The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Exclusive Biological nature of Evolution via the natural selection :  (Read 17023 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I read about an interesting experiment last year that demonstrated that rats would attempt to help another rat if it saw it trapped and in distress and it knew how to free it. How cute is that?
Immature rats also emit high pitched (inaudible to us) squeaks when playing together - the patterns and timing of the squeaks is very similar to the laughs and giggles of higher primates when playing...

Rats are also as good as us at decision-making based on multi-sensory cues.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I read about an interesting experiment last year that demonstrated that rats would attempt to help another rat if it saw it trapped and in distress and it knew how to free it. How cute is that?

There is nothing cute about rats though haha  .
Dawkins and co. would say that that apparent altruistic behavior (appearances are certainly deceptive  indeed )of those rats is just selfishness in disguise .= Dawkins and co  are the only ones who really do make the right materialistic interpretations of evolution though indeed = the rest of  those atheist  scientists are in fact just schizophrenic when it comes to just that - they do not realise their own contradictory double interpretations of evolution = they talk about evolution in the same breath as they mention love , altruism, freedom ,free will ...as real concepts ,while the materialistic interpretation of evolution is the very negation of those concepts as just survival strategies = illusions in fact .

Dawkins says even that we are just machines robots , driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , a startling " fact " he "discovered" and wanted therefore to  share with the rest of the world haha = if we are just robots machines , rats are even "lower or inferior " machines, even though such judgements of value are in fact meaningless in the materialistic evolutionary terms at least .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
There were 2 cases like that in Holland a decade ago, i guess, when i was living there , where 2 foreign kids  actually drowned ,because nobody tried to rescue them, even though many people were there to witness those tragedies :those  bloody immoral selfish Dutch cowards ....not to mention the famous case when UN Dutch soldiers did deliberately not protect the muslims in Srebrenica  from the Serbs ....the latter is another different example of that extremely immoral type of human selfishness ...Why didn't they get driven by that innate so-called evolutionary drive to rescue those kids and people then ?
There are many reasons why such drives might be overridden - cultural differences (dehumanising outgroups), conflict between drives (self-preservation+fear vs altruism), group paralysis (each individual expects action from someone better able to respond), genetic & developmental human variablility affecting the strength and expression of these drives, etc., etc.

Ok, you can try to rationalize your way to what you wanna say all you want , but ,you seem to be missing the core point of my words :
All those evolutionary mechanisms you were trying to put on the discussion table as "arguments " to support your claims are just that : unconscious purposeless  evolutionary mechanisms or just mechanical survival strategies .
As a true materialist , you should in fact stick to the materialistic interpretation of evolution only Dawkins and co are able to provide  ,if you wanna be consistent with yourself at least = there is in fact no altruism, no love , no consciousness, no feelings , no emotions,...as such , there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ....= they are just sophisticated pragmatic survival strategies = illusions we get fooled by and we confuse them with reality , in order to be able to ...survive .
Therefore, i think that only Dawkins and co are the true materialists evolutionists , in the materialistic sense at least thus .

Quote
The Srebrenica was a far more complex situation than the simple urgency of a child drowning, so I wouldn't lump them together. Your simplistic judgement of the Dutch UNPROFOR troops as immoral selfish cowards seems unlikely to be applicable to more than a few of them; I doubt they all coincidentally happened to be immoral selfish cowards, or that they were selected for those traits; so it's important to understand why they behaved the way they did if we want to learn how to avoid that kind of inaction in future
.

I am wel aware of the difference between the "simple " (A drowining child is no simple matter , but i know what you mean though ) case of a drowning kid ,and between the bahaviors of Ducthbat in Srebrenica : i was referring only to that particular immoral coward behavior of theirs as a group though : i know that they might not be all immoral selfish cowards , in the absolute sense , simply because nobody is : you might turn out to display a certain  apparent  immoral selfish coward behavior under certain circumstances ,and an apparent  totally brave one under other circumstances : i know what relativism and context mean ...

It was appaling what those Dutch soldiers did , they might just have been obeying  orders ,as the nazis used to say , but one should disobey such orders sometimes ...people should also try not to be influenced by the behaviors of the group or crowd  as well ,the psychology of the crowds tries to explain ,  but that's indeed a difficult thing to do ...

Anyway , that's not the point : the point is : those Ducth soldiers behaved exactly in the same way the materialistic interpretation of evolution tells us they would do, in the sense that those soldiers were  just survival machines  ,so : if they had some better or higher morality,or higher levels of consciousness shaped by higher world views than theirs ,  they might have behaved differently , maybe , just maybe ...and that way they would be mocking , refuting , ridiculing ...that materialistic interpretation of evolution, without even realising that fact .

And no, you cannot change the human nature , you can try to improve it while recognizing it as such at the same time, but you cannot change it or suppress it , let alone   that you can "justify" the human nature via  phony excuses  ...you cannot defend the undefensible ....Otherwise , there would be no need for any sort of fair or not Nuremberg or any other trials ...for that matter .

Quote
Quote
Why should or would one try to protect a total stranger child from drowning , in the so-called evolutionary terms ? by risking one's own life and maybe by eventually dying in the process ? You tell me .
I already did.

