As far as animal minds are concerned, they are much different from human minds. They are evolving in different directions. Bats, whales, homing pigeons, all very different. None more for than any other. — Rich

What facts point at that they're evolving in different directions because of their minds?

Well this is prima facie not the case since the materialist explanation, whatever it is, is changing all the time and is nothing more than a spaghetti bowl of ideas that are tossed about as much as finding will allow. In other words, it is an outright mess without any proof and any hope for proof. But if you are satisfied with "it" (no one can describe what "it" is), then that is your choice. Personally, I never subscribe to obvious obfuscation. — Rich

There is no proof for most of those theories because there is nothing to prove. They only describe the chaotic reality. One of the few things that can be considered proven is the existence of atoms and molecyles and how they interact with each other, and that DNA for example exists and what it is like. These basic things aren't chaotic, they aren't the spaghetti. They're the existence of the bowl and the spaghetti, which are not changed.

The Elan vital (Bergson's terminology) is nothing more than the creative will that the mind exerts. This stands in contrast to the mind's memory. If you feel you have a creative element and if you feel you have the will that you can utilize to try to manifest this creativity, then that is the Elan vital. It is only what one experiences every day. — Rich

This is not all the term implies. I obviously believe in creative mind, but not its role in evolution that creative evolution gives to it.

If one ruminates over this statement one might find that understanding evolution is all about understanding life. That is why "natural selection" is sacrosanct to materialism, i.e. chemicals "naturally" come together and morph into life - and stay there. It is the greatest miracle ever told. — Rich

The materialistic explanation has been proven true. We know how those chemicals, molecules and cells are formed and what their structure is. I don't consider myself a materialist but materialistic explanations can indeed explain our physicl world.

All minds are necessarily different and are on different paths. However, dog owners certainly feel very connected to them. — Rich

Could you elaborate?

Imbuing genes with all kinds of human characteristics such surviving, reproducing, fittest, traits, etc. simply shifts the actions of the mind to gene. It doesn't explain anything. — Rich

So your argument is that because of complexity of human mind, actions, culture, survival in modern society regardless of our genes etc. we choose our companions based on non-genetic traits so the survival of the fittest doesn't apply? Very much possible but I can't say the same for other animals.

Understanding life is not about proofs. — Rich

True, but the evolution of biological organisms isn't the same thing as understanding life.

You lost me there. Are you claiming that the survival of the fittest and creative evolution are the same thing by different names? Btw, I'm don't believe in the élan vital which seems pretty central so not aboard.

Increase.

I agree on that but it doesn't prove I'm expressing all the creativity I could. As for the discussion on creativity in our societies, I partially agree, but must simultaneously note that it's a gross generalization.

I have creativity but it doesn't mean I buy a canvas to utilize that creativity, and the existence of canvas doesn't imply expressions of creativity either, and neither does the canvas having something on it.

Let's take two premises:
-Different beings have different probabilities of surviving and successfully reproducing.
-Offspring of any being at least partially inherits the traits of its parent(s).
-Definition: fitness means having traits that make it more likely for a being to survive and produce offspring.
From these we can directly deduct the survival of the fittest, unless we have very different definitions of that theory.

Because there's no asolute fitness, it always depends on the environment, and other beings are part of that. When no wombats exist, only kangaroos do, wombat is the fittest being, and vice versa, because of the lack of competition.

right, you are suggesting conservation of the allele diversity in the population, which I am arguing we should expect to see in the survival of the fittest model. — MikeL

Should we? This is what we're seeing but the survival of the fittest model alone does not imply that.

So, how does that fit into divergent evolution where this 'approaching optimal form' says: 'You know what, stuff being a possum, I want to be a kangaroo.' — MikeL

The kangaroo, for some reason, must be the fittest possibility for this to happen - probably because of existing space for it.

Again, it's not survival of the fittest but survival of the adequate. — StreetlightX

In a sense, as even the adequate have a possibility of surviving, but in the long term the fittest have a greater possibility of that, which is what the term surivival of the fittest means. Not that everything except the best dies within a generation.

