perceptions that are useful or simply informative not just in service of brute survival
Well, obviously. But evolution isn't about being 'in service to brute survival' (just ask a eusocial insect, or a male spider) so this point seems a little irrelevant.
Freud had a more persuasive theory
Freud dealt with individuals. Evolution is about populations. We aren't repeatedly saying this for our health, you know.
It is unlikely that I find men attractive because they would make a suitable mating partner.
No, but it is likely that you find men attractive because your brain thinks they would.
Perhaps you should go back to my post and respond to what I said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AndrewPD, posted 12-30-2016 10:39 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 11:54 AM Modulous has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 63 of 95 (796555)
12-31-2016 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 9:34 AM


Re: On ramifications...
AndrewPD writes:
I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative.
So this is what you're trying to get to?
Well first off, evolution isn't widely discussed outside academia and places like this. It's a scientific concept, not a branch of politics. As such it can be neither positive or negative, it's just an objective assessment of how we see life working.
It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal.
Not by anyone with any idea of what evolution actually is. Human behaviours are not subserviant to mindless reproduction and the ToE doesn't say that it is.
It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal". Claims about evolution are more relevant to humans than claims in physics.
We are just another animal. Get over it. The ToE has nothing to say about Gods. What it did was show that some primitive writings were incorrect when they spoke of how life developed on earth. Again, get over it. The ToE has relevance to people in that it tells us when and how we got to be what we are. How we behave now is down to us.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 9:34 AM AndrewPD has not replied

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


Message 64 of 95 (796556)
12-31-2016 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 9:34 AM


Re: On ramifications...
quote:
I don't see why you are trying to pin me down to one argument here when I am having *a general discussion about (possible) implications of evolution.*
Perhaps because you might be more successful at making a point ? Or having a useful discussion ?
quote:
The case I recently highlighted of the Nazi's is not the case that the ramifications of evolution are frightening rather the theory itself was utilised in a frightening and deadly way.
Except that it must be remembered that the Nazis were not really in favour of evolution and didn't really make use of the theory.
quote:
The theories of a hierachies of races and the idea the mentally ill disabled were useless etc are theories under the banner of evolution that were destructive and pernicious.
And neither of these are implications of evolutionary theory. Or really supported by it.
quote:
I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative. It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal.
That evolution has shaped human behaviour in some ways to encourage reproduction can hardly be in doubt. That human life is or must or should be subservient to reproduction is quite outside the theory.
quote:
It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal".
I don't think that you should take such views very seriously - after all they are generally the arguments of poorly-informed opponents of evolution. It is true humans are animals - but that was known well before Darwin - and the idea that it is a "downgrading" seems foolish.
Evolution does away with some Gods, and removes one of the least-bad arguments for a God, but that doesn't stop many believers from accepting evolution.
And you clearly don't agree with such claims as you say:
quote:
I don't see what the relevance is of the idea we evolved to our present day life anyway.
So I ask again, why worry about assertions made by opponents of evolution when you don't even agree that they could possibly be true ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 9:34 AM AndrewPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 12-31-2016 11:58 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 65 of 95 (796557)
12-31-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
12-31-2016 9:51 AM