Quote
What evolutionary benefits would that serve ? protecting the next generation ? If i would try to rescue a given total stranger child from drowning , i would not do that ,in order to protect the next generation he/she might represent ...
I would do that , simply because i cannot let any kid drown , mine or that of anyoneelse for that matter,even it that would result in my own death in the process  .
Because you have a strong kin altruism drive. As I said, the urge to preserve can't automatically distinguish kin, it evolved when that was very likely. It can be emotionally enhanced if you (not you specifically, but people) recognise your own, or suppressed if you have identified them as other, or dehumanised them, or overridden by stronger drives. If you have time to rationalise the situation, you might behave differently.

No, sorry , those were just rational justifications for my potential behavior you were trying to develop : those factors you talked about can indeed shape our thought and thus our bahavior ,but  i think that the behaviors of people in relation to similar events are more shaped by high morality , high consciousness , high world views ...through which one can try to improve one's human nature without any absolute guarantee of better or of the right behaviors in similar situations ..

Quote
Quote
Quote
It doesn't make us robots - we feel these things emotionally, but the underlying drives are rooted deep in evolutionary history.
No,on the contrary , it does make us some sort of robots :  if we would apply that materialistic interpretation of evolution at least , we would only logically conclude that altruism, feelings , emotions, consciousness, love ....are just illusions , just built -in illusions in our systems we get fooled by , no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us .
Get real, dude .
Perhaps I should have qualified it as 'unfeeling robots'. Whatever, it's semantic word games; if you need to believe that materialism makes emergent phenomena illusions, then go right ahead.

You do not seem to be getting my core point yet , unfortunately enough :
If we would apply those materialistic interpretations of evolution, we would only conclude , as Dawkins an co mainly do, that we are just robots machines driven by DNA via the natural selection , a "fact " Dawkins was so amazed by  "discovering" that he wanted to share it with the rest of the world  haha  ,as Dawkins said in his famous "Selfish Gene " :
If we would apply those materialistic interpretations of evolution, then we should only conclude , as David Cooper  in another thread does in fact ,  that consciousness feelings emotions pain ............are just sophisticated built-in in our mechanical systems survival strategies illusions we get fooled by ,and therefore we do consfuse them with reality = no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us  .

Come on, dude , get real = you are not even consistent with your own materialism : only Dawkins and co + David Copoper are in fact = a fact which does not make them right about the matters at hand of course .

You're either a materialist or not , you cannot have it both ways .
« Last Edit: 05/09/2013 20:27:14 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Dawkins and co. would say that that apparent altruistic behavior (appearances are certainly deceptive  indeed )of those rats is just selfishness in disguise .

Dawkins says even that we are just machines robots , driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , a startling " fact " he "discovered" and wanted therefore to  share with the rest of the world...

You seem to know Dawkins work and opinions intimately - perhaps you could quote what he actually says about these things, so we can judge whether your intepretation is correct; it's easy enough to say 'Dawkins says this', or Dawkins thinks that', but I'd like to see the quotes that support it.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
All those evolutionary mechanisms you were trying to put on the discussion table as "arguments " to support your claims are just that : unconscious purposeless  evolutionary mechanisms or just mechanical survival strategies .
Well yes, objectively they are. And our capability to modify those behaviours by deliberative thought is also an evolved trait.

Quote
there is in fact no altruism, no love , no consciousness, no feelings , no emotions,...as such , there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ....= they are just sophisticated pragmatic survival strategies = illusions we get fooled by and we confuse them with reality , in order to be able to ...survive .
That's a valid way of looking at it, but it helps to have descriptive labels for these concepts and behaviours, even though the popular understanding of them may be incoherent. And, of course, we necessarily have subjective experience of them - we aren't Vulcans.

Quote
the point is : those Ducth soldiers behaved exactly in the same way the materialistic interpretation of evolution tells us they would do...
Circumstantial evidence that it is a useful model then.

Quote
No, sorry , those were just rational justifications for my potential behavior you were trying to develop
Yes, that's how discussions on science forums go; you're expected to provide rational justifications for your argument or position.

Arguments from incredulity, anecdotes, unsupported assertions, 'no true Scotsman (materialist)' fallacies, special pleading, appeals to what is 'beyond logic, rationality, and science', etc., may be entertaining, but are insubstantial.

Quote
If we would apply those materialistic interpretations of evolution, then we should only conclude , as David Cooper  in another thread does in fact ,  that consciousness feelings emotions pain ............are just sophisticated built-in in our mechanical systems survival strategies illusions we get fooled by ,and therefore we do consfuse them with reality = no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us  .
As I said, I think, objectively, it's a valid viewpoint, which helps us understand the origins and basis of our emotions and sense of consciousness, but I personally also put some value on those feelings and sensations because they have subjective personal, social, and cultural relevance.




 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Strong Refutation of materialism in science ,materialism as a dogmatic conservative belief or "religion" , especially concerning that materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness , the latter as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain : Enjoy,folks :

Just try to read the following strong refutation of materialism in science which gets confused with science by many people  ,  especially concerning the materialistic dogmatic magical approach of consciousness, the latter  as a so-called emergent property from the complexity of the evolved brain  ....written by a physicist :

http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brain
   
Why Consciousness is Not the Brain
 FALL 2010


 
The Science of Premonitions
Author: Larry Dossey

Excerpted from The Science of Premonition: How Knowing the Future Can Help Us Avoid Danger, Maximize Opportunities and Create a Better Life by Larry Dossey. Copyright 2009 by Larry Dossey. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it?
For more articles about "Science", Click Here

“We don’t know who first discovered water, but we can be sure that it wasn’t a fish,” the old saw reminds us. Continual exposure to something reduces our awareness of its presence. Over time, we become blind to the obvious. We swim in a sea of consciousness, like a fish swims in water. And like a fish that has become oblivious to his aqueous environment, we have become dulled to the ubiquity of consciousness.

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain - The Science of Premonitions - Larry Dossey

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence. We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined. The polite term for this trick is “emergence.” At a certain stage of biological complexity, evolutionary biologists claim, consciousness pops out of the brain like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry A. Fodo flatly states, “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. So much for our philosophy of consciousness.”

In spite of the complete absence of evidence, the belief that the brain produces consciousness endures and has ossified into dogma. Many scientists realize the limitations of this belief. One way of getting around the lack of evidence is simply to declare that what we call consciousness is the brain itself. That way, nothing is produced, and the magic of “emergence” is avoided. As astronomer Carl Sagan expressed his position, “My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings – what we sometimes call mind – are a consequence of anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.” Nobelist Francis Crick agreed, saying “[A] person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them.”

This “identity theory” – mind equals brain – has led legions of scientists and philosophers to regard consciousness as an unnecessary, superfluous concept. Some go out of their way to deny the existence of consciousness altogether, almost as if they bear a grudge against it. Tufts University cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett says, “We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious.” Dennett includes himself in this extraordinary claim, and he seems proud of it.

Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

Others suggest that there are no mental states at all, such as love, courage, or patriotism, but only electrochemical brain fluxes that should not be described with such inflated language. They dismiss thoughts and beliefs for the same reasons. This led Nobel neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles to remark that “professional philosophers and psychologists think up the notion that there are no thoughts, come to believe that there are no beliefs, and feel strongly that there are no feelings.” Eccles was emphasizing the absurdities that have crept into the debates about consciousness. They are not hard to spot. Some of the oddest experiences I recall are attending conferences where one speaker after another employs his consciousness to denounce the existence of consciousness, ignoring the fact that he consciously chose to register for the meeting, make travel plans, prepare his talks, and so on.

Many scientists concede that there are huge gaps in their knowledge of how the brain makes consciousness, but they are certain they will be filled in as science progresses. Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper branded this attitude “promissory materialism.” “[P]romissary materialism [is] a superstition without a rational foundation,” Eccles says. “[It] is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists . . .who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy.”

The arguments about the origins and nature of consciousness are central to premonitions. For if the promissory materialists are correct – if consciousness is indeed identical with the brain – the curtain closes on premonitions. The reason is that the brain is a local phenomenon – i.e., it is localized to the brain and body, and to the present. This prohibits premonitions in principle, because accordingly the brain cannot operate outside the body and the here-and-now. But consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence. We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined.

These assertions are not hyperbolic, but conservative. They are consistent with the entire span of human history, throughout which all cultures of which we have record believed that human perception extends beyond the reach of the senses. This belief might be dismissed as superstition but for the fact that modern research has established its validity beyond reasonable doubt to anyone whose reasoning has not clotted into hardened skepticism. To reiterate a single example – the evidence supporting foreknowledge – psi researchers Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari examined 309 precognition experiments carried out by sixty-two investigators involving 50,000 participants in more than two million trials. Thirty percent of these studies were significant in showing that people can describe future events, when only five percent would be expected to demonstrate such results by chance. The odds that these results were not due to chance was greater than 10 to the twentieth power to one.

One of the first modern thinkers to endorse an outside-the-brain view of consciousness was William James, who is considered the father of American psychology. In his 1898 Ingersoll Lecture at Harvard University, James took a courageous stand against what he called “the fangs of cerebralism and the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain. He acknowledged that arrested brain development in childhood can lead to mental retardation, that strokes or blows to the head can abolish memory or consciousness, and that certain chemicals can change the quality of thought. But to consider this as proof that the brain actually makes consciousness, James said, is irrational.

Why Consciousness is Not the Brain - The Science of Premonitions - Larry Dossey

Why irrational? Consider a radio, an invention that was introduced during James’s lifetime, and which he used to illustrate the mind-brain relationship. If one bangs a radio with a hammer, it ceases to function. But that does not mean that the origin of the sounds was the radio itself; the sound originated from outside it in the form of an electromagnetic signal. The radio received, modified, and amplified the external signal into something recognizable as sound. Just so, the brain can be damaged in various ways that distort the quality of consciousness – trauma, stroke, nutritional deficiencies, dementia, etc. But this does not necessarily mean the brain “made” the consciousness that is now disturbed, or that consciousness is identical to the brain.

British philosopher Chris Carter endorses this analogy. Equating mind and brain is irrational, he says as listening to music on a radio, smashing the radio’s receiver, and thereby concluding that the radio was producing the music.