And as for other factors, again, to list: sexual selection, niche construction, phenotypic plasticity, developmental robustness, evolvability, genotype networks, genetic 'mutations', gene flow, symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, artificial selection, population isolation - all of these and more can and do 'factor' as relevant mechanisms of evolution. — StreetlightX

Most of these fall under the roofs of either randomness or fitness, as an example the artificial selection which I considered mentioning. I should also mention that I meant factors to specifically the variety of specimen within a species, but there are indeed some I hadn't considered.

Apart from the survival of the fittest the only factor I can think of is randomness (including mutations), even when accounting for humans meddling with the situation on purpose, so I'll consider those the only relevant factors.

From just logical reasoning we know the survival of the fittest to be true. The reason for your situation is that it doesn't quarantee that only the fittest survive, and not only because the fittest one can't exist as fitness is a spectrum. The less fit an individual is, the less likely it is to survive, and the more variance there is, the more there are unoptimal individuals. Thus, as the species in stable conditions approaches their optimal form, the weaker the survival of the fittest as a force driving them towards that stage of existence gets.

Meanwhile, randomness is independent of everything. It always remains equally random. Therefore the species approaches the stage of equilibrium with such variance that the sum of forces is zero.

I'm not saying that the creative evolution is wrong, though, but if an explanation is correct, it must be compatible with other explanations proven correct.

Quite the opposite, I'd say: irreductionist is only describing the situation by generalizations and taking a look at the bigger picture. The reductionist is the one explaining. This is all assuming the reductionist is correct of course, in that there's no supernatural force affecting the situation.

When a species is well adapted to its environment though the Survival of the Fittest model would suggest that DNA should be trying to minimize the amount of variant alleles in the population to help ensure its continued survival. — MikeL

This is not true. Survival of the fittest is not only a model, it's a factor that does try to eliminate variance, but there are other factors.

I doubt that very much. — Bitter Crank

If genders and gender roles didn't exist, how could gender discrimination or gender related problems exist?

This is all caused by the existence of gender. Sex shouldn't matter and gender shouldn't exist. There was this one person in some tv show that said something along these lines: "I'm not a boy nor a girl. I'm a person." If everyone in the world thought like this we'd very likely be living in a happier place.

However, what is the logic of heaven and hell then? Why do all prophets preach it? Is it because we haven't matured enough to understand the true value of morality, thereby requiring a carrot-stick paradigm to encourage us to be moral? — TheMadFool

That's a possibility, or then hell is a state of mind, ie/eg the conscience and feeling quilty.

I mean not believing in God would be tantamount to not believing in Good, in morality. — TheMadFool

Morality might have a value that is independent from God's existence, but I guess I can see a point in that as well, the God being the (abstract) concept of goodness or love itself so that (most) atheists believe in God, just not in what they call God.

shebang — Wayfarer

Well that's it, I'm calling the moderators for sexism...

If democracy is not positive, there is a contradiction in asking how good it is.

So which ones are? Or are none?

Seriously, man, re-read what you just wrote. If what you say is true, then all hypotheticals are absurd. Come on. — Pneumenon

Are they not?

It's a decimal number because I didn't write the parenthesis. Anyway, where X is a property and A is the object with no proof of having that property, the question of "what if A was X" is absurd and that is irrelevant of whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A.

Besides, how do we define definition itself? What real difference, especially in the context, does it make whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A or whether it directly follows from its definition?

Memorization isn't all bad. While one can summon information these days with a few flicks of five fingers, it helps to have some things installed on board--like grammar, spelling, and punctuation rules. It's one thing to find a quote from Shakespeare--it can make one look more learnéd than one is--it's something else to have read a few plays, poems, books... thoroughly. — Bitter Crank

True, learning languages for example (including one's first language) is much about memorization and the basic knowledge of all subjects must be memorized in order to learn to apply it.

Assumption: democracy is inherently good, not just a decision-making procedure. You can agree or disagree with this, but for the purposes of this discussion, I want you to assume that this is true. — Pneumenon

Well, taking that as an assumption we are talking of a potentially hypothetical situation. We might as well assume that democracy is worth killing every single person whom it affects and that answer is just as valid as that it's a positive thing to begin with.

The question is comparable to "if -2,3 was a positive whole number, what would it be?"

Afaik the american education puts a heavy emphasis on memorization and learning the subject being taught instead of understanding and applying that information. For example, homework is awfully easy and there is a high amount of it.

I haven't myself lived in america so I don't have any experience of their schools, mind you. Everything I'm saying is based on what I've heard from other people.

The education system has not changed much in the last 200-300 years. We still stick "students" in the classroom and have someone lecture at them for 45-60 minutes. The lecturers have varying degrees of enthusiasm and or skill at holding the interest of the captive audience. School may have been the most interesting part of one's day one hundred years ago, but school now competes with social media, media in general, technology and the internet. — prothero

Yet in nordic countries for example, which have highly ranked education systems, they use these very same methods. The content and methods of education are more important than the tools and environment of education.

For all that, at least at the collegiate and university level, American schools remain among the best in the world, and attract talented students from around the world. — prothero

The university level is not all that matters. Afaik there are huge problems with the education at priamry school and high school levels.

And is that supposed to make my argument unsound? — TheMadFool

It does, assuming you mean the argument that God can't be indescribable.

I'm not saying he is, just that if he was his indescribability would not lead to any contradictions.

And the irony is you use words to describe what, according to you, is indescribable. How do you get this kind of privileged knowledge? — TheMadFool

His indescribability is a property of human language, not of God.

I realize now I'm not talking about this forum. I don't give a fuck about this forum. I'm talking about the United States. — Mongrel

But who gives a fuck about the United States, other than as a potential threat now that we are under specific circumstances?

Infinity can't be known like the number 2 or 3,000. It simply extends without end. Asking O to give us the largest natural number will elicit the response that no such number exists. So, there are limits to knowledge but that, in my opinion, doesn't devalue omniscience. It's simply the nature of infinity. — TheMadFool

Knowing infinity and knowing an infinite amount of things are two completely different things. O can't know infinity as a number but infinity can logically speaking refer to an amount and O can possess an infinite amount of knowledge.

It doesn't answer my question - at least I assume (and hope) your comment was a reply to my last comment of p1 and not the one on p2.

You can't change how you perceive something (except our thoughts - changing the thought obviously changes one's perception of it).

One distinction I think should be made in this discussion is the word "feel", which can refer to both feeling emotions and one's feelings about a subject (which is different from one's thoughts about the subject).

How you think is how you will feel. — TranscendedRealms

You seem to take this as a premise. I want logical reasoning to back up this claim.

What I am willing to accept is that there is a

straight, bisexual, and gay male and female sexual template. — Bitter Crank

I disagree about sexual orientation. Asexuality and pansexuality at least exist. Whether attraction towards trans people is a sexual orientation or a fetish is arguable.

So sex is defined and we all agree but gender is trickier.

Gender is a social construct of gender (sex) identity. Gender identity means identifying as a [gender]. Now we have to define gender to understand that and we notice we are in a loop of circular reasoning. This is because in the past identifying as a male for example could be defined through sex.

Now we have made a distinction between the concepts of sex and gender, which leaves gender with no definition.

All non-cis-gender people have that in common that they define themselves through masculine and feminine gender roles, but all cis-gender people don't.

What we can conclude from this is that we can't define the experience of identifying as some gender, unless we deny the person's right to identify as male/female while breaking the gender roles.

This is because when we realized that gender roles are artificial we should have admitted we should get rid of them, not classify people based on them.

The Godhead, Christ, and the Holy Spirit all share their omnipotence in their trinity, although that even befuddled Aquinas. Allah and Yahweh are omnipotent. — John Harris

I should've worded that better. Definitions of some specific gods include omnipotence, but I haven't heard any general definition for gods or deities that includes omnipotence.

I know it's not but it sounds like one.