Re: Theories
"I like chocolate because of the conscious sensation it gives me."
Well that's a tautology. But evolution can partly explain why so many others agree with you!
How is that a tautology? I don't know what you mean here. I was pointing out that Dennet doesn't belive in qualia so it is incoherent for him to give an explanation of sweetness which is a quale.
There are lots of things that are good for us that do not give us a pleasent sensation equivalent to sweetness. A spoonful of sugar tastes horrible to me. I am on medication that has a horrible bitter taste. There is no lawful or coherent reason why if something that is good for us would become transformed into pleasent experience. Dennet is trying to explain things to support evolution as opposed to explaining the phenomena in itself.
This is a strange explanation of evolution.
This implies that because we need energy our consciousness will helpfully conjur up pleasent experinces to make food taste nice. However natural selection *has to select things that already exist by chance.*
It can't create things that don't exist, coherently. So what would happen is that someone would find cyanide delicious but quickly die off with his genes. Explanations of evolution often seem to say how something is useful as if this can causally explain its origin but the origin has to be explained by biochemistry etc. You can't just grow wings because they'd be useful.
So it is a coincidence that high energy foods taste nice (sometimes)
Well, obviously. But evolution isn't about being 'in service to brute survival' (just ask a eusocial insect, or a male spider) so this point seems a little irrelevant.
Dawkins says in The Selfish Gene
"We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
Freuds theories dealt with populations as well as individuals and were generalised. Defense mechanisms are supposed to be universal (and I see ample evidence for them.
No, but it is likely that you find men attractive because your brain thinks they would.
How can brain matter have any knowledge or desires? Do you think tree matter has beliefs and desires? It is quite easy to mechanise a lot of behaviours without positing beliefs and desires, however, because humans have lots of conscious states and conscious motives , beliefs and desires we can invoke humans conscious states causally but there is a problem with anthropomorphising nature and brain matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 9:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 12:49 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 95 (796558)
12-31-2016 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by PaulK
12-31-2016 11:27 AM


Re: On ramifications...
PaulK writes:
Except that it must be remembered that the Nazis were not really in favour of evolution and didn't really make use of the theory.
This might require some clarification. While selection is a component of evolution, the Nazis did not employ selection to cull the population of undesirable characteristics because they were advocates of evolution. They applied the same principles used by breeders to produce better breeds of cattle or sheep because they thought it would develop a superior and more pure race.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2016 11:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 67 of 95 (796560)
12-31-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
12-28-2016 8:05 PM


'Bene' is Latin for 'good'.
Except we aren't speaking Latin.
Good like most words has more than one meaning and application
The idea that altruism is moral is a *genuine* tautology. I am a moral nihilist and it is questionable whether "moral" or "good" and "bad" mean anything concrete, but you can attach them to behaviours you approve or disapprove of.
I think having children undermines morality because it causes harm and is corecive among other things. What religious people are saying is that morality doesn't make sense from an atheist/scientific worldview not that atheists can't perform the same acts as theists.
Life appears pointless unfortunately that makes any action irrelevant and just something we occupy ourselves with until death.
I think if religion had been true it could have been a source of meaning and morality for various reasons so the problem with atheism and a solely scientific world view is for recreating purpose and values objectively.
However I don't think it is possible to prove whether or not reality has a purpose or morality etc so I am agnostic to some extent on these issues. But people have tried to push on us an aggressive form of evolutionary based reductionism and evolutionary deflation of values as subservient to survival (see Dawkins Selfish Gene) At the same time as people want to spread this view they don't live the consequences. This is similar to my religious upbringing, they said lots of dramatic things but never acted as you would if you believed these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 12-28-2016 8:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 1:22 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 95 (796562)
12-31-2016 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 9:34 AM