To update the analogy, consider a television set. We can damage a television set so severely that we lose the image on the screen, but this doesn’t prove that the TV actually produced the image. We know that David Letterman does not live behind the TV screen on which he appears; yet the contention that brain equals consciousness is as absurd as if he did.

My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present.

The radio and TV analogies can be misleading, however, because consciousness does not behave like an electromagnetic signal. Electromagnetic (EM) signals display certain characteristics. The farther away they get from their source, the weaker they become. Not so with consciousness; its effects do not attenuate with increasing distance. For example, in the hundreds of healing experiments that have been done in both humans and animals, healing intentions work equally well from the other side of the earth as at the bedside of the sick individual. Moreover, EM signals can be blocked partially or completely, but the effects of conscious intention cannot be blocked by any known substance. For instance, sea water is known to block EM signals completely at certain depths, yet experiments in remote viewing have been successfully carried out beyond such depths, demonstrating that the long-distance communication between the involved individuals cannot depend on EM-type signals. In addition, EM signals require travel time from their source to a receiver, yet thoughts can be perceived simultaneously between individuals across global distances. Thoughts can be displaced in time, operating into both past and future. In precognitive remoteviewing experiments – for example, the hundreds of such experiments by the PEAR Lab at Princeton University – the receiver gets a future thought before it is ever sent. Furthermore, consciousness can operate into the past, as in the experiments involving retroactive intentions. Electromagnetic signals are not capable of these feats. From these differences, we can conclude that consciousness is not an electric signal.

Then what is it? My conclusion is that consciousness is not a thing or substance, but is a nonlocal phenomenon. Nonlocal is merely a fancy word for infinite. If something is nonlocal, it is not localized to specific points in space, such as brains or bodies, or to specific points in time, such as the present. Nonlocal events are immediate; they require no travel time. They are unmediated; they require no energetic signal to “carry” them. They are unmitigated; they do not become weaker with increasing distance. Nonlocal phenomena are omnipresent, everywhere at once. This means there is no necessity for them to go anywhere; they are already there. They are infinite in time as well, present at all moments, past present and future, meaning they are eternal.

Researcher Dean Radin, whose presentiment experiments provide profound evidence for future knowing, believes that the nonlocal events in the subatomic, quantum domain underlie the nonlocal events we experience at the human level. He invokes the concept of entanglement as a bridging hypothesis uniting the small- and large-scale happenings. Quantum entanglement and quantum nonlocality are indeed potent possibilities that may eventually explain our nonlocal experiences, but only further research will tell. Meanwhile, there is a gathering tide of opinion favoring these approaches. As physicist Chris Clarke, of the University of Southampton, says, “On one hand, Mind is inherently non-local. On the other, the world is governed by a quantum physics that is inherently non-local. This is no accident, but a precise correspondence ...[Mind and the world are] aspects of the same thing...The way ahead, I believe, has to place mind first as the key aspect of the universe...We have to start exploring how we can talk about mind in terms of a quantum picture...Only then will we be able to make a genuine bridge between physics and physiology.”

When scientists muster the courage to face this evidence unflinchingly, the greatest superstition of our age – the notion that the brain generates consciousness or is identical with it – will topple. In its place will arise a nonlocal picture of the mind.

Whatever their explanation proves to be, the experiments documenting premonitions are real. They must be reckoned with. And when scientists muster the courage to face this evidence unflinchingly, the greatest superstition of our age – the notion that the brain generates consciousness or is identical with it – will topple. In its place will arise a nonlocal picture of the mind. This view will affirm that consciousness is fundamental, omnipresent and eternal – a model that is as cordial to premonitions as the materialistic, brain-based view is hostile.


 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.

For your info :
I was just referring to that materialist assumption on the subject though,many people do  accept as a 'scientific fact " ,which is certainly not (That's just a materialistic philosophical world view regarding good and evil , materialists had borrowed from Spinoza's ethics or monism they turned into materialistic monism in science afterwards )   : the reality and history of this mankind refute just that materialistic assumption regarding good and evil : see the difference ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Dawkins and co. would say that that apparent altruistic behavior (appearances are certainly deceptive  indeed )of those rats is just selfishness in disguise .

Dawkins says even that we are just machines robots , driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , a startling " fact " he "discovered" and wanted therefore to  share with the rest of the world...

You seem to know Dawkins work and opinions intimately - perhaps you could quote what he actually says about these things, so we can judge whether your intepretation is correct; it's easy enough to say 'Dawkins says this', or Dawkins thinks that', but I'd like to see the quotes that support it
.

I did read a lot about and watched many debates ,videos , lectures ...of Dawkins and co,including some regarding Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens,Daniel Dennett , Michael Schermer ,Peter Singer ..., so : video debates with prominent christian scientists and thinkers such as the mathematician and philosopher of science John Lennox, Dr.D'Souza ...
I read Dawkins ' "Selfish Gene ", "River out of Eden", some parts of "The God delusion " ...
I am 1000% sure of what i was saying,without a shadow of a doubt  : Dawkins said that in his "Selfish Gene " : his  evolutionary views can be traced back to those core roots : the materialistic  assumption regarding the alleged  mechanical nature of man he believes in so passionately  (The latter assumption is a metrialistic one in fact you do not seem to have interiorized well , let alone its implications at the level of ethics , cultures, societies , religions ....) ,  i lost that paper book i had : the "fact  discovered "  by Dawkins regarding the "fact " that we are just machines robots driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution ....a " fact " he was so amazed by that he wanted to share it with the rest of the world haha can be easily seen stated on the back cover of that paper book and inside of the book as well .


