So it is not like the religious right just invented potential harmful effects of the theory . — Andrew4Handel

I would like to be very clear on this point. Natural Selection does not simply produce the extremely harmful and murderous effects. On the contrary, it's whole invention was to justify what was happening at the time and all times afterwards. Money and power invented and nurtured Natural Selection as a justification in lieu of God which was and is continued to be used as justification for similar activities. It removes responsibility from individuals and places it in some supernatural force, whatever the name. If course, the Greeks did the same thing, so such efforts have a very long history.

I’d said:
.

The animal is designed, by natural selection (please give it the benefit of the doubt for the time-being) to protect itself, to avoid damage. If your hand contacts fire, the pain tells you that damage is occurring, or is immanent. And it makes you want to get your hand out of the fire. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

What you're not addressing is whether this has anything to say about the problems of philosophy.

.
Then I’ll say it now: It doesn’t.
.
But there’s an unnecessary, made-up problem of philosophy, (the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness), and, in fact there’s an unnecessary, fiction-based branch of philosophy (philosophy of mind), tries to make a philosophy and a philosophical problem about something that, rightly, is purely a scientific matter.
.

One can agree that the theory of evolution by natural selection is a sound theory, and yet dispute that it has anything much to say about the problems of philosophy.

.
Quite rightly.
.

Most often, however, what happens is the lazy assumption, which you have made above, that as we are 'just animals'

.
There’s nothing in our experience to suggest that we’re anything other than animals.
.
And, that being so, there’s no reason to diddle about “epiphenomena”, “supervenience”, or “emergent-properties”, etc. …in search of what and how we are. Philosophers-of-mind are misguided, confused supernatural spiritualists.
.
Yes, we’re different from the other animals in some ways: language, technology, etc. So what?
.
Different animals do different things and have different ways of coping with their surroundings.
.
Yes, the word “Lazy” could describe a contrast with the hardworking academic philosophers who have industriously invented the make-work philosophy-of-mind.
.
I give them credit for industrious fictional creativity.
.

, then what there is to know about such questions must be knowable, in principle, in terms of biology.

.
Well, I’d instead say that your own experience as a person (by which I mean “human animal”) is what you know from. Expecting your experience to be seen or shared by a scientist who is studying your physical makeup, is part of what leads to the fallacious “Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness”. That “problem” can, in one way, be regarded as a fallacy that confuses different points-of-view.
.
Maybe it’s the result of some people clinging to the pseudoscientific belief that the only reality, the only valid point-of-view is the objective, externally-viewed, 3rd-person point-of view—which of course isn’t anyone’s point-of-view.
.
…and which doesn’t leave any room for animals to have a valid point-of-view. …hence the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness.
.

However, I dispute that h. sapiens is 'just an animal' at all.

.
What else then?
.
No one denies that we’re different from other animals in significant ways. Animals aren’t all the same.
.

Certainly, from the perspective of biology, humans are a 'species of primate'.

.
…but probably not entirely primate, as I was saying.
.

But to then try and understand uniquely human abilities such as language, reasoning, art and imagination, in evolutionary terms, is what is called 'biological reductionism'.

.
With all of our unique traits, we’re not an easy animal give a detailed evolutionary explanation of. That doesn’t mean that we’re other than an animal.
‘

I don't think you're in the least unusual in having such ideas, after all, everyone knows that we are just animals

.
…everyone except philosophers-of-mind.
.

, and only what evolution has created.

.
Since Darwin, yes.
.

It is the folk wisdom of the day.

.
No, it’s established science, increasingly universally-accepted since 1854.
.
If we aren’t animals, then what do you say that we are?
.
Maybe I should explain why I emphasize “You’re the animal”:
.
I mean that there’s no need for the mystical, magical, spiritualist mumbo-jumbo about “epiphenomena”, “supervenience”, or “emergent-properties”. And there’s no need to be surprised that animals, including us, have 1st person experience. That’s to be expected, for the reasons that I described.
.
It’s a question of from what point-of-view you want to speak of us. The simplest description of what we are is just to say that we’re the animal.
.
I usually follow that statement with “…period.”, to emphasize that no other explanation or description of us, or theorizing is needed.
.
But philosophers love to theorize. It’s their livelihood, so we can’t blame them.
.
Michael Ossipoff

As with Natural Laws, science once again invents out of thin air, a supernatural force called Natural Selection (everything in scientific Genesis is Natural) that guides and controls life, and then elevates this new force to some weird ontology. Atheists accept these stories because they have their own religion called Scientism for which there is zero evidence other than faith.

I’d said:
.

If your hand contacts fire, the pain tells you that damage is occurring, or is imminent. And it makes you want to get your hand out of the fire.

The exact detailed mechanism? Who knows? i don't. Maybe there are scientists who do. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

I think there is a clear difference between mechanism and sensation.

.
Of course.
.

It is possible to build unconscious sensors that avoid fire. You only need to make unconscious sensors that create automatic behaviour leading to a machine avoiding heat.

.
Of course. You’re speaking of a simplified analog of us. Different in degree from us.
.
Basically, if you want to go into it, and philosophers-of-mind do want to go into it, then yes, we’re all purposefully-responsive devices, as is the machine you described.
.
…like a mouse-trap, a refrigerator-light-switch, or a thermostat.
.
Only that. No need for such mystical, supernatural, spiritualist mumbo-jumbo as supervenience, ephiphenomena, or emergent-properties.
.

We know enough about neurons and about physics to see that it does not present a framework for explaining experience

.
Why would you expect experience to come directly out of the 3rd-person view of the observing scientist, via biology and physics?
.
I completely agree if you doubt that approach.
.
But I took the time to explain, at great length, why “1st person experience” is inevitable for an animal, designed as animals are, to purposefully respond to their surroundings.
.
How could it be otherwise??
.,
You’ve entirely ignored what I said on that matter. Rebuttal doesn’t consist of repeated denial without replying.

.

There are famous physicists who have supported the position of idealism which incorporates mind into reality as fundamental. Including Sir James Jeans, Sir Arthur eddington and Martin Rees. In this sense consciousness is not seen as merely an emergent property of the brain. A similar position is held by panpsychism.

.
…believing in Mind as a separate metaphysical substance.
.
Mumbo-jumbo.
.
Idealism is a kind of metaphysics. I’m an idealist. But you’re still the animal.

.

It has been recognised from time immemorial that there is a problem in describing physical objects and mental states using the same terminology.

.
…and, in particular, the same point-of-view.
.
It’s a problem made-up by philosophers-of-mind.
.

It was not a problem posited merely by Televangelicals or something. I was quite materialist and atheistic

.
I’m neither. But we’re still animals. Period.
‘
before I studied philosophy of mind and psychology. I find most religious people I speak don't even understand the problem so it is not clear that dualism of the mind body problem emerges from religion.
.

It certainly needn’t. I’m religious, and Idealist.
.
But we’re still just animals. That’s the simple and best description of what we are. …avoiding the spiritualist, mystical mumbo-jumbo of the philosophy-of-mind.
.
I suggest that you disregard philosophy-of-mind, and then the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness will vanish.
.
Michael Ossipoff

But philosophers love to theorize. It’s their livelihood, so we can’t blame them. — Michael Ossipoff

I study philosophy purely out of interest, and the necessity of asking such questions. I recommend it.

There’s nothing in our experience to suggest that we’re anything other than animals. — Michael Ossipoff

This is categorically false, assuming "our" refers to the entirety of humanity throughout all of history.

There’s nothing in our experience to suggest that we’re anything other than animals.
— Michael Ossipoff

This is categorically false, assuming "our" refers to the entirety of humanity throughout all of history. — Noble Dust

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.

Where things go awry, is when certain mystical beliefs, such as Natural Selection (which is a code for Natural Supremacy), is taught as some sort of objective fact in educational environments. This little idea should be taught in philosophy classes and subject to the same sort of scrutiny as determinism and other elite seeking philosophies. Instead, it is taught as "settled science" in grade school in order to present a scientific religion to children that stands in opposition to what is being taught in religious institutions.

3.4k

"But philosophers love to theorize. It’s their livelihood, so we can’t blame them". — Michael Ossipoff


I study philosophy purely out of interest, and the necessity of asking such questions. I recommend it. — Wayfarer

Likewise. So do I.

But I was talking about academic philosophers. They have an additional incentive--the Publish-Or-Perish imperative that i referred to.

When philosophers invent a make-work problem, to complicate something that's simple, so that they'll have more to publish about, that goes beyond liking philosophy.

The Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness is a fictitious make-work "problem".

Even when I was in junior-highschool (pre-secondary school, now called "middle-school") it was obvious that there is nothing surprising about our "first-person experience". That an animal evolved with its natural-selectoin-designed life-purposes would have feelings, sensations, preferences, etc. was just obvious and unsurprising.

You look at a mousetrap, and don't see any consciousness.

Suppose science knew the full details of how the brain works. A white-smocked scientist with a clipboard looks at MRI & EKG of your brain, and says, " I can see exactly how this device works, but I don't see the Consciousness, the 1st-Person Experience! Inexplicable!"

Nonsense. Why should he expect to experience or see your 1st-person experience.

Physicalists have gotten themselves (and anyone who listens to them) all confused.

By the way, not only is an animal's 1st person point-of-view perfectly valid, but it's actually the only really valid point of view in this life.

That's because your "1st-person" experience" is exactly what your life-experience possibility-story is about.
---------------------------------
People who claim that there's a Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness have, so far, been unable or unwilling to defend that belief. I've told why your problem is fictitious.

The absence of any defense of your claim is, itself, an answer. It's an admission that you can't justify your claim about there being a Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness..

Michael Ossipoff

"There’s nothing in our experience to suggest that we’re anything other than animals." — Michael Ossipoff


This is categorically false, assuming "our" refers to the entirety of humanity throughout all of history. — Noble Dust

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals.

There's nothing in your experience that isn't consistent with your being an animal and nothing more.

Michael Ossipoff

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals. — Michael Ossipoff

How are you defining animal?

We have Shakespeare, Einstein, Bach, Language, Mathematics, Science, Internet,Psychotherapy, Computer Programming, Schools, Cookery, Philosophy, Psychology, Art, Music, medicine...

A white-smocked scientist with a clipboard looks at MRI & EKG of your brain — Michael Ossipoff

Oops! When I said "EKG" I meant "EEG".

Michael Ossipoff

"Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're other than animals." — Michael Ossipoff


How are you defining animal? — Andrew4Handel

To biologists, I guess an animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia.

The definition of that kingdom has been changing lately, partly because of DNA stidies.

But here's what I mean by "animal":

An animal is a purposefully-responsive device resulting from natural selection.

We have Shakespeare, Einstein, Bach, Language, Mathematics, Science, Internet,Psychotherapy, Computer Programming, Schools, Cookery, Philosophy, Psychology, Art, Music, medicine...

Yes, but a bird can fly unassisted, and an octopus can change its color and make an ink-smokescreen to escape from predators. Can you do that?

Michael Ossipoff

How are you defining animal? — Andrew4Handel

I believe what he means is that despite having highly evolved intelligence, our initial drives and instincts, as well as everything we experience, are biological in nature.

I believe what he means is that despite having highly evolved intelligence, our initial drives and instincts, as well as everything we experience, are biological in nature. — CasKev

Exactly.

Michael Ossipoff

An animal is a purposefully-responsive device resulting from natural selection. — Michael Ossipoff

If that sounds disparaging, it certainly isn't intended in that way.

It's astonishing and impressive beyond words what evolution produced when it produced the animals, including us!

Michael Ossipoff

It's astonishing and impressive beyond words what evolution produced when it produced the animals, including us! — Michael Ossipoff

Life is definitely changing all the time. What is disparaging is that this disgusting idea that Natural Selection is creating the change based upon who is fittest? As if the Nazis who survived deserved to survive while those that they killed weren't "fit" to survive. And it is this grotesque story of evolution that is being taught in schools?

What is evolving (or changing) is creative intelligence that is experimenting and learning and all life forms are doing this and they may (or may not) find different ways of survival among the multitude of other things they are experimenting with in life. This is why we have so many different life forms all acting together in some way.

@Rich So what you are saying is that there is some kind of intelligent force that is consciously altering life forms to adapt to their environments?

There is an creative intelligence within all of us (to be more precise, is us) and it i it's manifesting and interacting in many, many different forms and ways. The result is always unpredictable because everything is constantly learning and changing.

@Rich Following that line of thinking, every living thing has a genetic program that is periodically altered by this intelligent force. For example, the program for a certain species of fish was altered to include stumps, which eventually progressed into the functioning legs of the frogs we see today?

And things like cancer, brain disease, and missing limbs at birth exist because the intelligent force isn't perfect, and the programs can have recurring bugs? Or because the intelligent force doesn't discern between good and bad, letting natural selection take care of the rest?

every living thing has a genetic program that is periodically altered by this intelligent force. — CasKev

Nothing is being altered. It is all just evolving in response to what it is experiencing. It is a continuity of life (memory and creative intelligence) through duration.

There is a creative intelligence within all of us (to be more precise, is us) — Rich

If this creative intelligence exists within us, it must be at an inaccessible subconscious level. Otherwise people would have eight arms and gigantic penises by now. :D

I think would be easier to believe that the creative intelligence is separate from living things, and either has a sick sense of humor, or just isn't that smart.

If this creative intelligence exists within us, it must be at an inaccessible subconscious level. Otherwise people would have eight arms and gigantic penises by now — CasKev

There are a myriad of ways to evolve and creative intelligence is not only accessible, it is us. There is nothing mysterious going on. Some life forms so have a multitude of extremities and others have evolved in a totally different way. The big creative intelligence is just evolving in many, many forms. With the ocean there are waves and within waves there are endless more waves (there are 10x more bacteria and viruses in a human body than there are human cells).

I think would be easier to believe that the creative intelligence is separate from living things, and either has a sick sense of humor, or just isn't that smart. — CasKev

The good news is that your reading and comprehension abilities are still evolving so maybe sometime in the future, you might want re-read what I wrote.

The big creative intelligence is just evolving in many, many forms. — Rich

And how would you explain counterproductive things like birth defects, cancer, and autism. Are those just caused by environmental interference?

There are a myriad of forces at work. It is all experimentation constrained by memory.

For example, some scientists in the pharmaceutical industry came up with the idea to sell opiouds to people who take them because they trust them, and as a result 183,000 people have been killed. So we have here an interesting case of how people experiment with other people's lives and how people experiment with their own lives. Intelligence does not infer positive health outcomes. The incredible increase in autism births is increasing at a rate that is commitment with the amount of drugs that humans are choosing to consume. Likewise there is an enormous amount of junk in our foods, water, and air, thanks to technology, which is having some affect on our bodies.

I believe what he means is that despite having highly evolved intelligence, our initial drives and instincts, as well as everything we experience, are biological in nature. — CasKev

I thought he said we were nothing more than animals.

Which animal are we supposed to be comparing ourselves with? This has been a classic ploy throughout history, to compare certain types of humans or human behaviour to animals as a justification for assigning a particular status to them. But there is massive diversity among animals.

People seem to forget that words like biological and animal are human inventions not a transparent reflection of what is in the external world. We don't need to know about peoples genes or biology to successfully communicate with them and muddle along. Now people can say things like "My genes made me do it" because it sounds more scientific without making a rigorous causal theory.

Biological in the sense your now using it seems to be invoking a particular view of biology as uncontrolled hormones, ruthless mechanism and instincts. Humans have a lot of self control to exhibit far more drives and behaviours that involve "prehistoric" urges or brain pathways. Sitting around all day staring at a computer screen is hardly something we can be said to have adapted for.

I thought he said we were nothing more than animals.

We are all animals; we just happen to be highly intelligent and advanced ones. If you want to get rid of classifications like "animals," you would have to get rid of all the words in our language as well.

But there’s an unnecessary, made-up problem of philosophy, (the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness), — Michael Ossipoff

Any problem is hard if there is no explanation. The difficulty with consciousness is that it is only directly available to the person having the experience whereas a cell isn't , so obviously it is a harder problem than something a group of people can publicly examine.

Subjectivity is even hard to talk about but it is not the same as looking outside yourself at an object in the world.

Psychology and Philosophy of mind are serious disciplines that closely analyse the mind and cognitions and seek to give reasonable definitions. They are not trying to create mysteries. We have a global mental health crisis and huge widespread use of psychiatric medication up to 1 million suicides a year so there is a serious need and desire to accurately understand the mind.

If you want to get rid of classifications like "animals," you would have to get rid of all the words in our language as well. — Thanatos Sand

That is not true. We often get rid of words in our languages without having to abandon a whole language. We also keep words that refer to fictional entities.

In what situation is there an urgent need to describe something as animal?

If you want to get rid of classifications like "animals," you would have to get rid of all the words in our language as well.
— Thanatos Sand

That is not true. We often get rid of words in our languages without having to abandon a whole language. We also keep words that refer to fictional entities.

Of course it's true since you cant' have a language of words without classifications of those words to give them specific functions...such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives. So, if you refute the need for classifications as you did, you refute the need for language; we know that's not a good idea.

In what situation is there an urgent need to describe something as animal?

I never said anything about any urgent need for anything. But we're still animals.

I am not sure where I suggested we get rid of the word "animal" or where I claimed we should not classify things. I said that words are used like tools but do not reflect reality transparently.

Par example.The word atom had been associated with lots of models of atoms. The word atom refers to whatever the current model of the atom is.

You haven't shown why we need use the particular word animal at all. It is clearly as I have mentioned a word that is applied selectively for different purposes. People can be described as animalistic or behaving like one animal or another.

The following article should give you some clue of this trajectory..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-africa/comparing-black-people-to_b_9345322.html

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."