The issue is, the natural sciences assume that nature already exists. — Wayfarer

Exactly! And assume also that it works in a certain way.
But "Why?" is the big question for me. Why evolution to work in that way from the very beginning??We take that procedure for granted(and that's right indeed) but that procedure, maybe, it serves a purpose and it's not only randomness.

I’ll add to the mix of ideas as regards possible answers: my own presumption is that evolution in some way works with the will to “be/become conformant to objective reality - both metaphysical and physical”. Those changes (mutations, etc.) or properties that deviate the being/entity (e.g., species) from objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to cease to be. Those changes or properties that conform the being/entity to objective reality to a sufficient extent tend to cause the being/entity to continue remaining - albeit, often in changed form. Mere poetics as is, but I like it: shares certain attributes with "truth being a conformity with that which is real". Again, I acknowledge the mystical-ish poeticism to much of this. But in the absence of something more logically cogent given what I previously mentioned about evolution, I’m biased toward maintaining this point of view. This for whatever it might be worth. — javra

Your thoughts, as Wayfarer's doubts too, seem like an oasis for me at this thread.

I thought "wtf not even one finds it weird that evolution's work and its way with the (let's name them random) genetic combinations seems to have a "purpose" for existence? Or even a will to conform in the objective reality as you mention?!".

Of course our opinion can't be supported by any scientific arguments but come on I don't accept to be so easily rejected by randomness!
At the end why are there so many possible combinations in genes as natural selection to occur??
Could it be possible that all these "DNA errors" that cause mutations, as T Clark described them, to serve a purpose of survival? A purpose for the organism to go on living through that "error procedure"? Even death as you say seems necessary for life.

Why to be possible so many combinations in genes from the first place and not just one or two let's say?!
Anyway your post was uplifting for me I have to admit.

Natural selection is like a filter, but is a filter responsible for generating what goes through it? Why should there be anything for natural selection to select? — Wayfarer

These questions are into the core of that thread in fact. Why should there be anything for natural selection to select from the first place?
Some might say :"It's just the way it is. Simple ". But I don't know. Though it might be true indeed my mind could never fully " digest" it.
Well not that these questions mean that there is a "will to exist" indeed, but I don't know also if these questions are so easily answered from randomness.

You certainly stated its artificiality as a counterargument. If you're backtracking on that, good. — Kenosha Kid

I stated that computers are human made no living things and can't be compared to living organizations. Simple as that. You insist on something that I never mentioned. Anyway.

In fact you're the only person I've ever met who thinks viruses are alive. — Kenosha Kid

Check Hanover's article then to see that it is an open issue(that surprised me cause I thought that it was not even debatable, but seems it is).
And for sure there are many scientists who think viruses alive.In fact from the search that I did seems that the majority of scientists believe that. I ensure you I m not the only one.

https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

. If being man-made precludes will, it should do so whether alive or not. I — Kenosha Kid

No it doesn't precludes will. Where did I mention that? Each case is different. I just pointed out that computers as, let's say, cars are human made things. Does that mean that could never be human made creatures instead of things?What exactly is incoherent here?

Changing one's values to fit different desired conclusions is just weak argumentation. — Kenosha Kid

Same with changing other's words too.

RNA is alive. Yeah okay. :yikes: We're a long way from science, Toto. — Kenosha Kid

RNA is a part of a cell which plays crucial role as DNA also. You find that it isn't alive?That it doesn't carry a form of life inside it?
Every part of me isn't alive also? My liver isn't alive also? Science says that DNA and RNA aren't alive?

is somehow relevant. This is incoherent thinking. — Kenosha Kid

No it isn't. Not everything man made is the same. Again, a clone is the same with computers? I can't understand why you find that so weird.

Is it your belief that all organic molecules are themselves alive? — Kenosha Kid

Not all. But RNA is. As DNA.

If we ever discovered in another planet a virus. Wouldn't that be considered as indication of life existence? Some form of life? Or at least the possibility of it? I think it would be considered a great discovery.

So apparently you didn't buy my explanation of evolution by natural selection. If you want to buy into some sort of story about the struggling virus fighting against our attempts to kill it, there's not much more I can say. — T Clark

Your explanation seem to be the dominate one. And sounds truly the most possible one. I started that thread not cause I m sure that every living creature (even tiniest ones like viruses) have a will to exist.I could never be sure of such thing or have any "evidence" in favor of it.

But i was always fascinated how everything which comes to life (even trees) struggle to survive as if they had a will to go on existing. At least that's how it seemed to my eyes.
I wanted to see if anyone else found that possible or had the same thoughts. Or even had an scientific paradox that could be used as an argument in favor of that.
From the responses I see, no one does (at least here).

So yes, something inside me wishes a force of life in everything to exist.And not everything to be a random thing.
But I m logical enough to realize that this might not be the case at all. The fact that I would want such Will to exist, doesn't make it true also. And your arguments, as others too, for sure sound more convincing than mine.

Is RNA more alive than a computer? — Kenosha Kid

Well yeah it is.

In the case of a man-made virus which you want to argue has a will, you held the fact that it's man-made irrelevant to the question of it having a will, only that it's alive (even though it isn't). Yet in the case of a computer which you wish to argue has no will, the fact that it's man-made is relevant. — Kenosha Kid

Even if the virus is man made it is a living thing. For example when scientists cloned the sheep Dolly or if they ever achieve to clone a human wouldn't these be living creatures also? Would they be the same with computers only because they were human made? For me not at all.

All these don't make my thesis of a "will to exist" true or prove anything. Of course not. I just explain you why I can never fully accept arguments that involve computer comparisons with living organisms and how they behave.

Our own multi-faceted will to live could be, at least in part, a product of the same thing. — frank

Could you elaborate it a little more? Not sure I realized where you stand on that.

So are you saying that a virus genetically designed in a lab has no will but an identical virus naturally evolved does? — Kenosha Kid

Viruses designed naturally or in a lab are both something alive (well it's an open issue if they are but let's assume yes). Computers aren't the same for sure and for sure nothing to do with life itself.

Saying "but they're designed" or "they're not alive" isn't a response. — Kenosha Kid

Well as I told you I understood the analogy you used but still for me is a response indeed. They do are designed by humans and they aren't alive indeed. So this can never be a convincing argument for me. Not of course that this makes the opposite (that virus has will) true.

some of the copies are imperfect copies, most of which simply will not work, but one of which by accident might work better than the original. It attaches better or survives better in the air, or something. so as the copies copy copies of copies, one variant comes to dominate, and as vaccines or immune systems make progress in suppressing the original, variants that accidentally resist the body's defences spread more. This is more like water flowing downhill than any kind of fight, but from a human pov, the human can fight the current of water even though the water is not fighting at all. — unenlightened

Ok got your point.

it does exactly nothing. It just sits there until it falls apart — unenlightened

But for example with vaccinations when you "fight" the virus. It responds right? Some variations have much more resistance to vaccines. Trying to "fight back" and keep existing. Doesn't it change as to keep existing?
If it did nothing at all why not just fall apart from the first place? Doesn't that response indicates something? Maybe it doesn't but I don't know I find it weird.

DNA is always trying to end its miserable existence, and eventually, almost all strains and strands achieve this. — unenlightened

That's true indeed?DNA tries to "kill itself"? Is it scientific proven or you use it as a metaphor? It's not ironic question . I'm just curious, I was never aware of such thing.

Evolution has no drive, direction, purpose, or force. — T Clark

Yeah I figured it out you believed so. And told you I have no argument to bring against that. It might be the case indeed.

But computers only do as we tell them, which is will!": M — Kenosha Kid

Well no it is not will. But still I could never accept these comparisons with computers. Computers are children of the human mind. An alive creature and its mind manufactured them. But computers aren't alive.
I got what you mean and the analogy you use here. But though there are many similarities sometimes I can't accept them working exactly the same.

Variations in the virus strains develop as the result of random genetic mutations which take place on a continuous basis. Some mutations have no significant effect, some have negative consequences for the organism, and some have a positive effect. — T Clark

Why but these random genetic mutations seem to serve the purpose of existence. Right? I mean why to serve that purpose from the very beginning? I think your point is that it doesn't serve any purpose at all. It just happens right? I can't disagree .Not having a real argument against it.

But if you see it in large scale and not individually, the purpose of the variations of let's say the general "population of Covid viruses" (same with humankind genes) seems to be to keep staying alive. The purpose of this evolution procedure is to keep existing. Keep living. Seems to me like a "force" pushing towards there.