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
All those evolutionary mechanisms you were trying to put on the discussion table as "arguments " to support your claims are just that : unconscious purposeless  evolutionary mechanisms or just mechanical survival strategies .
Well yes, objectively they are. And our capability to modify those behaviours by deliberative thought is also an evolved trait.

There is no place for free will, good or evil , emotions , feelings,consciousness  ....as such at least whatsoever  in the materialistic interpretation of evolution, or rather  they are meaningless in the materialistic evolutionary terms : as an alleged materialist , you are certainly contradicting yourself via this sort of magical romantic materialism which is refuted by the "real" materialism represented by Dawkins and co, by our David Cooper  .

Quote
Quote
there is in fact no altruism, no love , no consciousness, no feelings , no emotions,...as such , there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ....= they are just sophisticated pragmatic survival strategies = illusions we get fooled by and we confuse them with reality , in order to be able to ...survive .
That's a valid way of looking at it, but it helps to have descriptive labels for these concepts and behaviours, even though the popular understanding of them may be incoherent. And, of course, we necessarily have subjective experience of them - we aren't Vulcans.

(Objective or subjective labels ,the thought process, free will , consciousness, love, feelings , emotions, altruism , progress ...are even meaningless in the materialistic evolutionary terms,since we are apparently just machines robots driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution = that's the right materialistic interpretation of evolution you do confuse with the explanation of evolution  )
As i said earlier , only Dawkins and co club are able to provide the right materialistic interpretation of evolution , as explained above, in the sense that there are in fact no such "things" such as free will, feelings , altruism, emotions, ....= just useful pragmatic survival strategies or built-in in our mechanical systems illusions we get fooled  by by confusing them with reality , no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us ,once again =David Cooper was explaining just that to you , in another thread as well , better than i can ever do .

Quote
Quote
the point is : those Ducth soldiers behaved exactly in the same way the materialistic interpretation of evolution tells us they would do...
Circumstantial evidence that it is a useful model then.

Useful or pragmatic are  not always  synonymous of the truth though : you do seem to be  an utilitarianist and a pragmatic guy , but do not confuse pragmatism or utilitarianism with the real facts ,despite the fact that the  so-called rational  liberal mainstream modern approach of ethics, society , politics ,economics ....is exclusively pragmatic utilitarianist contractarianist Kantian .
Pragmatism is even dominating in mainstream science itself , thanks to William James mainly .
You did not understand what i was saying : according to the materialistic interpretation of evolution, those Dutch soldiers ' core apparently 'altruistic humanistic " drives would be only overridden, as you put it earlier , by their sense or instinct of preservation , by the influence of the group 's behavior ......
But if they happened to behave differently , via an apparently altruistic behavior by trying to save those powerless muslims from the Serbs by putting  their own lives at risk in the process , they would be then just "acting " that way for selfish (unconsciously then ) reasons as well that would not benefit them as individuals = a behavior  they should normally not do,as they actually did not = their potential apparent altruism might be just selfishness in disguise , in the sense that the real effects of their apparent altruistic behaviors would be at the cost of their own lives ,for selfish reasons in order to get famous , applauded , celebrated ...as heros = that would be  a lethal miscalculated "altruism " if they would die in the process at least (American soldiers in the same case might have protected the muslims against the Serbs ,maybe,  not because they might be altruistic , but simply because they come from a confident militarily strong country that can back them up  eventually  ) = a potential lethal miscalculated selfishness in disguise of those Dutch soldiers which would go against their own survival impulses = Mother Theresa's apparent altruistic behavior was "explained " that way, in the sense that she might have suffered from some pathological form of masochism she might have confused with goodness or altruism  ....= there are indeed people like that who do act against their best interests (Most of us do , most of the time then = the assumption that people always do act in their best interests is a largely refuted assumption myth, but that does not exclude or refute the fact that some people do act against their best interests in the benefit of others for real altruistic reasons though  ) .
Note that Dawkins' so-called eveolutionary genetic social theory tried to refute the assumption,according to him,  that the individual 's behavior  is meant to benefit  the group : Group behavior theory ,  the individual's behavior is selfish in fact ,no matter how altruistic it might appear to be  ,and no matter how it benefits the group says Dawkins.
 That individual selfishness does normally benefits the group ,says Dawkins, as Adam Smith 's assumption goes on the subject , an assumption that was refuted later on by others .


Quote
Quote
No, sorry , those were just rational justifications for my potential behavior you were trying to develop
Yes, that's how discussions on science forums go; you're expected to provide rational justifications for your argument or position.

What i meant was : you were just using some romantic magical thinking when it comes to those human evolutionary drives you mentioned by assuming they were / are deliberate conscious processes ,while the materialistic interpretation of evolution does see them as just unconscious mechanical traits or drives "calculations or miscalculations " survival strategies .

Quote
Arguments from incredulity, anecdotes, unsupported assertions, 'no true Scotsman (materialist)' fallacies, special pleading, appeals to what is 'beyond logic, rationality, and science', etc., may be entertaining, but are insubstantial.


No, it's exactly the other way around : your magical romantic thinking contradicts the materialistic mechanical reductionistic interpretation of evolution : think about that : David Cooper tried to explain just that to you in relation to human consciousness, feelings , emotions ,pain ....in the sense that the  alleged  mechanical biological system of ours excludes our own understanding of consciousness, feelings , emotions, pain ...as such ,as "real " processes = they are just useful  built- in illusions we take for real .

Quote
Quote
If we would apply those materialistic interpretations of evolution, then we should only conclude , as David Cooper  in another thread does in fact ,  that consciousness feelings emotions pain ............are just sophisticated built-in in our mechanical systems survival strategies illusions we get fooled by ,and therefore we do consfuse them with reality = no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us  .
As I said, I think, objectively, it's a valid viewpoint, which helps us understand the origins and basis of our emotions and sense of consciousness, but I personally also put some value on those feelings and sensations because they have subjective personal, social, and cultural relevance.

No, you should just see them as useful pragmatic survival strategies illusions ,as they actually are in fact , according to the materialistic interpretation of evolution ,once again , David Cooper tried to explain to you .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.

For your info :
I was just referring to that materialist assumption on the subject <snip> see the difference ?
I think you may have missed the sarcasm...
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You seem to know Dawkins work and opinions intimately - perhaps you could quote what he actually says about these things, so we can judge whether your intepretation is correct; it's easy enough to say 'Dawkins says this', or Dawkins thinks that', but I'd like to see the quotes that support it
.

...  i lost that paper book i had ...

Priceless - the forum equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework'!

C'mon, some Dawkins quotes or it didn't happen :)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.

For your info :
I was just referring to that materialist assumption on the subject <snip> see the difference ?
I think you may have missed the sarcasm...

No, i did not : coming from him , i would take it as a compliment
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
You seem to know Dawkins work and opinions intimately - perhaps you could quote what he actually says about these things, so we can judge whether your intepretation is correct; it's easy enough to say 'Dawkins says this', or Dawkins thinks that', but I'd like to see the quotes that support it
.

...  i lost that paper book i had ...

Priceless - the forum equivalent of 'the dog ate my homework'!

C'mon, some Dawkins quotes or it didn't happen :)

I was honest with you, as i mostly always am with people .
I will try to find that book on line and quote it ,later then .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
There is no place for free will, good or evil , emotions , feelings,consciousness  ....as such at least whatsoever  in the materialistic interpretation of evolution, or rather  they are meaningless in the materialistic evolutionary terms
You've confused the categories there - that's either carelessness or lack of understanding. Free will and good & evil are cultural constructs, the others evolved for very good reasons (literally life or death reasons).

Quote
only Dawkins and co club are able to provide the right materialistic interpretation of evolution , as explained above, in the sense that there are in fact no such "things" such as free will, feelings , altruism, emotions, ....= just useful pragmatic survival strategies or built-in in our mechanical systems illusions we get fooled  by by confusing them with reality , no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us ,once again =David Cooper was explaining just that to you , in another thread as well , better than i can ever do .
Yes, and no; perhaps if I make a simple analogy: consider a magician, an illusionist; he develops a range of illusions, 'The Vanishing Rabbit', 'Sawing A Woman In Half', 'Water Into Wine', etc. Now, these all involve a carefully arranged and choreographed set of activities with real objects. But they are not what they seem. There are things happening that give the appearance of the activities described, but none of the described activities real - the rabbit doesn't really vanish, the woman isn't really sawn in half, the water doesn't really turn to wine. Sadly, many people believe they really happen, via paranormal means. When the magician or the people want to discuss them, they use the names of the illusions to identify what they're talking about.

Quote
Useful or pragmatic are  not always  synonymous of the truth though
Are they ever?  Ah, but what is truth?

Quote
Quote
Quote
No, sorry , those were just rational justifications for my potential behavior you were trying to develop
Yes, that's how discussions on science forums go; you're expected to provide rational justifications for your argument or position.
What i meant was : you were just using some romantic magical thinking...
OK, so you said 'rational justification' when you meant 'romantic magical thinking'; it's probably nothing to worry about, everyone has senior moments now and then.

Quote
Quote
Arguments from incredulity, anecdotes, unsupported assertions, 'no true Scotsman (materialist)' fallacies, special pleading, appeals to what is 'beyond logic, rationality, and science', etc., may be entertaining, but are insubstantial.


No, it's exactly the other way around : your magical romantic thinking contradicts the materialistic mechanical reductionistic interpretation of evolution
You still seem confused - as a response, that's not 'exactly the other way round', it's a complete non-sequitur.

Quote
No, you should just see them as useful pragmatic survival strategies illusions ,as they actually are in fact , according to the materialistic interpretation of evolution ,once again , David Cooper tried to explain to you .
I can see them however I wish; but as I said, I think it's a valid viewpoint (are you having trouble following these threads?), I just like to acknowledge the subjective experience.

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
Consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm.

Good heavens! This is almost a beginning of a hint of a suggestion of a definition! Not quite a statement of what consciousness is, nor even of what it does or its domain of action, but at least a positive statement of something.

