• Can you experience anything truly objectively? The Qualia controversy
    The only way to counteract the quaila controversy is to get everyone to view the world through the same lens, which at this point in time is not possible. — Anonymys
    But whose lens, and from where? It doesn't seem to be that qualia is the problem for obtaining objectivity. It is the perspective itself from a certain place and at a certain time that creates subjectivity. This means that, in order to be more objective, we wouldn't want to all view the world through the same lens, as that lens would have to occupy a certain place at a certain time and could only provide limited information about the world as a result of it being in a certain place at a certain time. In order to obtain a higher degree of objectivity, we'd need to view the world through ALL lenses, including those of other animals, and including those that are long dead and those that will exist in the future.

    In order to know the world, your knowledge of it must take some form. This is where the qualia come in. Even if you were omniscient (ultimately objective), your knowledge of the world must take some form, or else how would you know that you know anything?

    If your qualia wasn't about the world, then you'd be experiencing the world as it truly is, but then I'd have to question that there is an experience at all, as the experience and the world would be one and the same.
  • The Cartesian Problem
    Consciousness always appears singular and so by definition couldn't be a mechanism because it is without parts. — JupiterJess
    Of course consciousness has parts. When you close your eyes, you are still conscious but have removed part of the conscious experience. People who are deaf, or have lost feeling in certain parts of their bodies have also lost part of their consciousness. When you lose part of your consciousness, you lose part of your awareness of the world.
  • We are more than material beings!
    To our limited selective mechanisms, it may only appear that one event causes another; the fact we have to make observations to try to understand the universe is possibly an indicator of our limited understanding of causality. — Anthony
    I think it is more of an indicator of the nature of knowledge/understanding itself.

    If there is a universal mind, absolute and omniscient, it doesn't have to make any observations, and so we are closer to it when we aren't making observations or trying to understand it. And indeed it is true when I'm zoning out or meditating, or in a state of deep sleep, time flies, the subjective nature of time is more obvious when making fewer observations. Causality itself comes into question. — Anthony
    An omniscient being doesn't need to make observations because it's mental representation of reality would mirror reality itself. The question is, "how did it's mental representation become a mirror of reality without observing (learning), as that seems to be the nature of understanding/knowledge?" Another questions would be, "what form does an omniscient being's knowledge take?" We understand the world in colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc. This is the form our knowledge takes - the form of the information that comes through our senses (qualia).

    One local event is causing another all around the universe far beyond any isolated local causality. Even though we have a small perspective of our own lives and activities, within a local sphere of causality, it has to be remembered that in a way, everything causes everything when nonlocality is introduced. Which is in fact what is happening. Everything informs everything as though it were one unfathomably monumental event. We tend to get stuck in trying to apply local causality to the big picture or to infinitude. Splitting the universe into pieces is done by human observers, not by the universe itself. — Anthony
    It seems like it has to do with our limited ability to conceptualize extremes in time and space. Over enough time and space, everything does have a causal influence on each other, eventually.
  • We are more than material beings!
    This would be the case if mind/physical were given equal status.

    In some cases mind is transformed into some illusion (I guess this the essence of materialism) , thus giving it less status - I suppose. This kind of thinking is hard for me to get my arms around. I prefer to think of physical being more substantial and mind being less substantial but - and this is a big but - mind being the motivator, the impetus. In this manner, the living body is a fully holistic living body.     — Rich
    What makes them equal is their causal influence on each other. We observe physical things interacting and we observe the mind interacting with physical things and vice versa. I don't see any inequality - just a bunch of stuff interacting with each other.
  • We are more than material beings!
    Physicalism is a description of what is the case. — Charleton

    Not. Physicalism is a description of what can be measured physically. — Wayfarer

    It's my understanding that the physical world is composed of things that have a causal influence on each other. It must be that things that have a causal influence on each other are made of the same substance. If the physical world has a causal influence on our minds and our minds have a causal influence on the physical world, then it must be that they are all of the same substance - physical, mental, information, or whatever we decided to call it (and does it really matter?).
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    Great! So we do it to survive, but there's actually no reason to survive. Welcome to the modern world. — Wayfarer
    Reasons and purposes are anthropomorphic but humans exist and are part of the world. So to say that there is no reason to survive would be to say that humans, and their reasons and purposes aren't part of the world. One good reason for my survival is to ensure that my kids grow up into happy adults.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    Surely, you and I both know of one person that treats others as they want to be treated. It only takes one example to demonstrate that, at least once, somebody acted for the end goal of ethics in itself. And even if the moral good was not a real thing, it is at least the perception of a moral good that makes it an end in itself. Side note: I also happen to think it is a real thing. — Samuel Lacrampe
    Ethics and morals are the same thing and I described morals as the rules of the society you find yourself born into. So to say that someone acted for the end goal of ethics in itself, is to say that they acted for the end goal of following those rules. The moral good are those rules that we follow as opposed to not following them. Being that different cultures have different rules, where you will be imprisoned for doing something that is encouraged in another culture (i.e. free speech), there is no moral good in the objective sense. We follow the rules in order to maintain our good standing within our social group so that we don't get imprisoned and that we continue to receive help, if needed, from other members. As a social species we are geared towards seeking out others of our kind for safety and survival. It is a survival strategy to follow the rules of the society your find yourself born into.
  • We are more than material beings!
    ... I said that if evolution is blind and random force without any end in sight we have no rational justification to trust our cognitive faculties. I don´t believe that evolution is blind and unguided process but that our cognitive faculties are designed to aim at true beliefs. — nixu
    This is so typical of someone who hasn't educated themselves on the subject they are talking about - or only educated themselves by reading and listening to theists who don't know what they are talking about when talking about evolution by natural selection.

    Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process that filters out random mutations that can't compete against better methods of navigating your environment, finding food and mates, distinguishing between predators and non-predators, etc. the better you are at making distinctions and mentally representing the environment, the more offspring you will have that have those same capabilities. Eventually, the compounding of new, better mutations on top of what organisms already have adds even more accuracy to knowledge of the world. This is how a mindless, yet lawful, process, brings about improved accuracy of organisms mental representations of their world. It isn't perfect (like seeing a bent straw in the water when the stick is actually straight and seeing mirages) and that is the hallmark of natural selection. It is what we would expect from a mindless, purposeless process. It isn't what we would expect if God did it. So the imperfections are actually evidence for natural selection and evidence against God doing it.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    ↪Samuel Lacrampe
    where in the world does everyone actually have equal rights? Our leaders like to talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's nice to say it, but that doesn't make it true. Its one of the biggest lies in Western culture that we are all equal. We all make judgements of others as to how they look, behave, etc., and are attracted to those that look normal and behave as we do.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    "Good" and "bad" are merely subjective judgements based on your current goal which could be your survival or passing on your genes. Morals are simply the rules of the society you find yourself in. In order to survive and pass on your genes, you must learn the rules - or it would be good to learn the rules - as that helps your achieve your goals.
  • We are more than material beings!
    For evolution "aims" to survival and not to produce true beliefs. — nixu
    How do you survive in an environment without having some true knowledge of the environment? Is seems to me that your survival is the best catalyst for seeking and acquiring truth. Its no different than if God exists. You need to learn the truth in order to save your soul.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    ↪Cavacava
    Does it not benefit you to learn the rules of the society you live in, especially when the consquences for not following; them can result in your execution or imprisonment? Are there not different rules to follow in different societies (different environments)?
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    ↪Cavacava
    I don't get your point.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    Interesting claim. So the most successful person in life is the one with the biggest and healthiest line of descendants? What reason do you have to believe that? It seems that the ethical behaviour of willing the good to everyone, not just family members, goes against that end. — Samuel Lacrampe
    Successful as in successfully propagating your genes, sure. There are other kinds of success - but it all can be resolved down to surviving and passing on your genes.

    Willing good to everyone that share a majority of your genes - like the rest of humanity - doesn't go against the end of genes propagating themselves. Saving lives, saves genes, and it is that kind of behavior that would be selected by nature in order for genes to have the maximum propagation. It's not a matter of saving your own genes as your genes are merely a fraction of the gene pool of your social group, family or species you find yourself a part of.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    I don't see how duty can be reduced to a biologic fact or function. The actions we think we ought to do, are socially constructed. Their reality depends in our agreement, which changes over time, context, and the individual's historic development. Moral duty may rail against biologic functons. — Cavacava
    Duty and morals are instilled by our social environment, which is merely a kind of natural environment that we find ourselves in and need to navigate and survive in - no different than any other natural environment. In order to survive in any environment, you must learn how it works and what actions you take that either benefit you or don't.
  • Do things have value in themselves, if not as means to an end?
    I can think of only three ends (and even then, I am not sure about the third one): (1) subjective pleasure, physical or emotional, (2) ethics or duty, and (3) necessity, like health and safety. — Samuel Lacrampe
    All three can be reduced to the ends of propagating one's genes. This isn't to say that genes have ends and means. Genes are simply mindless things that behave in certain ways as a result of their structure which came about as a result of a natural mindless process that promotes genes to the next generation that leads to their propagation in the environment. It is we - the one's with ends and means - that project meaning and purpose onto the universe. In other words, the belief in objective means and ends is an anthropomorphic venture in explaining the universe.

    Organisms with minds have ends and means as a result of them being able to make predictions (ends) and a strategy (means) for achieving them. Organisms acquire these skills as a result of living in their environment and learning to use the tools that they have available (their body which includes their hands, legs and sensory organs). A hammer is useful to drive nails, but is useless if you don't have any hands.
  • We are more than material beings!
    It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul. — nixu
    Then why do we have a body AND a soul? If it is believed that we can interact with God and other souls when we are merely souls, then why do we need bodies? The band VETO, asks a very pointed question in one of their songs,
    "What's the point of a soul when all I'm [my body] being is a faulty copy of myself [my soul]?"
  • Implications of evolution
    ↪Andrew4Handel
    Blah Blah Blah. Again you are repeating yourself ad nauseam without addressing the point I made in my previous posts. I would just repeat the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in my last post in a response to this one. So, if you want to continue this discussion, then you need to go back and read those paragraphs as a response to your last post to me.
  • Goodness requires misfortune or malfunction to have meaning
    How would we label some behavior or idea as "good" if bad behaviors or bad ideas didn't exist? Would "good" still be a viable term if there never was anything bad? It seems to me that if there were no bad things, then "good" would simply be the norm, or the way things are.
  • Implications of evolution
    The mind is what the brain does — Harry Hindu


    This is very controversial you are ignoring large explanatory gaps.     — Andrew4Handel

    It's only controversial to those that aren't educated in modern theories of neurology. When you don't even make an attempt to learn about these things, then discussing it with others who have makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I don't see how someone with a degree in psychology thinks that this is controversial.

    I don't see how selction pressures cause anything? Causes and dispositions we know of are properties of biochemstry and available dispositions — Andrew4Handel
    As I have said, mutations cause new traits which could provide positive, negative, or neutral consequences to surviving and procreating. Selection pressures are processes that filter out the negative mutations and are what causes positive traits to become the new norm. I have never said that natural selection causes the mutations. You simply aren't reading my posts and I find myself repeating myself. It's getting old.

    We know that we have vivid private experiences but these are not seen in the brain and there is no real explanation as how they emerge from the brain if they do. Also we know we have representations and semantic states and these are not explained at all by neuronal activity. — Andrew4Handel
    As I said, you are injecting your dualism into the discussion, which creates this false dichotomy this impossible problem of explaining how the brain gives rise to consciousness.

    The implication of indirect realism is that what we experience isn't the way the world actually is. So when you look at a brain, or an MRI of the brain, you are experiencing a representation, or model, of what is really there. That squishy, grey mass in the head that you see is a model of what is actually going on. What is going on are mental processes and the brain that you experience is just a model of that.

    Evolutionary psychology modular theory of mind is very biased, where it likes to put basic traits in service of reproduction hence their puzzlement over homosexuality. Modular theories of mind predate it. — Andrew4Handel
    I've already answered the homosexual problem - twice. You need to pay attention and take into account what I have said because we are both repeating ourselves, and it's getting old.
  • Man's Weakness As Argument For God
    Man doesn't deserve anything, so why would he turn away? God doesn't HAVE TO give him what he wants. You're talking as if the man in question believes he deserves something from God. But prayer would be just speaking one's heart to God, for God is one's Creator. — Agustino
    You're talking as if the man's plea for God to change his plan isn't part of God's plan. God, if it exists and is omniscient (and if he isn't then he shouldn't be ascribed the label, "God"), already knows that the man will make a plea to God to prolong his life and already knows what God's answer will be. Because God's plan is predetermined, praying and the answer to prayers are already laid out in the plan.

    It's ironic that theists complain about the determinism of science when it is their own beliefs that imply that determinism exists as part of God's plan. We are no more than automaton playing out the God's plan.
  • Man's Weakness As Argument For God
    So if one cannot rely on their own power for their own happiness, clearly one is in NEED of God. Indeed, a man sitting in a hospital bed unable to move would be a fool to say that he doesn't at least desire that God exists. — Agustino
    I don't get it. Why would a man lying on his death bed desire God when God, if it exists, created the circumstances of him being on his death bed in the first place as part of God's plan? This is what believers do - they try to separate God from the way things are, as if God can save them from the universe yet God created the universe and our limited power in it. When we starkly feel our lack of power in the face of natural events, why turn to the one being that created those circumstances in the first place? It would seem to me that one would want to turn away from God, not turn to it.
  • Man's Weakness As Argument For God
    So if one cannot rely on their own power for their own happiness, clearly one is in NEED of God. — Agustino
    This doesn't necessarily mean that they need God. They simply need power - which can come from different sources, like science discovering ways in which to prolong your life and improve your health.
  • Implications of evolution
    I though I said this earlier. Determinism is a popular position in academia where the mind is seen as almost irrelevant and consciousness epiphenomenal. — Andrew4Handel
    And you still haven't watched the first video I posted a link to in this forum. Tooby emphasizes at the end of the video:
    "One difference between the blank slate approach is that the basic model of human dignity is you're clay - you are passively acted on by the outside world - whereas an evolutionary psychology model the person, in a really strong sense, is inventing themselves, instead of just downloading the environment and becoming what you're told to be.

    And also in prosperous societies with lots of choices you get this amazing fluorescence in which people get together in groups and they very creatively construct a lot of rich, diverse ways in which individuals find themselves and build their identity. That's a very different world-view than the "we are passive and empty receptacles" at first, or that everything is fixed. That's the thing that people fear. What's fixed is the design of the programs but the programs are themselves designed to be very flexible.

    You don't seem to get the point that something being beneficial does not explain how it arose. We seem to be on different pages.

    I am not sure what you are saying here. The mind can be beneficial in a million ways (as well as a curse) What is missing is a causal explanation for the emergence of minds/self/sensation etc.

    Before something can be "selected" as a a persistent trait it has to come to exist. We don't know of any other planets where the conditions exist for life to exist. Our planet has the right disposition for the masses of life forms it contains. These dispositions are physical and biochemical or otherwise but they have to prexist evolution. A planet with mainly hydrogen on it like Saturn is not going to see the emergence of life soon.

    So consciousness can only come to exist if their is prexisting disposition for it. It is like a recipe book where you have to use specific ingredients to create the correct dish.

    I am unclear what selection is supposed to explain except trivially pointing out that X survived because it was advantageous in some form. It is easy to give reasons why something might persist but these are not law like reasons for X's begining to exist. Human inventions either persist or don't based on their utility but that does not describe the invention process.     — Andrew4Handel
    And I've already addressed this but you are insistent on skipping posts, not reading them, etc. The mind is what the brain does. When selections pressures produced a brain, they produced the mind. Not every organism has a brain, and the brain was an organ that evolved later from the primitive nervous systems of primitive organisms. The brain is where all the sensory information comes together into a consistent whole of one experience - where the brain can use the different signals from each sensory organ to create a fault-tolerant experience where one sense confirms what another is telling it. Another problem that you have that is finding it's way into your model is your dualism. The mind/body problem is the result of a false dichotomy.
  • Goal-Directed Behavior
    I'll try to read some of this. Yes, this is what I might have been getting at with Wayfarer. Goal-oriented is not linguistic-based. Or perhaps when an animal makes a tool he is goal-directed because the end goal is apparent and there are concrete steps, but his desire for food is goal-oriented as it is a vague feeling and not consciously thought about. But, even tool-making might be just problem-solving without the goal really consciously known. That is more cognitive science though. — schopenhauer1
    No. You didn't read enough and you projected something unrelated into what was explained in the book. Linguistics was never used in the link I provided to distinguish goal-oriented behavior from goal-directed behavior. Linguistics has nothing to do with it.

    Goal-oriented behavior is basically instinctive behavior where the behavior is caused by the way in which natural selection has filtered certain behaviors so that those that are beneficial to surviving and procreating are the ones that are passed down.

    Goal-directed behavior is where a mental representation of the goal is the cause of the behavior. When an organism behaves in a goal-directed fashion, it can overcome obstacles that might otherwise prevent it from reaching the goal. Even an organism that represents its environment would be unable to engage in goal-directed behavior if its representations of its goals and means to achieve those goals were not distinct. Having distinct representations allows the organism to abandon one behavior and adopt another while still retaining the goal that the previous behavior was aimed at achieving. Having distinct representations of goals and means to achieve them is thus a prerequisite for behaving in a goal-directed fashion.
  • Goal-Directed Behavior
    Here is an interesting excerpt from Robert W. Lurz's book, "The Philosophy of Animal Minds":
    https://books.google.com/books?id=YfYfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=how+did+goal-oriented+behavior+evolve&source=bl&ots=SfgcMWJGeo&sig=A2nblMOI3gQswEOQT8Su_hK2syI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjewZXI_pzVAhXq8YMKHYNEDXsQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=how%20did%20goal-oriented%20behavior%20evolve&f=false

    It explains the difference between goal-oriented and goal-directed behavior, with examples. He also has another book, "Mindreading Animals", both of which are an interesting read.
  • Implications of evolution
    Andrew4Handel, what is learning? Isn't learning mentally/behaviorally adapting to your environment? Doesn't having a mind allow you to adapt much more rapidly to rapid changes in the environment as opposed to adapting your body, which can take generations? Even Darwin understood the implication evolution by natural selection has on the mind.

    "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history. " - Darwin
  • Implications of evolution
    Harry H.You are conflating the benefits of a feature with a causal explanation.

    Saying wings aid survival through flight is for example an explanation in service of evolution not a biochemical theory about the evolution of wings.     — Andrew4Handel

    I'm not conflating anything. If something is beneficial, it is selected (passed down to subsequent generations). How does a beneficial trait come about? - Mutation. Genes copying themselves make mistakes sometimes. This is expected when there isn't an intelligent designer. Evolution by natural selection is a theory that has an expectation, or prediction, (one could even say an implication) that not every solution would be perfect or final. It is what you would expect from a mindless process. It isn't what you would expect if God did it. That is when you would expect solutions to be final and perfect.
  • Implications of evolution
    I do not. I think in words. In what way do I think in any images and how can you know this? — Andrew4Handel
    As I already said in the post you responded to, if you think in words, then you think in visual scribbles and sounds, as that is all words are. How did you learn words if you couldn't see or hear prior to learning words?
  • Random thoughts
    "I've got a monocle of the greater space and time. Some would like to get my monocle, try and use it for a crime. No success in that category, you see, it derives naturally, from the sublime, and that's where I broadcast me."
    -Telekinetic Walrus
  • Implications of evolution
    It seems like Evolutionary psychology is trying to be deterministic and predict what behaviours we ought to automatically exhibit. So that all behaviour must subsume under an evolutionary paradox even if there is no plausible reason linking it to whatever model of evolution they are using.

    Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction.     — Andrew4Handel

    You need to watch the video with Tooby and Cosmides and pay special attention to what Tooby explains near the end.

    I already went over homosexuality. You are just being purposefully obtuse.
  • Implications of evolution
    Something is only a solution if the environment is consistent day in day out. — Andrew4Handel
    Camouflage is a solution as long as any hungry predator in the vicinity uses vision to locate prey. I never said that they would be perfect or final.
  • Implications of evolution
    There is no reason for minds to exist. The only valid explanation is an explanation of how consciousness is produced. — Andrew4Handel
    Why is it that you can't answer a simple question? You avoiding it just shows that you aren't being intellectually honest. I've addressed and answered your questions, yet you cannot do the same. It's getting to the point where you are insulting my intelligence and wasting my time.

    Consciousness is involved in numerous things, composing symphonies, language, doing math, reading books, sexual pleasure, pain, concept formation, thought, dreaming ad infinitum. — Andrew4Handel
    Okay, finally. Some of these have to do with surviving in the social environment (composing symphonies, language, etc.) and some have to do with filtering behavior (sexual pleasure, pain, etc.). What about learning new skills and filtering your instinctual behavior in social environments? When learning something new, your attention (consciousness) is focused on the task at hand. Only after you have acquired the instructions (stored them in long term memory) can you then perform the task without much attention to it. Why would consciousness be fully focused on a new task but then relegate it to a background task (on auto pilot) once you are able to repeat the skill without much attention to it?

    The explanation for biology is biochemical and refers to specific biochemical behaviours,it is not "evolutionary". Natural selection can only select something after it begins to exist it can't produce consciousness (or gills) on demand. conscious has to begin to exist before it can be of any use. — Andrew4Handel
    And I asked about how natural selection has molded the brain, which is a biochemical organ, and how that isn't selection for fitter brains and minds. All you do is repeat yourself without answering the pointed questions that I pose.

    You haven't really proposed any argument apart from telling people watch this etc I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I know how neurons work and about different brain structures, I know about fMRI etc (I had to write a critical essay on brain scanning techniques) etc and studied the search for neural correlates. I had to read seven books on the philosophy of mind for my course and I have also read Dennets Consciousness explained. — Andrew4Handel
    I have proposed an argument - that the mind has evolved as a result of environmental selection pressures and that consciousness improves evolutionary fitness. How else can you explain how human beings have spread across the planet and manipulates his environment and the complex social environment (which is really just a kind of natural environment)? So you haven't taken the time to watch any of the videos?

    I watched a video by Stephen Pinker where he claimed "We think in images" But I don't I think in words. That to me is poor quality broadcasting that youtubers are liking unreflectively. — Andrew4Handel
    We do think in images. We are visual creatures. Most of our terms that we use are visual terms. I don't know how many times I've posted the story of the Man with No Words:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

    in different threads, yet no one responds to it. This many knew no language yet was able to survive and categorize his thoughts. Language is simply visual squiggles and sounds. So even saying that you think in words is saying that you think in visuals and sounds.
  • Implications of evolution
    So are you claiming that camouflage is not a solution or that it is not passed down genetically? I've shown it is a solution, and I wish you are not going to deny animals' colour patterns being genetical. — BlueBanana
    (Y)
  • Implications of evolution
    That is a irrelevant to explaining how consciousness is produced. — Andrew4Handel
    No it isn't. You need to know why minds exist to understand how they are produced, especially in a world where there is evolution by natural selection. You do believe in that don't you? Why were mind selected? What problems did having a mind solve? These are questions that need to be answered if there is evolution by natural selection and selection pressures apply to minds. I'm trying to get you to think, but it seems that you don't want to. Just make an attempt to answer the question. What is it that you can and can't do when not conscious as opposed to being conscious?


    I don't understand the aversion to watching a Youtube video in order to better understand what it is that you all are actually talking about. What are you all scared of?
  • Implications of evolution
    Lizards and fish survive just fine. Honestly, asking 'what's the point of having a mind' is one of those questions that makes you wonder whether the person asking it is worthy of one. — Wayfarer
    So you have clear and cut evidence that lizards and fish don't have minds? Where is Reformed Nihilist and his criticism of conjecture?

    If one trusts the theory of evolution by natural selection, then we need to explain the selection pressures that were applied to brains. We need to recognize that brains are different and need to account for those differences. We account for those differences the same way we account for every other biological difference in every species - through evolution by natural selection.

    When people avoid questions instead of confidently answering the question in a way that shows that the question isn't valid (instead of just claiming that it is), then it is most likely that they know where the question leads them and they don't want to go down that road.
  • Implications of evolution
    You know that sounds very judgmental and insulting, right? For no reason that I can think of either. You're free to pursue whatever course of interests you find appealing, as am I. Just because a particular area of interest isn't one we share isn't call to say that I'm "not willing to expand my knowledge", implying that I embrace ignorance for some reason. I don't appreciate the implication. It's not called for, and on top of that, it's also intellectually lazy. The flaw in the logic behind "RN isn't interested in pursuing information about X, therefore RN isn't interested in perusing knowledge period" should be obvious. Have some pride. Be smarter and kinder. — Reformed Nihilist
    This is like saying that in a discussion of religion it's okay to talk about religion when all you know is the religion you practice, and not anything about all the other religions. It's not. It's arguing from ignorance.

    It's not conjecture. It's obvious you won't take my word for it, which is why I provided links, which you won't even then pursue. That is what being intellectually lazy is.
  • Implications of evolution
    ↪Thanatos Sand
    Then you aren't up to par with modern theories of evolution, which include the field of evolutionary psychology.





    You and everyone else in this thread should watch this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_WrKno972U

    You all should also inform yourself of Steven Pinker and read his book "How The Mind Works".
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gen2p-9DvFE

    This video is 20 years old, which just means that most of you are that far behind in educating yourselves in modern explanations of the mind and what makes it useful for survival and procreating.
  • Implications of evolution
    Biochemistry is the field that explains how body's are created. I don't see how evolution could give a causal explanation of the mind? — Andrew4Handel
    Is the brain part of the body? Is not the mind what the brain does?

    The mind in the humans goes beyond solving a few survival problems. There is a difference in explaining the benefit of a feature and describing how it emerged. Having wings is obviously beneficial to a bird but that is not an account of how the come about.

    At bottom evolutionary explanations rely on things like genetic mutations and emergent properties, when something emerges it can then be propagated or made defunct by the environment.     — Andrew4Handel
    Other animals have adapted their anatomy and behaviors that initially evolved to solve a different problem. Ostriches don't use their wings to fly. They use them in mating dances and to scare off predators. We are no different in using our higher intelligence for new purposes. We do religion, art, etc. but doing these things can all be explained in evolutionary terms of passing on your genes, and even filtering the genes that get passed down to new generations.

    Why don't you think about what your consciousness enables you to do, and what you can and can't do while you aren't conscious.
  • Implications of evolution
    Maybe the kinds of problems which the theory of evolution is not equipped to tackle. 'If the only tool you have is a hammer then the only problems you're interested in involve nails' ~ Abraham Maslow. — Wayfarer
    Instead of quoting, why don't you reflect on your own mind and the skills you wouldn't have if you didn't have one - and how you would survive if you didn't have one.
Home » Harry Hindu