You said the solutions were passed down genetically. I said they weren't. You still have failed to show they are. And camouflage is neither a solution for many things nor a perfect solution for one. So, my argument there is correct, too. Try to address the issue at hand. — Thanatos Sand

The issue at hand is that I seem to be arguing with one of those holdouts that simply won't accept the theory of evolution by natural selection and the field of genetics/heredity. I'm done arguing with idiots.

But do they really? Don't they usually quote canonical texts because they're especially insightful, original, and thought-provoking? For me, words that invite criticism may still be worth quoting, precisely because they are so provocative. — jamalrob

It's when it goes past the simple quoting of a long-dead philosopher - when they attempt to defend what they said without integrating it with the knowledge we have now - as if the long-dead philosopher would still say the same thing today with the knowledge we have today.

The problem is not the mind body relationship but how mind comes to exist at all. — Andrew4Handel

And that is the problem that evolutionary psychology attempts to solve. Do we have minds and other animals don't? If so, then why? Why would minds evolve in humans and not other species? What problems were minds meant to solve?

No, solutions aren't passed down genetically. Not only are actual final solutions immensely rare, they are not passed down through our genes. — Thanatos Sand

Is camouflage passed down? Is it not a solution to a problem? Of course there is no final solution, as the environment is dynamic.

No, we are more than the product of natural causes. We are also the products of ideologies that have no direct correspondent to natural causes. And I never said it wasn't natural; you incorrectly said I did. And either way, those causes and ideologies give us information our genes do not. — Thanatos Sand

This is utter nonsense. Either we are a product of a natural process, or we aren't. God (if it exists) is just as natural as what it creates.

Only if you assume that the answer is that the field is more than conjecture. — Reformed Nihilist

Yet you participate in a philosophy forum which is nothing but conjecture, yet I don't see you making that argument.

Acutally they're not. Firstly, problems faced are not passed down genetically; knowledge can't be isolated or transferred that simply. And Punctuated Equilibrium would break down that connection anyway since we don't evolve in a progressive timeline. — Thanatos Sand

No. Problems aren't passed down, but their solutions are.

Secondly, much of our way we think is irrationally and rationally derived from our socio-cultural surroundings, of which the transfer cannot be isolated or traced. — Thanatos Sand

The socio-cultural surroundings is basically our environment that we find ourselves in. A concrete jungle filled with thousands of other human beings is just another type of natural environment. We are products of natural causes, just like every other species. Other species have different social environments. To say that theirs is natural and ours isn't is to reject the basic tenet of evolution by natural selection - that we are natural animals that fill our own environmental niche.

I am actually more interested in what the ways we think (and specifically decide) are, rather than the historical causes for these ways of thinking. — Reformed Nihilist

The ways we think are a result of the environmental (natural and social) problems our ancestors faced and needed to solve. We haven't changed much since, which is part of the problems we have in the environment we find ourselves in now.

If you aren't willing to expand your knowledge, then your loss, not mine.

I'm not suggesting that evolution wouldn't, in principle, apply to psychology. I'm under the impression that in practice, the field of evolutionary psychology is largely conjectural, and there's little to be had between two alternate explanations of a given psychological trait. Is that not the case? — Reformed Nihilist

The field explores the problems our ancestors had to solve and the mental processes and functions that would solve them and how that explains our current condition.

If you're asking the questions, then it seems that you ate interested and would probably garner more information if you didn't take my word for it, but rather get it straight from the scientists in the field.

Regarding keeping myself educated, it's all about prioritizing, right? Apart from educating myself for direct personal or professional gain, the rest is just following my nose. I pretty much look into whatever seems interesting to me at the time. At the moment, evolutionary psychology doesn't make that cut. Maybe that'll change. — Reformed Nihilist

Well, I consider explaining the reasons we think the way we do and behave the way we do quite important. The unexamined life isn't worth living.

1. The definition of ''definition'' is...
That's a circularity that generates a paradox: we have to define ''definition'' but to do so we need to know the definition of ''definition''.

2. The meaning of ''meaning'' is...
That too is circular and generates the paradox of having to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning. — TheMadFool

I just don't see a paradox. I just provided the definition of "definition", without using the word, "definition" in the definition.

You are aware that there are more options than just Dennett's, right? Ever heard of the attention schema theory of consciousness?

It should be obvious that the body influences the mind and the mind influences the body. How is it that natural selection only influences the body and not the mind as well?

Having no sea-coast, Bolivia has no seaport except what may be granted in usufruct by Chile.

What did I mean by "usufruct"? Did you already know what the word means (you've heard or seen it used before)? If so, I can probably find another that you have never heard used before in which you should know what it means simply by it's use.

"What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA Just as in the primeval soup, it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. If we allow ourselves the licence of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into respectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool."

I don't think you can translate purposeful language back to mechnical language in the way he wants to. — Andrew4Handel

Genes don't try to do anything. They don't have a mind with a goal that they then try to achieve. They simply function as a result of causal forces driving them forward.

Also I don't think evolution is at all sufficient to explain being human because our fundamental feature is we have a rich consciousness that has not being explained by science and any theory of our psychology is defunct in my opinion unless we explain consciousness.

Psychological Theories are already confounded because of the private nature of consciousness and mental states making them inaccessible. Also even without consciousness the mind is the most complex thing to explain because humans have a wide range of mental faculties whose definition is controversial and a huge range of causal influences and competing psychological models and perspectives etc — Andrew4Handel

I think evolution by natural selection is the best theory we have. Sure the mind is a difficult thing to explain, but it seems to me that science has a much better track record in it's short history compared to religious and philosophical explanations. Give it time and don't be afraid to read books and watch videos on the subject, as I posted above in my response to Reformed Nihilist.

It is difficult to test any theory of evolution by natural selection. The process can take thousands of years (conservatively) to play out, but this isn't a limit on the science, but by our own finite lives and in trying to understand a process that takes thousands to millions of years to play out.

It just seems to me that it would be contradictory to say that natural forces that have a hand in molding the biological shapes and behaviors don't have a hand in shaping our brains and therefore our mental functions. The brain, after all, is intimately integrated with the body through it's massive network of nerves. The shapes and sizes of brains should account for the diversity of behaviors that we see in animals.

There are many videos on Youtube and books on the subject that are enlightening. You should inform yourself.
You can start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

What is the definition of ''definition''? Or
What is the meaning of ''meaning''? — TheMadFool

Definitions are statements expressing the essential nature of something.

Meaning, according to Paul Grice, has two kinds - natural and non-natural. Natural meaning has to do with cause and effect (these spots mean measles), while the non-natural kind has to do with a speaker's intention in communicating something to a listener (What I mean to say is...).

But meaning is not at all exhausted by definitions. In fact definitions ought to be perhaps the last thing one ought to consider when thinking about meaning at all, such is the awfulness of thinking of meaning in that way. — StreetlightX

When I see a new word being used, I still don't get the meaning. I end up referencing the dictionary to know what the word means.

Right. That's what I said. I feel as though you mean that ironically for some reason, as if thinking everything should be "an implication of evolution", because I think evolution is a good theory for the explanation of biological diversity. — Reformed Nihilist

...which includes the diverse ways in which minds work and adapt (learn) to the environment, hence evolutionary psychology's new and powerful explanatory power. I don't see how someone can go on about the explanatory power of biological diversity, which includes how the brain evolved, yet say evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of conjecture.

One of the problems for me is my parents made me believe Christianity was absolutely true (by intimidation among other things) Abandoning it lead to a loss of meaning.

For example I had numerous rules like I couldn't watch TV, listen to the radio, shop on sunday and so on. I left due to the horrible atmosphere but it was traumatic and what I discovered was that no rules and no morality could be justified. Before I was told to do X because God said so..

If God does not exist and isn't a moral authority there are no moral facts or moral authority.. That lead me to nihilism. Having to abandoned one extensive belief system made me highly skeptical and demanding better justifications for things.

But nihilism and a sense of futility is a terrible experience. I don't like to see it endorsed as a scientific theory. If science is saying life is pointless and meaningless then we certainly should not reproduce.

i have issues with the idea of making your own meaning but that would constitute a whole new thread" — Andrew4Handel

My father is very religious, but not as harsh as your parents. I was raised as a Christian and was even "saved" and baptized. I abandoned those beliefs. I began questioning everything in my late teens, and when I realized that there wasn't really any consistent answers, I began a new search for truth. I understood that the truth isn't going to be what I wanted it to be, or what I would like, or what sounds trendy. I realized that I couldn't make an emotional investment in the truth - that if I really wanted to know the truth, I go where the evidence leads, not where my emotions, or desires lead. I found science to provide more answers than any religion and that it was consistent and held true for every person - no matter where they are from, what culture they call their own, or what time period they live in. I'm an atheist, much to my father's disappointment. In my mind, most people hold on to their beliefs because that is what gives them purpose and allows them to carry on their lives. As is commonly said, "religion is a crutch for the weak mind." It is for those that don't understand, or may even be fearful, of the power in their own hands to make their own meaning and purpose in life.

What I said is that evolution deflates the reasons we give for reproducing. What ever reason you have for having children by having children you are just carrying on the cycle of reproduction. To carry on reproducing is doing what our genes allegedly "want" us to do. Our genes don't care about our survival but their survival (see Dawkins) I am not defending this view but saying that evolution can easily give a deflationary account of anything — Andrew4Handel

Genes don't even care about their survival. They don't even possess knowledge. Genes just do what they do. We can have many reasons for doing the things we do, but it all narrows down to survival in the natural and social environment. We can either possess the knowledge for the reasons we do the things we do, or delude ourselves into thinking that the things we do and what we are are really "special" to the point that scientific theories can never explain them.

I think the problem with humans is they can control their reproduction and reason about it, but choose not to. Any reproduction that is not done on a coherent basis is mindless. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, we can control our reproduction. After our third child, I had a vasectomy. I did so, because having kids costs money, and I wanted the children we did have to have more than what we could have given them if we had more kids. Other species are no different. When resources are low, certain organisms won't procreate. It's logical as having kids with no resources is equivalent to not having them at all because it is likely they won't survive.

As long as you are using the concept of desire it has to be emanating from somewhere. Are you suggesting it is emanating from the gene (a physical entity) or from natural selection (a concept)? If you are suggesting it is emanating from the gene, then that would be anthropomorphism. If you are saying it is from natural selection, then you would be using anthropomorphism on a concept. — Rich

Natural selection is a process, not a concept. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a concept.

Any type if anthropomorphism begs the question of why would a concept such natural selection create a condition of desire of any sort much less procreation. It would seem like the whole theory it's based upon some feeling of some individuals that procreation is natural, leading of course to homophobia and other related sins similar to religious beliefs. — Rich

Desires are natural inclinations. It's really quite simple, (which is the magic of the theory - the simplicity). Any organism that doesn't procreate leaves no offspring. If your inclination is to not procreate, then there won't be any descendants that also have the natural inclination to not procreate. Those species that exist, and are successful at existing within an environment for many generations are those that procreate. Any species that doesn't procreate who is competing for the same resources as those that do, will lose out and won't exist long enough to leave a mark in the fossil record or even be noticed by humans millions of years later to be classified.

To exist for any length of time, means that you must have some attribute or quality that enables you to continue to exist. Procreating is how genes do it.

The solution seems to be that any ship that Theseus owns would be a ship of Theseus. Are we simply talking about ownership (which also applies with grandfather's axe)? or are we talking about a particular object that had all of it's parts replaced?

The fact that we keep referring to it as the same ship, and that we use language in such a way that we refer to it as the ship of Theseus and having the ship of Theseus's parts replaced, should imply that it is the same ship. After all, if the meaning of words is how they are used, then it should be perfectly clear what the answer is to this "paradox". I'm wondering if the "meaning-is-use" crowd is going to be consistent here.

Well, saying it like that would be anthropomorphic. I didn't use the word, "desire" in my post. Genes don't have desires. They just do what they do as a result of natural selection. Our desires, though, are a result of natural selection, too.

However, the second part appears to be anthropomorphism. — Rich

Genes are carried by every living organism, not just homo sapiens sapiens. So no, it can't be anthropomorphic.

We were talking about creation and I am pointing out your parents created you. What is the difference between your parents creating you and a god creating you? — Andrew4Handel

No, we weren't talking about what YOU meant by MY post. What I meant when I typed my post is that the difference between my parents and God is that my parents don't make do anything under threat of eternal torture, and don't hold my happiness over my head if I don't obey their every word.

Parents often create their children for a reason because humans have desires and reasoning. — Andrew4Handel

No you are contradicting yourself. Remember when you said this:

I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

Do we mindlessly procreate, or do we procreate for a reason? I'm a parent and the reasons I procreated was to share something special with my mate, to leave a legacy behind when I die, and to experience being a father and the love of my children.

People have children for dubious reasons. My parents spent my entire childhood indoctrinating me into religion. There is a difference between an unthinking species reproducing without motives and humans who can have motives. A lot of cultures have expected children to revere their parents and they have even being worshipped. I don't thinking taking gods out of the picture frees you from being created with dubious motives. — Andrew4Handel

My parents didn't have me so that they could indoctrinate me. I was a "mistake", as they were young, and their marriage didn't last. So, in a way, my coming into the world wasn't planned, or wasn't expected. I was the result of two teenagers following their physical urges. Many, but not everyone, is born this way. Some, like my daughter, were planned.

You seem to be attacking a narrow notion of a creator rather than the general concept. A parents with benevolent motives (are there any?) is more likely to help a child than a dogmatic parent. — Andrew4Handel

Well, I am. I'm attacking the one and only creator - the creator of my ancient ancestors that begat all the rest. If God didn't create anything, then we wouldn't be here discussing who created who in the first place.

My experience of a lack of meaning probably derives from my upbringing. Having children for incoherent or bad reasons undermines meaning. I think meaning is often just derived from benevolent relationships. Anyone can reject their parents reasons for having them. — Andrew4Handel

No it doesn't. Some of my childhood was bad. When my parents divorced, I felt like my father didn't want me. They used me as a tool against each other, too, but there were good times as well. I had some great friends growing up and will always remember those good times, that seems to outweigh the bad.
Just because my parents didn't have me for the same reasons I had my kids, doesn't mean that I don't have meaning, or that life is meaningless. I created my own purpose in life.

What is the point of surviving at all? — Andrew4Handel

For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate.

But you are indebted to your parents in the same way. You only exist because of them. being created doesn't mean you owe a debt. I have argued this in my "No consent" thread. — Andrew4Handel

My parents don't ask me to pray to them, nor tell me that my happiness is tied to doing everything they say.

I am referring to a deflationary account of human attributes as ultimately coercive to encourage reproduction. My nihilism doesn't come from Evolution but it is exacerbated by it.
I highlighted it concerning the search for an evo explanation of homosexuality. I think it is insidious to make peoples attribute subservient to brute survival/reproductive success. — Andrew4Handel

Theres more to procreating than heterosexual sex. The offspring need to make it to the age of being able to procreate themselves and gays adopting unwanted children are part ofv the solution. Not everyone gets to mate, but every member of the social group shares the same genes, and participates in ensuring genes gets passed down to the next generation.

Survival without an afterlife is temporary Religions are about eternal survival not just surviving so you can reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

What is the point of surviving eternally?

...continuing the existence of the species, leaving a mark in the world, ensuring that some part of you continues to exist after you die, etc.,

What implications do you think can be validly be drawn from the theory of evolution? — Andrew4Handel

Implications can be drawn from any idea, including religious ones. Everything is interconnected and therefore has an implication on everything else.

