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.

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.

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.

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.

The only utter nonsense is your ridiculous response to my correct and logical post. The fact you only see things as natural or not shows a difficulty understanding the world and its complexities. .

Why would minds evolve in humans and not other species? What problems were minds meant to solve? — Harry Hindu

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.

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? — Harry Hindu

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The only one arguing with idiots in this exchange has been me, and you've proven that. Nothing in the theory of evolution by natural selection and the field of genetics/heredity supports your outlandish theory of solutions being passed down genetically. The issue at hand is I have been arguing with one who ridiculously believes they are.

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.

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.

Then you need to realize no theory of evolution proves or even substantially supports the theory of solutions being passed down genetically.

I don't think philosophy is nothing but conjecture, and when it becomes that, I am critical of it. Philosophy has the ability to probe the coherence and value of different ways of thinking or speaking about things. That's more than just conjecture.

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

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.

How you would survive if you didn't have [a mind]. — Harry Hindu

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.

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. — Harry Hindu

That is a irrelevant to explaining how consciousness is produced.

Determinists and epiphenomenalists and eliminativists believe that consciousness has little to no role in action.

Could you explain your claim of camouflage not being a solution to being seen by predators, which from the view point of the prey might appear problematic?

Could you actually address my actual claim in my actual post instead of strawmanning me? I've re-tweeted if for you below:

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.

So is your point that camouflage is not a perfect solution? Prior to your comment no one had mentioned the reguirement that the solution would have to be final or perfect, so why are you bringing it up?

That's your second time you failed to directly address my statement, itself. This is clearly a difficulty for you. Here is the exchange itself. Maybe that will help you.:

Harry Hindu
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."

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.

Thanks but I have already read the discussion earlier. You'll need to reform your statement because it's unclear what is it that you want me to address.

I had came to the conclusion that you're saying solutions are not passed down genetically, which would be disproven by showing a solution that is clearly passed down genetically. Is there something so far in this paragraph I've misunderstood?

Thanks but I have already read the discussion earlier. You'll need to reform your statement because it's unclear what is it that you want me to address.

No, my statement is perfectly clear, you haven't shown how it isn't, and I don't want you to do anything. You can address it or not, but I won't address your questions strawmanning that statement.

I had came to the conclusion that you're saying solutions are not passed down genetically, which would be disproven by showing a solution that is clearly passed down genetically. Is there something so far in this paragraph I've misunderstood?

This is actually true. So, you are free to prove your claim by proving a solution is passed down genetically.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

Judeo Christian version of Genesis: God created the universe and it took 7 days.

Scientific version of Genesis: Natural Forces created the universe and it took millions of years.

There really is no difference between the two versions which is why some people reject elevating evolution to some special status. Survival of the fitness is just an intellectual expression of some elitists in European culture. Some took this to a limit resulting in eugenics and Nazism.

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?


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? — Harry Hindu

There is no reason for minds to exist. The only valid explanation is an explanation of how consciousness is produced.

Consciousness is involved in numerous things, composing symphonies, language, doing math, reading books, sexual pleasure, pain, concept formation, thought, dreaming ad infinitum.

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.

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.

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.

Something is only a solution if the environment is consistent day in day out.

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. — Harry Hindu

I never argued that evolutionary psychology was nothing but conjecture, I expressed that I had the impression that was the case, and based on that impression, it wasn't an area of interest that I was currently interested in pursuing. For some reason, you seem to have made it your own personal mission to convince me otherwise, and failing that, insulting me for not immediately being convinced. I entered this discussion with good intent, and you have been rude, and attacked me personally. That's both bad reasoning (ad hom) and just bad behavior. On top of that, it's the near certain way to potentially sour my already dubious opinion of evolutionary psychology. So job well done. I wonder if there's a response that I could offer you that would convince you that you have been rude? I doubt it. Maybe I could ask if you could imagine a situation where you were rude because you got caught up in an argument on the internet, and because you were caught up in it, you couldn't see your own rudeness? Then I might ask how this situation differs from that hypothetical. Just something to chew on.