So perhaps you might enlighten us by reference to one of these hundreds of experiments, that might give us a clue as to what consciousness is or does.

Just one tiny anchor in the sand might make the entire discussion worthwhile. 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Hi, folks :

I am very busy right now, so , i am gonna just mention this following funny fact , for the time being at least :

Dawkins thinks that we are just machines robots driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , while he also thinks that our mind is independent haha and can therefore "revolt against the selfish tyranny of our genes " ( selfish gene as a metaphor ) ....

Later

All the best
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Whether Prof Dawkins thinks that or not (and I doubt that he confuses machines with robots), it seems entirely plausible that we are entirely mechanistic. Indeed there is no evidence to the contrary (assertion, however authoritative, is not evidence).

Your underlying misunderstanding arises from confusing evolution with natural selection. It's a common mistake among naive readers, particularly of "popular" science journalism. Evolution is an inherent property of a reproducing organism. Natural selection is a function of its environment. 
« Last Edit: 08/09/2013 00:34:08 by alancalverd »
 

Offline AntonMaeso

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
I'll be honest I have not read everything.

But I would like to point out that the definition of evolution is not the same in all the examples. For example we don't mean the same process when we talk about the evolution of the universe and biological evolution.

For the evolution of the universe we mean the changes that the universe undertook to reach the current stage.
On the other hand biological evolution means how natural and sexual selection.

However I would agree there are some comparisons we can make in subjects such as economics.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Whether Prof Dawkins thinks that or not (and I doubt that he confuses machines with robots), it seems entirely plausible that we are entirely mechanistic. Indeed there is no evidence to the contrary (assertion, however authoritative, is not evidence).

(Abscence of evidence is not always evidence of abscence.
And who talked about any authority for that matter as "evidence " ? )

You do not even see the intrinsic contradictions or paradox contained in your words :
If we are entirely mechanistic , as you put it at least , then there are no such things as consciousness, feelings , emotions , love ....as such =they cannot rise from mechanical biological processes = otherwise we can make intelligent machines robots which would be conscious , which would have feelings , emotions ...and even love ....
Second : Dawkins really said that .

Quote
Your underlying misunderstanding arises from confusing evolution with natural selection. It's a common mistake among naive readers, particularly of "popular" science journalism. Evolution is an inherent property of a reproducing organism. Natural selection is a function of its environment.

The biological evolution occurs via the ...natural selection ,dude.
You should try to enhance or to improve your knowledge of evolution .



 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
@ dlorde , alancalverd :

I will have to take you with me on the path to that other thread about consciousness , to try to ask David Cooper to help me in making you see my point he happens to share with me ,Cooper as the real materialist here  .

@ dlorde : I will respond to your above displayed post in a minute .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
There is no place for free will, good or evil , emotions , feelings,consciousness  ....as such at least whatsoever  in the materialistic interpretation of evolution, or rather  they are meaningless in the materialistic evolutionary terms
You've confused the categories there - that's either carelessness or lack of understanding. Free will and good & evil are cultural constructs, the others evolved for very good reasons (literally life or death reasons)
.

(Good and evil do exist both within us and without though ,despite what materialists might say on the subject , from their materialistic world view .
There are  in fact no free will as such , no good and evil as such ....= just illusions , if we would apply to them the right materialistic interpretation at least : free will , good or evil ...cannot rise from our mechanical biological systems : Dawkins and co are therefore not the right representatives of the right materialism : only David Cooper is ...here at least .)

They are not different categories , not in the sense that the one comes from Mars and the other comes from Venus at least , no : they are only different categories which take place at different levels of man : the one is biological and the other is a matter of consciousness shaped by the environment and by world views , not to mention that consciousness has a biological sort of basis also it cannot escape from  .
What you cannot understand is how consciousness or the mind ( I see the human mind or consciousness as a whole process which contains intelligence , emotions, feelings , imagination ...) can rise from those biological mechanical processes ? or as Dawkins put it , we can "revolt against the selfish mechanical tyranny of our genes " by deliberately modifying our selfish behavior via our free will : how, on earth, are we supposed to do just that , if we are just machines = we cannot have a free will = free will is an illusion ,according to this mechanical deterministic materialistic view of the universe , man, life , nature ...

How did our mind get to become such an "idependent " process which could defy and rise above its mechanical basis then ?

How can't you get just that ?

Quote
Quote
only Dawkins and co club are able to provide the right materialistic interpretation of evolution , as explained above, in the sense that there are in fact no such "things" such as free will, feelings , altruism, emotions, ....= just useful pragmatic survival strategies or built-in in our mechanical systems illusions we get fooled  by by confusing them with reality , no matter how real they might ever appear to be to us ,once again =David Cooper was explaining just that to you , in another thread as well , better than i can ever do .
Yes, and no; perhaps if I make a simple analogy: consider a magician, an illusionist; he develops a range of illusions, 'The Vanishing Rabbit', 'Sawing A Woman In Half', 'Water Into Wine', etc. Now, these all involve a carefully arranged and choreographed set of activities with real objects. But they are not what they seem. There are things happening that give the appearance of the activities described, but none of the described activities real - the rabbit doesn't really vanish, the woman isn't really sawn in half, the water doesn't really turn to wine. Sadly, many people believe they really happen, via paranormal means. When the magician or the people want to discuss them, they use the names of the illusions to identify what they're talking about.