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. I have not heard pf a positive account of evolution although some people talk as if it involved progress which is controversial. — Andrew4Handel

Survival isn't a good thing? Religion seems to be all about survival, too - the survival of your soul. Believing that you will continue to survive after your death, and behaving in a way to achieve that, isn't much different from running away from a predator to survive.

In a trivial way it easy to claim anything we do is ultimately a survival trait regardless of our intentions. i don't like being in service of this system. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not too keen on being in service to some entity that created me just for me to be indebted to it for all eternity. Neither one of us was asked what kind of system we'd like to be born into, nor guaranteed that the system we are born into would be something that we like.

I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

We don't "mindlessly" reproduce. Many animals don't reproduce when resources are scarce.

These are two different views of such a hologram as reconstructed by a laser beam. The brain can be considered such an analogous source in the quantum field. The mind extends out into it and perceives it to be out there and not in here. This idea of perception of a real quantum field is the result of Stephen
Robbins research utilizing Henri Bergson's metaphysics. — Rich

So then there still is an "out there" that our minds extends out into? How did you get different views if not from different perspectives of different minds occupying different spaces, "out there"? It doesn't follow to call perception the real universe, while still using phrases like, "out there" and "different views", and "extends out into it", as if there is more to the universe than just your subjectiveness. Even using the term, "subjective" implies the existence of the objective reality. If there isn't anything more than our "subjective" perspective, then "subjective" becomes meaningless, as it would really be an objective perspective.

Two things can be wrong with an argument: it is logically invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises), and/or one or more of its premises is false. Everything else is irrelevant as far as the soundness of an argument goes. — Fafner

But what does it mean to be false?

When we disagree, what is it that we are disagreeing on - our use of words, or the state-of-affairs that the words refer to?

Does this forum have an aversion to looking up the words they are debating the meaning of in a dictionary?

Spirituality: noun
1
: something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such

2
: clergy

3
: sensitivity or attachment to religious values

4
: the quality or state of being spiritual

Spiritual: adjective

1
: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs

2
a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal : spiritual authority : lords spiritual

3
: concerned with religious values

4
: related or joined in spirit : our spiritual home : his spiritual heir

5
a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

You still didn't address my question. What does it mean to not address your arguments? What does it mean to have something wrong or right with your argument? Again, both of our arguments follow the conventional use of words and are grammatically correct. So what is right or wrong with arguments? What are arguments other than using words, and how do you make the distinction between making an argument and not making one?

Because you are asking many irrelevant things, and life is too short (and anyway, I don't understand most of your questions). — Fafner

They aren't irrelevant unless you are saying that your post I was asking questions about was also irrelevant.

But, what does it mean to ask irrelevant things? I was using words in a conventional manner. I used the correct grammar and spelling. So, how is it that it is irrelevant, or that you don't understand the questions. What is it that you don't understand - my intent, or my use of words (which shouldn't be a problem if meaning is use because I used the words in a conventional and grammatically correct way).

When we disagree, what is it that we are disagreeing on - our use of words, or the state-of-affairs that the words refer to? How can we disagree with our use of words when we are both using them in a conventional way and that is grammatically correct? "Is language a game", or is language a game?

The fact that this debate has gone on for over 30 pages is pathetic, and we can thank those that simply don't get that "use" implies intent and purpose. How you use something has to do with what you intend. For those arguing, "meaning is use" mean the same thing as "meaning is what you intend".

Just look up the meaning of "meaning" and "use" and "purpose" in any dictionary and you will find the word "intent" in the definition. Those arguing "meaning is use" don't seem to realize that they are arguing the same thing I am - that there is intent in the use of things, like words.

By removing intent from use, you are basically arguing that use is simply uttering sounds and drawing scribbles with no meaning (no intent).

Even if I know that Donald Trump is the President of the United States, it doesn't follow that "Donald Trump is the President of the United States" is redundant. — Michael

It is redundant for you to say that to yourself because you already know it, so why say it?

"Donald Trump" and "the President of the United States" refer to the same person, but they don't mean the same thing. The meaning of a word/phrase is not the same thing as its referent. — Michael

They refer to the same person and mean the same thing presently. They don't refer to the same person, or mean the same thing, when Obama was President.

Straw-man. Stop changing the example. Please stay with the example we both were using.

They don't refer to the same thing for the listener, but they do for the speaker who already knows what it is that he is talking about.

If "the weather outside" and "it is raining" means/refers to the same thing, then saying, "the weather outside is rainy" would be a redundant sentence, but it isn't in the mind of the listener that doesn't know the weather outside.

I think this is a useful example of how meaning is different to reference. Both "it is raining" and "the weather outside" can refer to the same thing (if it's raining), but don't mean the same thing. So it is wrong to say that the meaning of a word (or a phrase) is the thing it refers to.

The same with my earlier example of "the son of of Edward VIII" and "the father of Elizabeth II".

So neither of Harry's proposed accounts of meaning (the other being concerned with intention) works at all. — Michael

Wrong. "It is raining" is more specific (provides more information) than "the weather outside". Would you answer the question, "What is the weather outside?", with the "the weather outside"? You would use the string of scribbles, "the weather outside" when you know that the reader knows what the weather outside is, or you would use it as part of the sentence, "the weather outside is rainy." It all comes down to understanding what is it the listener already knows in order to speak efficiently (by not wasting energy speaking or writing to inform someone what they already know). If "the weather outside" and "it is raining" means the same thing, the saying, "the weather outside is rainy" would be a redundant sentence, but it isn't in the mind of the listener that doesn't know the weather outside.

"Caesar's dying" doesn't provide any information about the cause of his dying. If you were teaching someone who doesn't know anything about Caesar, about Caesar, is "Caesar dying" enough to inform them all about what happened? It seems that "Caesar's murder" is more informative, because it implies that Caesar's dying as well as informs how and why he is dying. Again, we are talking about what the listener already knows, and what it is that you intend to inform them about.

Both examples only refer to the same thing for those that know what it is that it is referring to. For those that don't know, one is more informative (means more) than the other.

Which question? — Fafner

I must be arguing with an idiot. How about answering every question I posed on this page that you didn't answer.

What do you mean "referring to the weather outside"? Of course the sentence "it is raining" is about the weather outside, but its meaning is independent from the actual weather outside — Fafner

uhhh, Ok. It is about the weather outside but it's meaning is independent of the actual weather outside. How does that make any sense? In your effort to never admit you are wrong, you begin to sound incoherent.

Because you are changing the topic. As I already told you, if you want to criticize an argument, then you should stick to the original formulation and not just make up your own unrelated examples. If you don't wish to engage seriously with my arguments, then I'm not interested in this conversation. — Fafner

Sheesh! I'm not changing the topic. I was responding to a specific post of yours. If I'm off topic, then you are as well. You keep trying to avoid answering the question - that's all. If you can't do that then there is no point in continuing this with you.

The 'refers' part here is ambiguous. I wasn't talking about the truth of the sentence, but about it's meaning. The sentence 'it is raining' means that it is raining, even if doesn't rain outside; so it doesn't matter if the sentence is true or false if we only want to know its meaning. — Fafner

Why would you ever say "it is raining" without ever referring to the weather outside? You seem to be saying that words have an objective meaning independent of them ever being used. But words have multiple meanings. We can say "it is raining" metaphorically, which doesn't meant that water is falling from clouds. What would we mean if we say, "it is raining cats and dogs." That sentence means that cats and dogs are falling from they sky?

My previous post was in response to your previous post, not a response to your argument. It is you that stated, "Misspeaking and saying something false are not the same thing." which is a separate argument than your main one. I was simply responding to, and even agreeing with, your previous post only. Why don't you answer the question?

It doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant to my argument. To repeat: If I utter the sentence "it is raining", my words will mean that it is raining no matter what my actual intention was, because this is what the sentence conventionally means in English. — Fafner

Exactly, the words, "it is raining", refers to the state-of-affairs outside, which aren't more words. To say that "It is raining" means "it is raining" is nonsense. That is why you used quotes to refer to your words and didn't use quotes to refer to the actual state-of-affairs.