Re: On ramifications...
I don't see why you are trying to pin me down to one argument here when I am having *a general discussion about (possible) implications of evolution.*
The case I recently highlighted of the Nazi's is not the case that the ramifications of evolution are frightening rather the theory itself was utilised in a frightening and deadly way.
There is the issue of whether the implications of evolution are negative and then there is the case of whether theories of the implications evolution are pernicious and destructive.
The theories of a hierachies of races and the idea the mentally ill disabled were useless etc are theories under the banner of evolution that were destructive and pernicious.
There is a difference between observing forms of evolution and using various ideas about how evolution happens to make a social theory.
And are you sure you are not trying to shoehorn evolution into your philosophical worldview of behavior?
I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative. It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal. It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal". Claims about evolution are more relevant to humans than claims in physics.
That's your opinion. Science is neutral, it just provides information of how things work in nature. What you make of it is part of your philosophical worldview.
I don't see what the relevance is of the idea we evolved to our present day life anyway. ...
What is the relevance of any science to our bahavior? It provides knowledge that can form a solid basis for opinions and behavior instead of fantasies.
... Theorists are trying to make evolution change the way we think and act and view reality. ...
Scientists are trying to help people have a rational view of reality and how we fit into the picture.
... However I don't know who most of my ancestors were. If I found out one of my ancestors was Jack the Ripper it would be a fascinating fact but not alter my behaviour. There is one thing to deny a fact that will have an immediate consequence if ignored and being skeptical aboput speculations about what happened over millions of years. ...
The only thing you need to worry about in your direct ancestors is whether your genes carry certain hereditary diseases.
Beyond that, evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.
... Science can postulate theories and facts but it can't say we must belive them that is a value judgement. As I mentioned I am an antinatalist I think having children is unnecessary, unjustified and harmful and is the only thing with negative ramifications. I think it is cruel to have children in the first place and then it is an extra layer of bad to degrade their life more by using evolution to downgrade their status and add an extra layer of futility to their life.
And that again is your opinion. But you don't get to blame science for the ramifications of your opinions. It is your choice how you use the information from science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 9:34 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 69 of 95 (796563)
12-31-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Theories
How is that a tautology?
You enjoy the conscious sensation. This means the same as you saying 'I like it'. Therefore you just said
I like chocolate because I like chocolate. That is tautologous.
Explanations of evolution often seem to say how something is useful as if this can causally explain its origin but the origin has to be explained by biochemistry etc.
No. Biochemistry is the proximate cause. Evolution explains why the biochemistry is the way it is, making it the distal cause.
Dawkins says in The Selfish Gene
And he's quite right, but it doesn't stand against what I said. Survivability is a factor in evolution by natural selection, but it isn't the only one and its not always the most important one.
How can brain matter have any knowledge or desires?
That's what it does. Which is why damaging the brain can change or remove desires and knowledge.
Consider optical illusions, your brain makes inferences about what is happening (such as a static image that appears to be moving).
Do you think tree matter has beliefs and desires?
Trees aren't brains.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 11:54 AM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 70 of 95 (796566)
12-31-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
12-31-2016 12:49 PM


Re: Theories
You enjoy the conscious sensation. This means the same as you saying 'I like it'. Therefore you just said
I like chocolate because I like chocolate. That is tautologous.
That would have been relevant if that was my point. My point was that Dennet's analysis relies on conscious states he doesn't believe in.
What causes conscious states is not known. Correlation is not causation and most mental states either have no specific correlation or several. (leading to the binding problem)
Brains are not trees but there is nothing in the biochemistry of the brain or structure of neurons and action of neuron transmitters that would lead us to believe the brain itself had desires or knowledge. We have knowledge which we attribute as emerging from our brain.
We tend to transmit knowledge by language and symbols. As I said I can recognise attractive men and women and I don't intend to have children with either. I have no idea whether or not they are fertile. There is no reason why attractive perceptions should be subservient to survival value considering there are beautiful things that are poisonous and ugly things that are beneficial.
It's all pretty naive.
The problem with attributing mental states or using mental state metaphors to things is that you are imbuing them with properties that they don't have and unless you can explain the metaphor in other terms it is just a case of falsely evoking mental attributes to things.
The metaphors easily become problematic and either exaggerated or pernicious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 12:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 1:32 PM AndrewPD has replied

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


Message 71 of 95 (796567)
12-31-2016 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 12:17 PM


reductionism
Except we aren't speaking Latin.
*sigh*
Good like most words has more than one meaning and application
No shit. How about you focus on the bits that are relevant to the discussion rather than following pointless rabbit holes?
The idea that altruism is moral is a *genuine* tautology.
What is the relevance of this statement?
I am a moral nihilist and it is questionable whether "moral" or "good" and "bad" mean anything concrete
Yes, you are so far down this rabbit hole you forgot why you entered it.
The question regarding evolution is 'How can a behaviour that harms the organism in question evolve? ' And 'How can it persist in a population?' Evolution can answer this question by shifting perspective to genes. Genes can benefit from altruistic acts, even as individuals do not :- see bees who die to protect the hive.
But people have tried to push on us an aggressive form of evolutionary based reductionism and evolutionary deflation of values as subservient to survival (see Dawkins Selfish Gene)
I've read the book several times. It appears you either haven't, or you failed to comprehend it.
quote:
f animals had a tendency to behave altruistically towards individuals who physically resembled
them, they might indirectly be doing their kin a bit of good. Much would depend on details of the
species concerned.
Such a rule would, in any case, only lead to 'right' decisions in a statistical sense. If conditions
changed, for example if a species started living in much larger groups, it could lead to wrong
decisions.
Conceivably, racial prejudice could be interpreted as an irrational generalization of a kin-selected
tendency to identify with individuals physically resembling oneself, and to be nasty to individuals
different in appearance.
In a species whose members do not move around much, or whose members move around in small
groups, the chances may be good that any random individual you come across is fairly close kin to
you. In this case the rule 'Be nice to any member of the species whom you meet'
could have positive survival value, in the sense that a gene predisposing its possessors to obey the
rule might become more numerous in the gene pool. This may be why altruistic behaviour is so
frequently reported in troops of monkeys and schools of whales. Whales and dolphins drown if they
are not allowed to breathe air. Baby whales, and injured individuals who cannot swim to the surface
have been seen to be rescued and held up by companions in the school. It is not known whether
whales have ways of knowing who their close relatives are, but it is possible that it does not matter.
It may be that the overall probability that a random member of the school is a relation is so high that
the altruism is worth the cost. Incidentally, there is at least one well-authenticated story of a drowning
human swimmer being rescued by a wild dolphin. This could be regarded as a misfiring of the rule
for saving drowning members of the school. The rule's 'definition' of a member of the school who is
drowning might be something like: 'A long thing thrashing about and choking near the surface.'
This, again, is how evolution can explain how these behaviours became fixed and universal. It explains the causes for how brains originated that perform these kinds of actions. Evolution doesn't explain the proximate causes - that's just biology. You seem fixated on the proximate causes for individual actions and evolutionary theory simply isn't the the theory that handles this.
. But people have tried to push on us an aggressive form of evolutionary based reductionism and evolutionary deflation of values as subservient to survival (see Dawkins Selfish Gene)
Not Dawkins, obviously:
quote:
The behaviour of a computer can be explained in terms of interactions between semiconductor electronic gates, and the behaviour of these, in turn, is explained by physicists at yet lower levels. But, for most purposes, you would in practice be wasting your time if you tried to understand the behaviour of the whole computer at either of those levels. There are too many electronic gates and too many interconnections between them. A satisfying explanation has to be in terms of a manageably small number of interactions. This is why, if we want to understand the workings of computers, we prefer a preliminary explanation in terms of about half a dozen major subcomponents -
memory, processing mill, backing store, control unit, input-output
handler, etc. Having grasped the interactions between the half-dozen
major components, we then may wish to ask questions about the internal organization- of these major components. Only specialist engineers are likely to go down to the level of AND gates and NOR gates, and only physicists will go down further, to the level of how electrons behave in a semiconducting medium.
For those that like '-ism' sorts of names, the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things work is probably 'hierarchical reductionism'. If you read trendy intellectual magazines, you may have noticed that 'reductionism' is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it. To call oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit like admitting to eating babies. But, just as nobody actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against.
The nonexistent reductionist - the sort that everybody is against, but who exists only in their imaginations - tries to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts, even, in some extreme versions of the myth, as the sum of the
parts! The hierarchical reductionist, on the other hand, explains a complex entity at any particular level in the hierarchy of organization, in terms of entities only one level down the hierarchy; entities which, themselves, are likely to be complex enough to need further reducing to their own component parts; and so on.
It goes without saying - though the mythical, baby-eating reductionist is reputed to deny this - that the kinds of explanations which are suitable at high levels in the
hierarchy are quite different from the kinds of explanations which are
suitable at lower levels. This was the point of explaining cars in terms of carburettors rather than quarks. But the hierarchical reductionist believes that carburettors are explained in terms of smaller units, which are explained in terms of smaller units, which are ultimately explained in terms of the smallest of fundamental particles.
Reductionism, in this sense, is just another name for an honest desire to understand how things work. We began this section by asking what kind of explanation for complicated things would satisfy us. We have just considered the question
from the point of view of mechanism: how does it work? We concluded that the behaviour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms of interactions between its component parts, considered as successive layers of an orderly hierarchy. But another kind of question is how the complicated thing came into existence in the first place. This is the question that this whole book is particularly concerned with, so I won't
say much more about it here. I shall just mention that the same general principle applies as for understanding mechanism.
A complicated thing is one whose existence we do not feel inclined to take for granted, because it is too 'improbable'. It could not have come into existence in a single act of chance. We shall explain its coming into existence as a consequence of gradual, cumulative, step-by-step transformations from simpler things, from primordial objects sufficiently simple to have come into being by chance. Just as 'big-step reductionism' cannot work as an explanation of mechanism, and must be replaced by a series of small step-by-step peelings down through the hierarchy, so we can't explain a complex thing as originating in a single step. We must again resort to a series of small steps, this time arranged sequentially in time.
In his beautifully written book, The Creation, the Oxford physical chemist Peter Atkins begins:
quote:
I shall take your mind on a journey. It is a journey of comprehension, taking us to the edge of space, time, and understanding. On it I shall argue that there is nothing that cannot be understood, that there is nothing that cannot be explained, and that everything is extraordinarily simple ... A great deal of the universe does not need any explanation. Elephants,
for instance. Once molecules have learnt to compete and to create other molecules in their own image, elephants, and things resembling elephants, will in due course be found roaming through the countryside.
Atkins assumes the evolution of complex things - the subject matter of this book - to be inevitable once the appropriate physical conditions have been set up. He asks what the minimum necessary physical conditions are, what is the minimum amount of design work that a very lazy Creator would have to do, in order to see to it that the universe and, later, elephants and other complex things, would one day
come into existence. The answer, from his point of view as a physical scientist, is that the Creator could be infinitely lazy.
The fundamental original units that we need to postulate, in order to understand the coming into existence of everything, either consist of literally nothing (according to some physicists), or (according to other physicists) they are units of the utmost simplicity, far too simple to need anything so grand as deliberate Creation.
-- The Blind Watchmaker
So ask yourself - what level of explanation do you seek and is evolutionary theory the correct theory to use? It seems you want psychological explanations for homosexuality and other behaviours, in which case you should refer to psychological theories.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 12:17 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 2:34 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 81 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 2:54 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 72 of 95 (796570)
12-31-2016 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 1:18 PM


Re: Theories
That would have been relevant if that was my point. My point was that Dennet's analysis relies on conscious states he doesn't believe in.
Wrong, but this isn't a thread about the philosophy of consciousness so I've ignored that point and tried to bring us back on topic. Please try to do the same.
Brains are not trees but there is nothing in the biochemistry of the brain or structure of neurons and action of neuron transmitters that would lead us to believe the brain itself had desires or knowledge.
The brain does store knowledge and regulate desires, regardless.
There is no reason why attractive perceptions should be subservient to survival value considering there are beautiful things that are poisonous and ugly things that are beneficial.
The reason we are sexually attracted to people is to motivate us to have sex because having sex is a pretty good way of reproducing genes in much the same way we feel hunger and cravings for food motivates us to survive.
This explains the origin of sexual or culinary desires at a population level.
That isn't to say all desires will be beneficial to the individual, and evolutionary theory does not predict this. So why do you bring it up?
It's all pretty naive.
Strawmen often are. But evolutionary biologists don't view the world this way. Your understanding of evolutionary theory is naive but you don't think this, so you think that this application of evolutionary theory is naive. It doesn't seem hopeful you'll change your views on this matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:18 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:51 PM Modulous has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 73 of 95 (796571)
12-31-2016 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
12-31-2016 12:29 PM


Re: On ramifications...
Science is neutral, it just provides information of how things work in nature
Science has gone beyond saying how things work. It has to speculate and make assumptions first as well. Science is part of technology which has radically changed the world. So a lot of science has implications or is done with goals and unspoken metaphysical or philosophical frameworks in mind .
I think what is classed as science is just a facet of the human mind. Someone tries to understand reality or theorises about it and then designs experiments. Science then contains symbols which do not denote actual reality. For example the concept of an atom changed several times but the word stayed the same so the word Atom has denoted different theories about a phenomenon from indivisibility to sub atomic particles through to quantum effects.
I don't see anyway that knowledge can exist outside of the mind. Knowledge in a book only exists when we interpret the symbols. A Chinese textbook conveys no information to me.
What is the relevance of any science to our behaviour? It provides knowledge that can form a solid basis for opinions and behaviour instead of fantasies.
You said science describes how things work and now you are trying to cross the is-ought gap. There is no reason why peoples behaviour *ought* to change in the light of scientific findings and another issue is whether the theory is actually correct. It would be unwise to change ones beliefs and behaviours based on blind face in the infallibility of a scientific claim.
I smoke whilst I know it can have bad effects on my health but I need to smoke for other reasons etc.
Scientists are trying to help people have a rational view of reality and how we fit into the picture.
The notion of rationality is problematic as I suggested above because it crosses the is-ought gap. And what is rational is controversial. It might be rational to believe the earth is flat from one perspective. Rationality is also a value judgement about implications such as saying based on this evidence you ought to believe and do something else..
People can believe a scientific claim without understanding it which amounts to faith not rationality. To claim ones beliefs are rational or irrational you would have to work out whether there beliefs where consistent or contradictory etc which would be a mammoth task.
A lack of belief seems less problematic than a belief because beliefs especially dogmatic ones are usually at the root of extreme actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2016 12:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-31-2016 1:58 PM AndrewPD has not replied
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2016 7:20 PM AndrewPD has replied

  
AndrewPD
Member (Idle past 2415 days)
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 74 of 95 (796572)
12-31-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Modulous
12-31-2016 1:32 PM


Re: Theories
The brain does store knowledge and regulate desires, regardless.
You are conflating correlation with causation. When has anyone seen knowledge in the brain? Knowledge is semantic and symbolic.
Your claim is that my brain somehow knows whether a man is fertile or not. I don't see how anything can know anything is fertile. The biology of what is fertile is highly complex microbiology which it is implausible to claim anyone has an innate knowledge of.
The reason we are sexually attracted to people is to motivate us to have sex because having sex is a pretty good way of reproducing genes in much the same way we feel hunger and cravings for food motivates us to survive.
We don't know what causes sexual attraction. And ironically most of the literature has focused on homosexuality and ignored what might cause someone to become attracted to the opposite sex.
For me I am attracted to a man because I am in a male body and I know what my erogenous zones are. I can know what having someone touching my penis is like. I don't know what having someone touching a clitoris is like. It is a bigger feat to get someone attracted to a body unlike there's just like A sexual sex is easier than sexual reproduction.
Once again you are conflating the evolutionary usefulness of something with its causal account.
It is also ironic that some of the least attractive humans have lots of children. The most attractive humans are not the many producers of offspring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 1:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2016 2:00 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 95 (796573)
12-31-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AndrewPD
12-31-2016 1:40 PM


Re: On ramifications...
You said science describes how things work and now you are trying to cross the is-ought gap. There is no reason why peoples behaviour *ought* to change in the light of scientific findings and another issue is whether the theory is actually correct. It would be unwise to change ones beliefs and behaviours based on blind face in the infallibility of a scientific claim.
Well, you can always add an is to an ought to get another ought. For example, if you already think "I ought not to poison people" then when scientists tell you "Arsenic is poisonous", you would conclude that "I ought not to feed people arsenic". And if you had been doing so up to that point, then you would also conclude: "My behaviour ought to change in the light of this scientific finding".
Blind faith in infallibility doesn't come into it. No-one in the whole world thinks that scientists are always right, but given their track record it's the right way to bet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2016 1:40 PM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024