Of course the most possible scenario is to be wrong but my mind could never fully be convinced by that random thing of evolution. Though it might be the truth indeed.

This may very well be the best discussion ever proposed in the history of reality.

It will probably be deleted soon. — Outlander

Why you think it will be deleted?

So how can we not talk about all understandings of what life and energy is. Just because you can't detect the thoughts or understand or decode them doesn't mean they don't exist. — Outlander

Sorry I didn't get what you mean. I just wanted to focus on tiny forms of life as viruses and bacteria and its way of keep existing. Can you clarify it?

The appearance of will and purpose and design in evolution is the same. It's a foot in the door to understanding the mechanics through metaphor, especially in large state spaces and complex environments that are otherwise difficult to grasp. But at heart it's just dumb numbers doing dumb things according to statistics and feedback mechanisms — Kenosha Kid

So in general, if I got it right, your point is that as everything, viruses variants are just an automatical mechanical procedure and includes no transmission of any kind of information as to go on existing?Right?

Just like a computer can win a chess game — Olivier5

Yeah but a computer is manufactured by a living creature. Humans. Virus is already alive. Though from the Hanover's article I see that many doubt that is alive from the very beginning.

Will is persuant to an individual: evolution is not. — Kenosha Kid

I get what you mean but I don't use Will here with the typical philosophical meaning we give to it . I should have clarified it from the beginning.

I mostly mean something like Agent Smith said. Like a primal mechanism of making the virus "decide" to go on existing. To include the information as "to know what to do" as to keep existing. If that makes more sense.

It's as if the virus has a(n) (invisible) brain that's strategizing, thinking about what's its next best move. — Agent Smith

That's more or less the core of my question. Seems really weird to me indeed. Though it might be a biological scientific issue that I m not aware of

So these strains were there from the very beginning? Since "virus birth"?? And just some of them die and others survive? Haven't these strains developed afterwards as an effort from the virus to survive?

Very interesting article. I always had the belief that viruses are alive indeed. As I see now it's an open issue. Though even from the article I was more convinced by the "alive argument". But gave me more doubts.

So I don't think one can generalise about the moral character of Christians in the way that Lewis appears to be doing. — unenlightened

Plus generalizations like these offer nothing but more fuel to the atheists / theists battle. Which has its immediate impact to our common societies we share.

And when you attack theists with arguments like these, you make them stick to their beliefs even more.
So if your actual "goal" as an atheist is to make them see how wrong they are, you achieve the exact opposite. You make them even more dogmatic. In all occasions it's a lose-lose case for both sides.

Theists and Atheists should learn to coexist. We share the same society.
And judging someone as moral or not in general,cause of his belief or not to any kind of God(especially since everyone "experience" belief in his own personal way) is a logical fallacy.

My point being that the etymology of words doesn't command meaning, but usage does. What words mean in one time period or context can be different than in others. — Hanover

Indeed.

Yanis Varoufakis, belov'd of German bankers — Banno

Is it irony or you think he is indeed?

Idiot indeed has Greek origins from the word Tim also mentioned "ιδιώτης". Which meant in ancient Greece "the one who doesn't care about the public issues (democracy etc) and looks only for his interests".
Usually they used it as a negative form of characterization for someone. But not with the meaning of " idiot". Not at all.
That meaning came from the use of the word in Latins. It changed through years and got the meaning it has now.

One who looks out for thier own interests at the expense of others is, quite literally, an idiot. — Banno

What about If he just looks for his interests at no expense at all of others? Not taking advantage of anyone at all but also don't care to be a hero and save the world? Can you blame him too? Call him idiot?

If they would make the claim that Christian doctrine has changed over time, or that these two Church Fathers did not mean what they said, then there is significant further explanation needed. Changes in morality over time are prima facie incompatible with what is right being what god wills. It looks as if what is right changes along with human sentiment, such that what was once considered acceptable no longer is. — Banno

It does work that way indeed. Christianity as every other religion changes over time and its "translation" too. Following the humanitarian morality process.

And that's exactly the reason that in other threads, that we debated about Christianity and God, I try to convince you that it is just a human invention. Nothing more at the end. Don't blame religions(or any specific religion even worse) for all human disasters, blame people that are steal "weak" - as to live without religions.

So yes, of course religions doctrine will follow-transform according to human morality in general.
You can't examine it as a stable thing and being aphoristic to it all together! It is a "living thing". It progress and changing.

We have to see the bigger picture here! As every religion it is people who hold the wheel.And that's why we will see even more different doctrine from Christian Church in the future.Religions if they want to stay "alive", they have to "transform". See the rhetoric that Pope uses nowadays for example.

As for the article, though Lewis does have some points and presents them really vividly. He still does the same mistake I think. He starts his points from a total false base. Imo at least.

There are two different passages between which there is actual discrepancy. — god must be atheist

Well in fact there are many passages in Bible which there is discrepancy. That's why there are so many different "versions" of Christianity. Cause many Churches give different "translations" of Bible. As in any other religion also.

The punishment for those who don't become Christians -- whatever your definition of it is -- is eternal death. — god must be atheist

I have heard that too. Some Christians believe it also. But from my personal experience most Christians believe God will give a second chance to atheists and people who believed in other religions.

And what's so horrible about eternal death? Nothing. It's infinitely better than eternal life. — god must be atheist

Well I think most people would still "vote" for eternal life though. At least a "paradise life" that God promises to them. Doesn't sound that bad.

What exactly is your claim here - that god will punish only those who commit evil, not those who do not believe in him? — Banno

Yeah many believe that indeed. From my personal experience the majority of religion people claim is that God will judge all those who don't believe, in Christ's resurrection.Second Appearance. That will be their second and last chance to believe, according to them of course.

With Lewis claim is the same as saying "that Christians believe that people who believe in other religions (Muslims etc) will be eternal tortured too!" which is something that of course most Christians don't think that way.

This is a question that really bothered me at the past a lot. And I did a lot of "personal research" on that. By personal, I mean reading, talking with religious people, priests etc. Not a scientific research of course. But really I strongly insist that this isn't the main way that religion people think about atheists.

I also add the way that if you noticed Pope talks about atheists. It is always about "God's hug being open to everyone" and shit like that. But never aphoristic to them! And not just Pope. Most priests.

what is it that you think will happen to those who do not believe in god but nevertheless lead blameless lives when they die? — Banno

I m not sure how to answer that cause I m an atheist. But I ensure you that there are many who think that these people will be in paradise also. Same as a guy who believed in God (or said he did) but did terrible acts, will go to hell.

I invite you to read the article, which is accessible and entertaining, and addresses your reply. — Banno

As to be honest I wasn't about to read it cause from the beginning seemed like a claim based on a total false premise .And I thought it will be a waste of time.
But wtf. I will now. What harm could come even from a bad argument?

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment. — Banno

No they don't. There is indeed a portion of Christian fanatics who might believe this but the main majority don't.
There are even more Christians who believe that God judge people by their acts not just their belief to him. I don't know how you or David Lewis get that.

Except if the thread is about that minority of Christians who believe this thing. If so, fine.

I'm 100% sure that you see the same graphical design and colors used for this forum. My black and white are the same as yours — Goldyluck

I would call "all in" for the opposite. And it's totally the opposite indeed.

Details, and emotional and epistemic load, might be different though. — Goldyluck

Exactly cause all that "load" you mention is different makes your perception of "red" unique. And different from any other's.

The way that each of us experiences all the "data" that our senses give us is a total personal case.
All that sensational data we get, are "filtered" by these and many others factors and give us our own unique personal perception of "red". And it is an unsolvable problem indeed so far.

Solving death would mean the "creation" of new kind of human. So philosophy I guess is the least of the things that will change afterwards.

Everything aspect of human life would have to be "re-arranged", "redefined".
There is nothing to define life more than death itself. Every aspect of human behavior and all human societies were "built" onto that base(morality, values, economy, our unconscious, our fears, everything! ) . The existence of death. So imagine what the "end" of death would mean for life itself!

One thing is sure though, that Philosophers of that era (if it ever comes) would have muchhhh work to do afterwards!

Yes it is I think. Since the receiver always has the option not to show patience.
Like in Eagle Scout example you gave, it's just about how much the person wants to achieve something as to convince himself that this deserves him to be patient.
It is a matter of choice after all.

So it is a meaningless question that disturbs philosophy and science all these centuries?And even nowadays.
— dimosthenis9

Yes. — Xtrix

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions.
— dimosthenis9

No. — Xtrix

Now you put into question the definition of "science"
— dimosthenis9

Indeed, since you invoked "science" to define what's physical — Xtrix

But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either.
— dimosthenis9

That’s not what I said. — Xtrix

Sorry I couldn't resist.You are weird. Bye.

If you want to be taken seriously on here, then doing a minimal amount of reading is essential. Otherwise you sound ignorant — which you do — Xtrix

What reading has to do with the silly definition game you play here?What exactly I stated here that was ignorant?

You regard a philosophical problem mind/brain as useless cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. And that's ridiculous.
If people could talk only about what we know for sure (which arent much) then philosophy would be condemned. Unless if you consider philosophy same as science. But I forgot, according to you, we can't define science either. So wtf.

Well no thanks I don't want to be taken seriously from people who I don't take seriously. So cool.You can think whatever you want for me. No harm feelings.And yes, that was my last response.

We can say it’s anything made up of particles, energy fluctuations, substance. Then nature consists of matter and forces. This is the common view. — Xtrix

So exactly which of these common view criteria mind meets as to consider it as "matter"?? Is there any substance of mind that has been observed? Or you consider the brain energy as mind?

Best to at least review these ideas before continuing. Otherwise you’re simply talking nonsense. — Xtrix

Yeah whatever. Anyway told you it's pointless. We have no base at all to start talking. The game you play it is silly. And trust me non Socratic at all. I will just leave you on your own here.

If the "physical" is "what science observes and identifies," then I ask: "What is science?" This shouldn't be surprising. What it is is uncomfortable -- at least for you. — Xtrix

Science, among others, is what provide us proofs as to categorize what we observe to "matter".
Such proofs haven't been provided in the case of "mind". Instead of the protons example you presented before,that have been provided.
Now I guess your next question will be "what is proof?". And so on.

Yet you don't seem to have much appreciation for the long history of the philosophy of science. — Xtrix

Well you seem not to have much appreciation in philosophy in general. Considering such a great question like mind/body, that philosophers dealt for centuries useless just cause we don't hold the absolute truth of definitions. Anyway I see no point continuing that.

But I don't put any effort at all for that. It's what I can do a priori. I can observe myself. I was born with that ability. I can walk also. When I walk I perform science also? Sorry but I can't consider that science.

"Technological scientific means" is a meaningless statement. — Xtrix

"Technological scientific means-tools" is a statement? And meaningless too?

Why should aspects of human behavior be "non-physical"? That's hardly an obvious point, and in fact is what's being discussed here. — Xtrix

Aspects of human behavior like morality are physical? Do they have" matter"? Sorry I really can't follow you. For me the difference is obvious.

So "empirical observation of ourselves" isn't science? Then what is science? — Xtrix

When I observe that I have mind or two legs or two arms am I doing science?? That makes me a scientist?

So here again we have another idea you simply take for granted, assuming by simply declaring something "scientific" we will all nod our heads in agreement, and that will settle the question of what's physical. — Xtrix

From all that you write here also the general point is that as I told you before with your way of thinking we can't talk about anything. You question every single word and we don't have even a base to start discussing. Now you put into question the definition of "science" So it's really pointless.

There are common definitions of what some things mean(like science, physical etc), even if some of them aren't perfect and of course some might change at the future(as the 17th century example you gave) still they are more than enough as people to understand each other and discuss about it.

With your way you make philosophy forbidden. I really see no use in playing such definition game.Even if the definitions aren't crystal clear the general concepts of some words are more than enough as people to discuss about them.

Cite a philosophical theory? Explain how thoughts are not physical? Why make shit up instead of accepting 'you don't know'? — 180 Proof

What exactly are you talking about? You misrepresent my views and you ask me to answer to your fictional questions also? Where exactly i stated that philosophy is science? I just mention that philosophy provides science with ideas and attempts to form suggestions for possible explanations. That's all and that is extremely helpful.

Who told you that I think my opinion that thoughts are non physical as true for sure? It's just my view. Explain how thoughts are physical then. Can you?
Please you better stop it. You embarrass yourself.