↪Thanatos Sand Suggestion (and please take this as a compliment), if you ever need evidence that humans are computer bots, use yourself as an example. Almost irrefutable.
OK, so what if a semi-aware consciousness pervades all living things, and receives input from each entity's experiences, which it then uses to decide on perodic evolutionary changes to genetic programs? Genetic code is its programming language, but unlike computer code, it has a natural degree of chaotic behaviour, especially when subjected to various environmental factors (explaining things like cancer). The consciousness has a general sense of what is possible, and puts forth program changes that enable it's entities to adapt to the ever-changing environment. Add to this a desire to expand its population of entities — CasKev
Little atoms joined together into little cells that are operating according to some biological program spontaneously changed what they were normally doing, and said 'Hey, legs would be useful, and we can construct them just so.'?
I still don't understand how positive adaptation could occur without some kind of conscious intervention. Take my example of the centipede: — CasKev
Whenever you notice the word natural in any scientific explanation (it is used all the time), it should raise a red flag - human consciousness is being transferred somewhere else.
Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback. — Thanatos Sand
Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback.
— Thanatos Sand
Natural in such contexts is tantamount to God. It is a substitution word. Atheists can't use the word God so they rename it Natural. The scientific explanation becomes equivalent to the religious equivalent, that is no explanation at all other than some new supernatural force. It's a cute trick.Take note how often this transfer of power to Natural is used.
Are you serious? What's the problem with a genetic memory that can capture useful random changes? There is no logical or metaphysical hole in this as a basic story. — apokrisis
We all believe what we believe and these beliefs change over time. Some beliefs are more harmful to certain groups or populations of life than other beliefs. — Rich
share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals. — Michael Ossipoff
There's nothing in your experience that isn't consistent with your being an animal and nothing more. — Michael Ossipoff
The point I'm making is: beware the science vs religion narrative in contemporary culture. There is a conflict between religious literalism and scientific materialism, which are in some ways like two sides of a coin. But there is no necessary conflict between a religious philosophy and scientific method. — Wayfarer
At the same time, so called 'evolutionary thinking' gives rise to a lot of crap philosophy (Steve Pinker and Daniel Dennett being prime examples). Trying to explain or understand philosophical problems through the mechanism of adaptive necessity is invariably reductionist, in ways its protagonists can't even grasp. — Wayfarer
But the upshot is, one can be fully committed to scientific method in respect of evolution and every other scientific question without thereby committing yourself to materialism. — Wayfarer
In reality, how realistic is this? — Noble Dust
A: "We're nothing more than animals" -> B: "false, assuming "our" refers to the experience of all of humanity" C: (you): "everyone believes stuff, and sometimes it's harmful and sometimes not".
What's you're argument? — Noble Dust
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.