You do not realise the fact that you are the one who's trying to make consciousness rise from our  mechanical biological process via that emergence  magical trick, like an illusionist who apparently makes a rabbit appear from nowwhere .

Quote
Quote
Useful or pragmatic are  not always  synonymous of the truth though
Are they ever?  Ah, but what is truth?

Exactly .
The truth is a dynamic process .The Truth with a big T is only to be known after death .

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
No, sorry , those were just rational justifications for my potential behavior you were trying to develop
Yes, that's how discussions on science forums go; you're expected to provide rational justifications for your argument or position.
What i meant was : you were just using some romantic magical thinking...
OK, so you said 'rational justification' when you meant 'romantic magical thinking'; it's probably nothing to worry about, everyone has senior moments now and then.

No, you were just trying to "rationalize " your claims , as we all ,sometimes, try to rationalize our   bad behaviors in order to avoid responsibility, accountability , guilt ..

You were doing just that via magical thinking : get the pic ?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Arguments from incredulity, anecdotes, unsupported assertions, 'no true Scotsman (materialist)' fallacies, special pleading, appeals to what is 'beyond logic, rationality, and science', etc., may be entertaining, but are insubstantial.


No, it's exactly the other way around : your magical romantic thinking contradicts the materialistic mechanical reductionistic interpretation of evolution
You still seem confused - as a response, that's not 'exactly the other way round', it's a complete non-sequitur.

You do not realise that you were using some magical romantic thinking , dude , in relation to ethics , consciousness, feelings , emotions, good and evil ,free will ....= how can they rise from our mechanical biological systems via the natural selection of evolution then ? as social mental cultural constructs ? How ? = only you ,Dawkins and co  , as  illusionists , can explain just that via some mysterious magical tricks   .


Quote
Quote
No, you should just see them as useful pragmatic survival strategies illusions ,as they actually are in fact , according to the materialistic interpretation of evolution ,once again , David Cooper tried to explain to you .
I can see them however I wish; but as I said, I think it's a valid viewpoint (are you having trouble following these threads?), I just like to acknowledge the subjective experience.

I made a  mistake though when i used to say that Dawkins and co are the real true materialists : they are not , in fact : simply because they do think like yourself via that magical romantic side when it comes to mind and body , cultures, societies , ethics ,free will, good and evil ...

The only real materialist here i have seen is : David Cooper :

So, let's just all move to that thread concerning consciousness , in order to have David Cooper's perspectives on these subjects .

Deal ?

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
If we are entirely mechanistic , as you put it at least , then there are no such things as consciousness, feelings , emotions , love ....as such =they cannot rise from mechanical biological processes = otherwise we can make intelligent machines robots which would be conscious , which would have feelings , emotions ...and even love ....

You take a very narrow definition of mechanism, and state without proof or evidence, that a mechanism cannot have properties that you won't define. Your game, your rules, so you win. But a hollow victory because nobody else is playing.

Meanwhile in the real world, the French word for a magnet is the same as for a lover. So an entire nation and culture disagrees with you.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
You've confused the categories there - that's either carelessness or lack of understanding. Free will and good & evil are cultural constructs, the others evolved for very good reasons (literally life or death reasons)
They are not different categories , not in the sense that the one comes from Mars and the other comes from Venus at least , no : they are only different categories which take place at different levels of man : the one is biological and the other is a matter of consciousness shaped by the environment and by world views , not to mention that consciousness has a biological sort of basis also it cannot escape from  .
Exactly - they're not different in a way I didn't describe, but they are different in the way I did describe. Well done.

Quote
What you cannot understand is how consciousness or the mind ( I see the human mind or consciousness as a whole process which contains intelligence , emotions, feelings , imagination ...) can rise from those biological mechanical processes ?
As far as I'm aware, no-one understands that completely. There are many hypotheses of varying plausibility and many opinions about those plausibilities. Perhaps you'd care to share your own hypothesis?

Quote
I made a  mistake though when i used to say that Dawkins and co are the real true materialists : they are not , in fact : simply because they do think like yourself via that magical romantic side when it comes to mind and body , cultures, societies , ethics ,free will, good and evil ...

The only real materialist here i have seen is : David Cooper :
Aww, you mean I'm relegated to the ranks of losers like Dawkins & co, while David Cooper is now the only True Scotsman Materialisttm?

It seems like only yesterday I was being accused of not following the guidance of Dawkins & co... oh, wait, it was yesterday ;)
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

The biological evolution occurs via the ...natural selection ,dude.
You should try to enhance or to improve your knowledge of evolution .


Oh dear me! You really slept through Biology 101, Introduction to Logic, and Basic Common Sense, didn't you? Nor, it seems, have you read anything by Darwin.

Do you look exactly like both of your parents? Obviously not. As a consequence of the inherent instability of DNA, plus  the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction, you have evolved.   

When environmental pressures are such that only those who embrace logical thought can survive, you will be eliminated by natural selection.

The two mechanisms are not the same, nor even interdependent. But as Darwin observed, the successive application of natural selection to evolving generations results in the differentiation of species.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2013 23:58:59 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums