So I guess there is an element of both, but I feel over the long term, it is the fittest species that survives - teamwork triumphs over individual efforts. — Devans99

Until a meteor hits the part of the planet full of team-working people :grimace: .

I think teamwork should be prioritized as matter of morals (I can't think of a better way to say it - I think it is a worthy thing to strive for). But I think we need to see the results of this "teamwork" over the course of a few million years before I am convinced it is evolutionarily "better" than crocodiles and cockroaches.

Evolution takes place over eons and is drastically affected by massive events. We are still decades (at least) away from being able to avoid the same mass-elimination as the dinosaurs (a few may survive and become the "birds" of the future - but effectively, extinction).

We are living in a knowledge-based economy. The intelligent should have access to greater financial resources - which are required to facilitate reproduction - so the reproduction of the strongest members of society should still be happening. — Devans99

Unfortunately, our intelligence gives us access to statistics that tell us the exact opposite is actually true. The highly educated breed at FAR lower rates than the uneducated. I think this is fairly commonly accepted (it was the basis for the movie Idiocracy - not that that suggests it is right, haha), but definitely let me know if this is the first you are hearing...I am sure I can find the stats.

Only VERY minimal resources are required for reproduction. Even those with severe handicaps can reproduce, let alone the bottom half of the knowledge base. You are right that the strong will always have access to reproduction. Unfortunately, many of these "strong" will choose to not have children. Many more will only have one or two as that is what happens with planning. Meanwhile, the "weak" will continue to spit out litters.

I think you are correct however that we are losing something in evolutionary terms through not embracing a mechanism such as eugenics. Here we are handicapped obviously by the dreadful legacy of WW2. — Devans99

Agreed...unfortunately eugenics had such an ugly history that it may (rightly) take a while before people are willing to give that another go.

I feel the human race is likely to embrace genetic engineering with a resultant great acceleration in our rate of evolutionary progress. — Devans99

Well, that answers my "people can't evolve that fast" objection :smile:. If I have access to genetic engineering, I might actually be interested in reproducing, haha. Unfortunately, people have a strange aversion to genetic engineering (heck, even the movie Gattaca basically said that the unmodified human was somehow superior to the engineered).

This is what I mean about us being the most successful species - we are evolving not only in the original manner of random genetic mutations - our society and technology is evolving too. — Devans99

But our societal evolution somewhat impedes our biological evolution...by allowing ALL genes to be passed on. None are culled. No one type of person regularly fails to reproduce. Freak accidents and choice are the only impediments. Now as you say, targeted genetic engineering would certainly compensate for this trend...for those willing to participate (and assuming we don't accidentally engineer away some key feature that leads to our extinction).

Overall, I agree that our technological and societal evolution APPEAR to outweigh any biological inferiority, but I will need a few million years before I am thoroughly convinced.

Sorry, this got long...I guess that is what happens when I can't decide whether I agree or disagree :smile:

I think evolution is about survival of the fittest species rather than the fittest individual. — Devans99

Hmmm. I would think it is both...and neither...depending on context.

So we have socially evolved such that we are superior to other species — Devans99

Evolution wise, it would be difficult to measure "superior" species. Wouldn't organisms that can survive high radiation environments, or the vacuum of space, be at least in some way "superior" to humans? Also, framing evolution as a competition between species is problematic...most species rely on many other species to survive.

we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. — Devans99

Isn't this exactly the opposite of evolution as it TYPICALLY exists in nature? The lions pick off the weaker members of the heard leaving the strong to pass on their genes? Human society has transformed "survival of the fittest" within our species to just "who wants to breed?" Nearly every human will have the opportunity to pass on their genes...heck nowadays, even someone born without the tools for reproduction could possibly even have genetic material removed from themselves and passed to the next generation. I am NOT suggesting we should change this moral regulation of our "evolution". But we have to recognize that our morality may interfere with other aspects of our "fitness".

we recognise that each individual in society is a contributor and we must therefore take care of the weaker members of society. — Devans99

I am a believer in progressive taxation but it has to be imposed globally else it just leads to economic refugees. That would require some form of world government... which we are quite a way from achieving. — Devans99

Now I am confused...how are the "weaker members of society" being taken care of if not by the government? Surely, charity has not shown anywhere near the capacity to accomplish this...so without progressive taxation how do we fund government? Or are you just saying everyone should pay the same 50-60%?

Because, to me, what you said here is a great way to ensure that there is never a progressive tax (or not for centuries until a global government actually exists...as you admit).

You did say “for example” but 60% is WAY too high. Only 25% of individuals make more than the mean individual income of about $50k/yr, while about 50% make less than half of that, under $25k/yr. Just keeping a roof over your head is a constant struggle for most people, and the vast majority have no financial safety net at all. I’m just barely in that top 25% myself and I live in the shittiest trailer park in town, still renting the land it’s parked on. — Pfhorrest

If a person makes 25k where cost of living is low, and they don't have kids, they can live a pretty comfortable life (rent, food, plus money for internet/cable depending on priorities). That was my only point when I said that life could be struggle free for 60% of the population.

I make more than that, but live in a high cost of living area so that I can either pay rent or my student loans. But I would still call my life "struggle free" because that is how I choose to live.

I was not making any sort of economic point...other than kids are expensive as sh*t.

And minimum wage in California is $12 an hour...so ANY (documented) full time worker here makes 25K a year.

I think 25k SHOULD be more than enough for a comfortable living. Our desires and aspirations mean we won't be satisfied without MORE...how much more? and what exactly do we want more of? Hard to say, but everyone wants more than they have now.

But if we are storming the bastille, just let me know...even if 25K is enough for me to live comfortably...it doesn't mean others should have billions (or even dozens of millions - I am with FDR, government takes 100% over $350,000)

In such matters I just refer to personal choice. How hot does Goldilocks want her porridge? — ovdtogt

But won't some things offend Goldilocks that do not offend me? For the greater good we might decide that no porridge can be over 100 degrees Fahrenheit...but Goldilocks likes it hot.

I just can't help but argue sometimes :grimace: I know we largely agree here. What I am saying would only really matter if we went to create an actual constitution based on this stuff.

It is to be hoped that it will come up with a better model than capitalism in due cause. — Devans99

Can we just analyze capitalism for strengths and weaknesses and try to regulate away the weaknesses?

A whole new system would be great, but what do we do in the meantime? Does progressive taxation count as a "natural" model of wealth redistribution? It worked in America in the 1940s and 1950s. I doubt that is what you mean, but all I can think of when it comes to natural is survival of the fittest where the winners take what they want (I would point out that capitalism is UNnatural because it largely took away the violent option of winning the game - yes, that is a good thing, but NOT natural - without police and a strong government, capitalism would not exist).

I might be off topic, but I guess the OP would know that an individual vs greater good argument would end up including capitalism?

Behave as selfish as you can get without unnecessarily offending others has always been my motto and this has always served me well. — ovdtogt

Being too selfish is harmful.
Being too altruistic is harmful.
Goldilocks knows best. — ovdtogt

I agree with the sentiment. I worry that we (or many people) will disagree on what exactly is "unnecessarily offending", "too selfish", or "too altruistic", but overall I hear you (and I am fairly certain you have good support in philosophy - Aristotle and the Buddha were into that golden middle stuff - I think).

Capitalism, a product of social evolution, is an expression of this hybrid model - individuals behave in a selfish manner yet still end up contributing to the greater good. — Devans99

I think the first world has hit saturation on capitalism's contributions to the greater good. Africa can probably still add to its greater good with capitalism (I am not sure which poor areas they will exploit to get the full gains of capitalism), but there hasn't been much "greater good" improvement in the US for 20 years or so (socially, there has been some improvement, but economically - bupkis).

Society is already being harmed by the acknowledgment that there are no objective 'oughts'. The objective 'oughts' is what makes 'members of society' from individuals. — ovdtogt

I could just as easily state that society is just emerging from millennia of harm caused by people believing in objective oughts. Objective oughts create blind followers instead of thinking individuals.

I don't believe anything quite as strong as what I just wrote here (one person could live a great life with objective oughts, while the next person might become a terrible person due to objective oughts)...but I think your statements would be very difficult to support well.

By ultimately discovering that there are? 'Hell is truth, realised too late' ~ Anonymous. — Wayfarer

haha, zing. Do you think could convince me, or are we talking a Pascal's Wager situation?

We will destroy civilization as we know it but the few survivors will build a nightmarish utopia filled with nihilism. — ovdtogt

Maybe we just need to introduce more people to the pleasures of nihilism (objective nihilism seems a fact, but subjectively we can choose any purpose we want). How am I harmed or hindered by acknowledging there are no objective "oughts"? I get that it is a problem for some, but it will be easy to invent "religions" that give those people purpose. How about "The Holy Hole Fillers"? A religion where they both literally and figuratively fill holes (I was thinking "in dirt", I just realized someone could take "hole filling" in a whole 'nother direction...I am fine with that religion too, haha).

For me, personally, my beliefs are of a greater good, although I would, again, like to see what you think :smile: — shaq

Well Big Aristotle, I tend to agree. However, I think @tim wood has a point in that your answer suggests the greater good ALWAYS takes priority...which would be problematic. Another similar problem would be related to who decides the "greater good"? Is there any chance we all agree?

Mr. Wood, I hope you set me straight if I misconstrued your position :grimace:

You speak of SC taking different forms based on context but the fact is we use SC with the same meaning in all and any context otherwise there would be a different word for each context. If you agree it's this universally applicable meaning of SC that I'm trying to zero in on. — TheMadFool

I think that "simple" and "complex" are relative concepts, like "big" and "small". So I can't see how they could take on a universal meaning...?

What is bigger a house or a car? One could answer that a house is TYPICALLY bigger, but there would be no universally correct answer. Again, more qualifiers are needed.

I've inadvertently quantified SC by using the the number of constituents and interactions at play in an object to get a sense of how simple or complex it is. I accept that this is probably just half the story or even that this is utter nonsense. — TheMadFool

Yes :smile: That is definitely a qualifier. But only one, and a rather limited one (notice based on that society is definitely more complex than a single human...and yet we both agree that seems problematic in a way). So I don't think this is nonsense, "half the story" is more like it.

If you think I'm wrong or partially correct, kindly be explicit of what needs modification or, if you think my theory is moonshine, give me reasons why. — TheMadFool

Is my response above enough? Definitely let me know if there was an aspect you were touching on that I did not address.

Hmmm, after reading the rest maybe I will try to quickly (I stink at that) say my view of your two points:

1 Understand the meaning of simplicity and complexity — TheMadFool

I have no doubt that you understand these words, it is just your attempt to ascribe universal meaning to relative words that leaves me struggling.

2. Understand whether the accepted wisdom that complexity proceeds from simplicity makes sense or not — TheMadFool

I appreciate your challenge to this readily accepted position. I feel too poorly informed to really get into it. Prior to the big bang, were things ultimately complex or ultimately simple? Neither? The first few microseconds after the big bang all of the matter/energy in the universe was crammed into a much smaller "space"...wouldn't this have caused far more interactions between particles (or bits of energy)? Isn't that a "type" of complexity? What is more complex, energy or matter? Why?

So I can certainly accept your challenge as reasonable...I am just a long way from feeling confident either way.

Is there any form of consciousness that you would be prepared to accept as less complex than a human’s? — Brett

I am not convinced that I understand consciousness (no, actually I am rather sure that I do not, haha)...does science think it understands it at this point (I really am not sure of the current consensus)?

How then, would I begin to rank them according to simplicity/complexity?

This is what I mean by A LOT more qualifiers/specifiers.

From what I've seen of your posts you tend to lean towards relativism. Would that be fair? — Brett

I think you are right in that objectively I am a relativist. However, using the knowledge of "reality" that we can acquire, I think we can subjectively make conclusions on the best way to live in relation to certain (somewhat vague) goals.

And i may have missed an earlier response:

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans? — Brett

In the same way that a human is more complex than a hand, or a heart, or a brain...the human is just one component of society. So it is definitionally more complex...and yet this doesn't seem quite right, does it? My point in using that example was to show the big problem we have in using "simple" or "complex" without A LOT of qualifiers/specifiers.

Much like 5 cm is longer than 3 cm, or 39 years is longer than 21 days, or speed of light is faster than 4 Km/h, you have to have a measure of complexity if you want to say with any certainty, "a human is more complex than a hydroelectric, damn."

Do you have such a measurement device and unit of complexity by which to establish the degree of complexity?

If yes, what is it?

If not, then you can't possibly argue scientifically that one thing is more complex than the other. — god must be atheist

I think you said it more directly, but this is what I have been complaining about since the start. Glad I am not the only one to see it that way :smile:

I think I'll give this topic a rest for now. Thanks for the interesting conversation. G'day. :smile: — TheMadFool

Same to you.

Unfortunately, although I'd love to believe it, social entities, despite appearing distinct from the individual, is still structured around the basic body plan of an animal, the head being the most visible of all body-parts in social entities e.g. president, prime minister, king, emperor, etc. If social entities were more complex than humans then we'd see something like consciousness in it - a true complexity. — TheMadFool

None of this disputes that society is made up of people...does it? So in a part of society, there is consciousness, that makes that part of society more complicated than all of society? That makes zero logical sense. I think I get your point, but I hope you are seeing that it is the various potential uses of the words "simple" and "complex" that are the source of the problem.

And until we understand it better I will not call consciousness complicated. What if consciousness is simply the touch of god, and nothing else? I get you are trying to make this discussion more scientific than that, but I have explained my hesitation to label things as simple or complex outside of context, and I don't have enough context to label consciousness. Is a dog's consciousness simpler or more complex than a human's? How so?

I see this thread suddenly got busy, so no need to get back to me if you have more exciting posts to respond to :smile:

I am of the opinion, if people didn't have something to struggle for we would lose the will to live. — ovdtogt

I was about to say that ship has already sailed (in developed nations), but we still have ultra poor who are certainly struggling. However, for, let's say the top 60% of Americans (for example), any struggles really only exist because of their aspirations (and yes, children count as aspirations). Life is pretty easy if the only point is to live how you see fit (and you don't have a huge opposition to following rules that set rather minor limitations).

I think one of the greatest challenges facing mankind would be boredom and loneliness and general nihilism. — ovdtogt

If those are the ONLY problems, I would certainly take that deal (and I would happily come up with some very important holes for people to dig and fill-in if they really need a purpose).

And besides that, there will always be a struggle if we choose to seek one. Notice 2 examples of a post scarcity utopia: In Wall-E, the people become fat lazy nothings - just as you seem to fear; but in Star Trek they use their new found freedom to explore the stars (and, yes, get into a bunch of new wars). The freedom found in this scenario includes the freedom to struggle, to seek more. Now, most people "struggle" to make rent or to look prettier than the next person...that does not seem likely to inspire mankind toward great things.

Well, I think the fact of the matter is that our intuition on morality is black, white and grey in between. We have no problem in declaring genocide to be bad or that saving a million live is good. These are clearly extreme enough to not cause confusion. The problem is the region of grey between extremes, a region most of us occupy and is therefore all the more important. — TheMadFool

We definitely agree here.

This particular take on morality presents a problem where heaven-hell is concerned because the latter is binary in nature and so can't handle the moral grey zone. — TheMadFool

More agreement. And you may have noticed my struggle to hash "objective" religious dogma with real life (our discussion).

Sider uses this model and I think it's incomplete, ergo erroneous, and causes the confusion here. — TheMadFool

I can agree with incomplete, possibly erroneous, but I would think that is due to the nonsensical nature of biblical heaven/hell. He is trying to apply reason to an unreasonable concept.

Sorry I couldn't find a word to the opposite effect of a moral flaw negating goodness. Perhaps you can educate me on that. — TheMadFool

No problem, and there is no need to educate anyone as you did a fine job of making your point absent that exact word (which may or may not exist as I can't come up with it either, haha).

We now have people populating the integer number line as per their moral standing. Bad would be negative and good would be positive with zero being amoral or morally indifferent. In this number line model of morality Sider can make the case that -1 is very close in moral standing to +1 and yet one ends up in hell and the other in paradise. The problem is that Sider is thinking in terms of difference between two moral standings; -1 and +1 are just two moral points apart which is negligible. But what about the sign (-/+) on the numbers being considered? Good and bad are opposites and so the sign (-/+) is as essential as the numerical value of a moral standing and can't be ignored. So, yes -1 and +1 are close enough to each other for the difference between them (here 2) to be negligible but a negative is clearly different to a positive and the destination hell/heaven is as much dependent on the sign as the size of the moral standing. — TheMadFool

I don't think we are making any progress talking in the abstract. I think actual examples would help to make points better...here is the biggest and most obvious one for Christianity...ONLY CHRISTIANS GO TO HEAVEN. So I could live an identical life to someone else, but since I chose Zoroastrianism I go to hell? Seems like the type of thing Sider would count as a minor difference?

there is a moral calculus involved that can decide the net moral standing of a person. The way moral issues are handled on earth is that opposite moral actions cancel out and there's a net moral standing, good/bad, that each person has. Decisions can be based on that can't it? — TheMadFool

Yes, but we are back to Sider's position that the people in heaven are just barely different from those in hell. If they just did one more good thing they would be in.

The rule of thumb seems to be that people have zero tolerance for a moral stain on a person who is considered good. Even the slightest moral fault is sufficient to reduce even a saint to the same status as a depraved criminal fit for the slammer. — TheMadFool

That is very human to feel that way, but according to the bible, ALL are sinners and it is only salvation through christ that allows ANYONE to enter heaven.

On the other hand, good if found in bad people is considered a redeeming quality worthy of note but yet not to an extent that his crimes are forgiven. — TheMadFool

Except by god, right? God forgives all if we are only willing to submit to its will, is what I was taught. But I was only really exposed to Catholic and 7th Day Adventist...a lesser extent to Lutheranism and Mormonism. For the rest of christianity and islam, I only have a basic academic understanding. Much of what you are saying seems quite applicable to the human world, but I am not sure what it says about entering heaven or hell.

There seems to be a slight imbalance in the equation in that bad carries more force than good and one tiny black spot is capable of negating even the whitest of the white while the converse isn't true — TheMadFool

I agree completely when it comes to human judgement. However, Christianity says nearly the opposite, one need only repent (sincerely) and all is forgiven.

So you see there does exist a calculus with which we can reckon the net moral character of a person and why suppose such is not true of divine judgment? — TheMadFool

Because the bible says so. God's judgement is "perfect" and "beyond our understanding". Do you disagree with examples I have given in this post or the previous one? I feel I gave many examples (like Charles Manson will go to heaven assuming he is sincere in his repentance).

I agree with your assessment of human judgement...but the bible makes it clear that human judgement and god's judgement are incomparable.

I agree that my definition is incomplete but it does reflect a general view or even intuition on the subject of simplicity and complexity. — TheMadFool

I did not mean to harp on your definition, but more suggest that all definitions would be similarly flawed.

You listed some lexical definitions and all of them have a common denominator in being expressible/transmissible as information in fewer numbers than things that are considered complex. — TheMadFool

Except words like "easy" and "natural". Easy is a relative word. Is it easier to do 1 push-up or 2? Obviously, 1. However, is it easier to do 100 push-ups or write 100 pages? It suddenly depends on the person. What if one push-up equals one page? One push-up equals one letter? Maybe one push-up equals one word? As soon as we are not comparing like for like, words like simple and complex require further qualifiers to be meaningful. And obviously a tiger is "natural", does that make it simpler than a calculator?

Let's take everyday examples to see what people's intuitions are about simplicity and complexity. When we read a novel we see differences in characters that can be expressed in terms of simplicity and complexity. A simple character in a novel is what people call one-dimensional -
having a small inventory of emotions, views, whatnot. These characters are easy to understand.

On the other hand, a complex character will be one with a large repertoire of emotions, views, relationships, etc. Such characters are difficult to understand. — TheMadFool

Notice that here, you are comparing like for like (characters in a story). However, which is more complicated, the character or the setting? Surely there is more to their "complication" than the number of words the author uses to describe them?

I felt the need to remind myself how we got started:

If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature. — TheMadFool

I am basically saying that we CANNOT determine whether humans have ever created something more complicated than themselves, because the words "simple" and "complex" are loaded with semantic and cultural baggage that means they almost never mean the exact same thing.

I would tend to believe we can (and have) created things more complicated than ourselves, but it would be very debatable and depend heavily on people's understanding of "simple" and "complex".

For example, society must be more complicated than people as it is made of people (same for a government, a business, a sports team, etc), but I doubt you find that very convincing...?

Plato proposed that knowledge involves having a justified true belief. — Bartricks

I am a philosophy novice, and I have never read much Plato that seems purposeful (yes, I know, everything I ever read that was purposeful was based on Plato :roll:), but don't we all have different views of justified? If knowledge relies on justified true belief...then aren't we in Descartes' arena? I only "know" that some being that I refer to as "I" is thinking. How could I justify anything beyond that?

I think this is an example (for me) of philosophy thinking itself out of relevance...why do we have to consider what knowledge "is" beyond the obvious:

1 Knowledge should work all of the time, not some of the time.
2 Knowledge is useful.
3 Knowledge answers questions
4 Knowledge solves problems.
5 Knowledge is made of facts.
6 Facts are true
7 Facts are true because they are useful, answer questions, solve problems. — ovdtogt

Works for me. (even if a bit circular) When does my knowledge of "knowledge" need to go beyond this?Would a deeper understanding of "knowledge" allow me to better explain the things I "know"? I am missing the point of delving into "what is knowledge" beyond trying to find a semantic "gotcha!"

What do you mean by:

1. Simplicity
2. Complexity

All that I offer are my own personal thoughts on the matter and they inform me that 1 and 2 have to do with the number of interactions under consideration which I vaguely remember has something to do with triangular numbers. — TheMadFool

I am not saying much, haha.

Just that "simplicity" or "complexity" can refer to a variety of factors. So a black hole would have the simplest composition (assuming our understanding of them as a "singularity" is correct - who knows how likely that is), but its immense gravity means that it interacts with far more other things making its interactions very complex.

Maybe definitions will help? This is the first one to pop up on google.

Simplicity:
1.the quality or condition of being easy to understand or do.
2. the quality or condition of being plain or natural.
3. a thing that is plain, natural, or easy to understand.

Notice 2 is quite different from 1. 3 tries to combine 1 & 2, but just ends up highlighting that simplicity could describe a thing that is "plain", or a thing that is "natural", or a thing that is "easy to understand". Notice that any one thing we call "simple" could be any one, or all 3. That is all I have been pointing out. There is nothing "simple" about trying to label things "simple". Similarly, to try and rank things in order from simplest to most complex would be nearly impossible unless we are comparing very similar items (a double decker bus is more complex than a single decker bus, but what is more complex, a piece of paper or a glass of water?).

Hell is for evil people and heaven is for good people. This is quite obvious but, if Sider is right, then, as some of you have suggested, morality should be on some kind of continuum and there has to be a cut-off point between those destined for hell and those destined for heaven. This would be problematic just as Sider says: there will be people without noticeable differences in moral standing and yet have futures that are polar opposites.

However, look at how we view sin and virtue. Let's take murder and altruism as two of the best and clearest examples of sin and virtue respectively. It's simply impossible that these two can appear close enough in whatever scale of morality we're using to cause a situation like Sider expects. One is obviously bad and the other obviously good and there are no grey areas to confound us. — TheMadFool

This is what is what I was getting at here:

To be fair, I would have guessed that Sider made his argument at least 100 years ago. Many modern christians seem to believe that awful people go to hell, while everyone else goes to heaven (all religions or philosophies that help people to behave "good" are part of god's plan). In that case, there is no need to worry about "the line" because it is WIDE and STARK. — ZhouBoTong

This view is increasingly common...but one would struggle to defend it using any sort of traditional religious doctrine.

We can't commit half a murder and torture, although scalable, isn't ever good enough to cause confusions in judgment. Similarly a good samaritan can never be confused for a murderer or torturer. — TheMadFool

Well someone could be a good Samaritan today and a murderer tomorrow...right? Also, what about taking the lord's name in vain? I can't do that half-way...does that make it a hell worthy offense? Disrespecting your parents? What about those that NEVER repent (for their menial offenses). If I live the same life as someone else, but own it, as opposed to being ashamed of my sinful ways...is that hell-worthy?

And just to point out...according to the vast majority of christian doctrine and the bible, and assuming he is sincere (only god would know), Charles Manson will go to heaven. Doesn't that make Sider's point of very similar people going to heaven/hell?

Are there offenses severe enough that the bible says one could never repent? According to the bible, if Hitler or Stalin sincerely regretted and apologized for their actions, then they would go to heaven...right?

The idea of hell contradicts so many aspects of christianity (or Islam) that it is pretty much nonsensical (even relative to other aspects of religion)...at least it leads to interesting discussions :smile:

going to lead to two very similar people who have committed similar acts of faith, goodness, repentance, etc. to receive eternal damnation or eternal salvation.
— Bridget Eagles

This claim is not substantiated in the argument unless Theodore Sider is privy to information we're not aware of. — TheMadFool

How about 2 people that lead identical lives except: one accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, the other accepts Thor as their lord and savior.

Sounds pretty darn similar to me, and yet one goes to heaven and the other to hell (if purgatory exists and the Thor guy had NEVER been exposed to Christianity, then they might be allowed to go to purgatory).

Does that work?

I think the point that Sider was making was more along the lines of the binary nature of heaven and hell. IF those are the only two options, then there must be an exact line dividing those that deserve heaven and those that deserve hell. People just barely south or north of the line would have lead very similarly moral lives.

To be fair, I would have guessed that Sider made his argument at least 100 years ago. Many modern christians seem to believe that awful people go to hell, while everyone else goes to heaven (all religions or philosophies that help people to behave "good" are part of god's plan). In that case, there is no need to worry about "the line" because it is WIDE and STARK.

We have a bowl with 1.000 numbered balls. I pick #22. — Pippen

So my pick was extremely lucky because it should have been something else than #22. — Pippen

Do we actually KNOW that it was possible to pick any other number other than 22 on that particular attempt? If the number picked was 100% due to determinism, then it was the only possibility that could occur at that moment.

There is only one reality (that we know of)...what are the odds that that reality occurred? 100%? 1%? How would we begin to assign a probability...Well how many non-realities are there? None, by definition. So it sounds like we have 1 reality occurring out of 1 possibility, so 100%?

Simplified spoken: if very improbable things happen over and over again the probability of these things caused by randomness tends to zero, which could be some statistical proof for us to exist not random, i.e. "created". — Pippen

You would have to prove that these events were, in fact, improbable, versus being the only possibility. How would we begin to do that? I am in no way proving you wrong; just pointing out that I think we would need to be outside the system (reality) to start estimating the probability of that system just occurring vs being created.

I think you're equivocating between "black hole" and "black hole interactions". — TheMadFool

I think you are right. And I get the feeling that every time we use "complex" to describe we are summarizing our equivocations...for example:

A black hole is simple relative to the interactions it can be part of. However, it is more complex than, say, a planet or a sun. — TheMadFool

Overall, I agree that a black hole is "more complex than a planet or sun", but if we just talk about the object (black hole, sun, planet), and NOT its interactions or formation, then isn't the black hole the simplest? (potentially, as we don't really understand them...which is another {whole new category} aspect of complexity)

However, it is more complex than, say, a planet or a sun. — TheMadFool

In every way?

What I'm saying boils down to the fact that intelligent design is better than blind evolution. — TheMadFool

Wow, well I apologize. I would have to go back and re-read the whole thread to see where I missed it, or got off track...but I don't think I was ever aware we were talking about intelligent design :yikes:

I thought we were talking about the will of those being evolved as affecting their evolution. My bad.

If you look at how scientists argue against intelligent design you'll see one common motif - that our biology has countless structural and functional flaws. — TheMadFool

I thought the main objections would be that intelligent design theory is NOT falsifiable and it does NOT make predictions (please correct me where wrong), which places it outside the realm of science (it can still be philosophy or theology - obviously). Some sort of rigor needs to be added to make it a viable scientific theory...again, I am willing to rethink if I am missing something.

Implicit in that claim is an intelligent designer would've done a better job than probability-based evolution. — TheMadFool

And this is where "intelligent" humans look at our "design" and immediately think of improvements (like not breathing out the same hole I shove food into)...which at the very least suggests a less intelligent designer (which makes almost no sense).

So to summarize my view...how would one prove intelligent design wrong? and what useful predictions do we expect to get from the theory? If there are reasonable answers to these questions, then I may have to reconsider intelligent design. Until then, what would I even be considering?

Does intelligent design say anything more than "there is a god that created the universe"?

Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. — Gnomon

Well that could certainly be possible. We all throw the word "evolution" around, and we don't always mean biological evolution...and yet I can't help but think of the specific biological evolution when OTHER people use the word "evolution"...must be some sort of bias on my part???

Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over. — Gnomon

That's a BIG "if" :razz: But I am with you.

You don’t need to make many choices to pass on your genetic material, but your choices might determine the nature of its future. See my comments to TheMadFool about climate change. — Brett

Unfortunately, the choices of the other 7 billion breeders will also determine its future. (which I am fairly sure is part of your point)

So, directed evolution needs to be framed in the context of rational faculties AND ethical sense. To immediately think of eugenics and genetic engineering would be incorrect. Nevertheless, I think it's important to point out the dangers. — TheMadFool

I didn't mean either of those quite so negatively (although eugenics certainly deserves it). When you talked about speeding evolution, that has to be more than individual choices...right? I think of dogs as a good example of accelerated evolution. Are humans making any decisions that are speeding evolution in any sort of similar way?

My point about EVERYBODY reproducing was to suggest that there is no targeted improvement happening if everyone is passing on genes.

I feel like I am NOT really addressing what you are getting at. Can you give me an example of how humans are speeding up their evolutionary development?

Yes. I use metaphors as a short-cut for extremely complex "mechanisms" — Gnomon

Good, as that was how I understood it :smile:

But, once programmed, the subconscious system operates the body automatically, until some problem requires an executive decision. — Gnomon

That is possibly a bit stronger than I would phrase it, but I don't think we are too far apart here.

For example, the emotions quickly prime the body for "fight or flight". But the exec has to decide which. That's why we tend to freeze, when startled, long enough to assess the situation. — Gnomon

I must get stuck in that moment of decision then. My fight or flight is f***ed. It almost always results in freeze. I did kickboxing for about a decade and the only fights that went well were the ones where I was calm enough for fight or flight to never kick in.

We need to look at the time-frame if you want to see the difference between blind evolution and human-directed evolution. — TheMadFool

Wait, do you mean like eugenics or genetic engineering? I agree that those will move evolution along quicker than the natural environment, but those seem different from what we were talking about in relation to "choice"?

Besides intentional genetic manipulation though, hasn't human society largely eliminated the "survival of the fittest" thing? Nearly all humans will have the opportunity to reproduce if that is their life goal. What choices do I need to make in order to successfully pass on my genetic material?

Human-directed evolution would arguably achieve optimum efficiency in a shorter period. — TheMadFool

Again, if you mean genetic manipulation, I can only agree. If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold.

Which situation would have a higher hit rate? You firing your gun randomly or a trained sniper? — TheMadFool

This analogy suggests we are definitely talking genetic manipulation as "the average Joe" would not count as "trained" right?

And I am cool with that. I thought Gattaca was a sweet movie, and not because I was rooting for Ethan Hawke to show the superiority of normies :smile:

The irony is that choosing the most efficient process is actually having no choice ("being compelled") other than that particular process because if an organism opts for another less efficient process its survival prospects are reduced. It's like telling someone to choose but giving only ONE option (the most efficient process). — TheMadFool

So if you look at humans who can make choices, and then organisms that can't, which one selects the most efficient path most often? Humans very regularly do not. For MOST meals, I compromise on perfectly healthy in some way. And statistically, I eat healthier than the average human. I get that half the planet is ill informed on such things, but I would bet against the informed making proper choices if "proper" is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

I would also point out that the "choices" we are discussing happen during one's lifetime, and therefor have very little to do with evolution (how many of those choices actually effect the passing on of genes?), unless we are bringing Lamarckian evolution back. Notice that "unhealthy" choices like having loads of unprotected sex are actually very "fit" according to evolution.

Our "selfish genes" program the subconscious to calculate what's "best" for survival and reproduction. But our mental Selves may have other priorities, such as morality. — Gnomon

I think I agree overall, assuming you are using some figurative language. But as a small disagreement, couldn't our sub-conscious also be influenced by morality and other non-survival concerns? If I spend a lot of time consciously thinking about "x", won't it naturally get integrated into sub-conscious thought? Not that that necessarily causes any problems for your overall point.

I usually regard your posts as quite reasonable. — Brett

Well we don't need to go that far :razz:

Throwing so many questions at me in one post didn’t seem like an attempt to address my post. — Brett

Ok, I can see that...but that is exactly what I was doing. Your question made me think of all those questions. In order to answer YOUR question, I would need to know the answers to all of MY questions...I don't know those answers, so I could only give an incomplete answer to your question.

I mean, did you expect me to address each question? — Brett

Not at all. They were just there to show how difficult it would be FOR ME to answer your question. Those are all of the questions that I start considering in my attempt to answer your question.

I actually thought that your question was similarly rhetorical. It seemed designed to make us think about what art was, by thinking about what an absence of art would look like.

It seemed more like a dismissal of the query. — Brett

I can see how it could be seen that way. Does my explanation here at least convince you that that was not my intention? although I may need to work on my communication (or lack there of) style.

Anyway, I think the subject has been done to death, — Brett

What?!?! No, just kidding. Definitely done to death. I always feel like I am trying to answer these things in an objective manner, although I actually view most (all?) analysis/discussions on art as almost wholly subjective...this is probably where I just end up confusing people :grimace:

only humans produce art. — Brett

I am still not sold...but I don't have any arguments that are stronger than any of the weak unconvincing stuff I have already mentioned.

In order to achieve its ultimate goal of survival, life (is this personifying?) needs itself to be able to choose the most efficient means of survival. — TheMadFool

Doesn't it just need to obtain/use the most efficient means? Why is choice needed? Are you suggesting that microbial life is somehow "choosing" the most efficient method? Or are you just saying that "choice" would be a pinnacle of evolution as it allows the possessor to INTENTIONALLY select the most efficient method? I still think being compelled to use the most efficient method is better (would yield consistently better results) than choosing the most efficient method.

Or maybe you are using "choose" separate from will? Something like: "evolution chooses the most efficient method."

On a separate note, I would point out that survival only needs "efficient enough to survive", it doesn't require the "most efficient". But that is a separate point from what I think you are hoping to discuss, so I will ignore that for now.

1. Can think and know what these most efficient pathways are

2. Can choose to go down those life-sustaining and life-promoting paths — TheMadFool

Instead of these two, in a compelled version:

1. Organism that do not use the most efficient methods die.

2. Those that don't die are using the most efficient methods.

Where is choice NEEDED? How would it help?

Excuse me while I wipe away the hubris. — Brett

huh? please explain. I don't see where pride relates. And I barely made an argument, so it is not like you are referring to my confidence in being right. I don't get it?

Maybe this was supposed to be a response to the rich/poor thread? I still wouldn't see the hubris, but at least I was more strongly disagreeing.

If, as they video claims, NE is an overarching principle of nature, then the intelligence to identify the most efficient method of any and all processes must be coupled with free will to enable an organism to choose the most efficient method so identified. — TheMadFool

I don't think this adds up. Free will gives the option to NOT pick the most efficient method. So the best (most efficient) way would be better achieved without free will, as it would ALWAYS occur. If we can identify anything as "best" or "most efficient" then free will's only significant function would be to choose otherwise.

But the quote suggests that government favours business over people, that it betrays people in the interests of big business, that it serves big business. — Brett

While I would not personify government with intention or a sinister nature, surely history shows that government has served big business - and this seems like a "can't have two masters" situation to me. Who gets what they want first? To be fair, big business is much easier to please.

Business is quite a savage arena. Most of us get by without having to enter the ring. All we have to do is wait for the benefits to come our way without any risk at all. — Brett

Sounds like I owe them :roll: We should set up a church where we can go and donate to these gods of human progress. Surely they can do more with the money than I can? And in the end, I reap the benefits with no risk at all :grin: