[alancalverd]

We seem to be approaching an answer, for a change. Can you take that big leap and give just one concrete example of where Dawkins has misinterpreted evolution? Remember that evolution is an observation of change, so what we are looking for is a change in, say, a religion, that Dawkins has reported incorrectly or ascribed to some supernatural force.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

We seem to be approaching an answer, for a change. Can you take that big leap and give just one concrete example of where Dawkins has misinterpreted evolution? Remember that evolution is an observation of change, so what we are looking for is a change in, say, a religion, that Dawkins has reported incorrectly or ascribed to some supernatural force.

Well,ok,this is a wide open  issue as wide and big as the US Grand Canyon , i will give you just this one relatively detailed example in the form of the main contents of  a certain book of Dawkins  ,or what i can recall from it at least , because i read that book of his some time ago , for the time being then : that's more than enough :

In his "Selfish Gene " (Dawkins tried in that book of his to apply his so-called evolutionary genetic social theory  to altruism , for example , among other things like applying his so-called evolutionary genetic social theory  to man , life , society , culture , ethics ,religion ....in general .
Let's just talk about the notion of altruism he talked about in that book of his : he emphacised the fact , from the very beginning, that his selfish gene notion was of course just a metaphor indeed , in the sense that genes are unconscious entities  without purpose or intention motive , i agree with that , and that the notion of selfishness or altruism he used were just metaphors as well , which referred to the effects of such notions, to the apparent altruistic behavior of animals , for example, not to the actual philosophical or psychological altruism concept as a motive or intention )...........

In that book of his thus , he talked in great detail about the "fact " that the biological evolution is the only valid explanation of our origins , of man's origins , not of life's origins of course that's another subject evolution does not cover as such indeed , and that all other attempts to explain our origins (He refers here to religions mainly ) , prior to the discovery of evolution must be not only be  ignored as such, simply because they are worthless, but they must also be totally discarded .

  Then, he tried to explain what evolution is and how evolution works .

After that , he went straight to mentioning  some scientific studies of his and of of others on the subject of "altruism " ( He was only interested in the effects of altruism on the group  , in the apparanet altruistic behavior of animals though,  not in altruism as such , as a motive or intention , once again ) ...

Anyway: he mentioned those studies concerning the effects of the apparent altruistic behaviors  of animals ....on the group  , and he found out via many convincing facts about the "altruistic " behavior of  animals in that regard in their wild habitat mainly :  he mentioned also studies regarding birds , ....which "proved " the fact that the apparent altruistic behavior of  animals ....was in fact just selfishness in disguise = which means that the individual animals' ...behaviors cannot be regarded as beneficial or otherwise to the group = he disproved that way that group theory in the sense that the individual animals ....would behave for  the best interests of the whole group = they seemed to behave just in their own interests thus ...That's some sort of a phenomenological approach which is only interested in the effects of certain phenomena : but those were just interpretations of Dawkins in relation to the behaviors of animals ..., the latters can also be interpreted otherwise .

In short : he proved that that apparent altruistic behavior   of  those animals was just selfishness in disguise in fact : ok, there is nothing to say about that,except the above  : that was good scientific work indeed : fascinating even : but the interpretation of those studies  by Dawkins  is not the only "valid " one : but that was just related to the apparent altruistic behavior of animals ...not to their actual  altruistic "intentions or motives " we may never know anything about ,assuming they have ones , in the first place to begin with  .

The real problems start to rise when he applies his so-called evolutionary genetic social theory  to man : human family  , human societies  , cultures, religions, ethics ... :

 His reasoning was as follows :
We cannot absolutely say that since there is no real altruistic behavior to be found in animals , and in other non-human living species , therefore , altruism cannot be found in huamans' behavior , no , i agree with this at least  .
His argumentation was thus more like :

Since there is no real altruism to be found in animals ' behaviors ....., we can expect to find the same results at the level of  man , simply because they all were subjected to the same evolution .

Since altruism as such does not exist in nature , then it's pretty logical to assume that altruism does not exist as such at the level of man as well , simply because man also went through the same biological evolution via the natural selection and DNA : H

e then addressed man, the human family and how kids behave in relation to their parents by unconsciously black-mainling their parents in order to get awards , love ....how parents behave with their kids, how and why they invest in them for unconscious selfish reasons under the unconscious camouflage illusions of love , care   ...a long story thus which means that altruism does not exist in the behaviors , societies  or cultures ...of man as well , that that apparent altruism of man is just selfishness in disguise as well ...

Then afterwards , he applied his so-called evolutionary genetic social theory , in the sense that evolution via DNA and the natural selection shapes all living species, to ourselves , including to our religions as just survival strategies , to the apparent altruistic behavior of man ,  and to ethics , societies , cultures, intellect ...

He develops what he coined  it to be called "memes " to try to "explain " the evolution of cultures, thoughts ideas,societies, cultures  ...= "memes " as so-called units of ideas or units of thought that evolve in the same way the genetic replication via  evolution does , the gene as the biological unity of evolution by the natural selection thus ,....

He talks about the biological or neurological origin of religion , for example , and how religion came to exist that way via evolution, religion as a survival strategy  ....while saying that the biological nature of religion cannot be understood as something innate to man , not in the sense that it validates religion at least ...= as a materialist and atheist , he cannot acknolwdge the fact that man ,man's behaviors , cultures, societies, religions , ethics ....have indeed  2 sides : the biological and immaterial , he reduces them all to just biological processes.

In short :

He concluded that altruism had never existed neither in nature nor in the whole  history of mankind , and therefore we should try to develop it  in ourselves and in the next generations = a paradox = since all our evolution and behavior , thought , cultures, societies , ethics ..... are shaped by the genetic biological evolution via the natural selection, we logically have no say in that , how can we then develop something voluntarily in ourselves and in others , via our free will , if everything is determined by evolution then ? Free will has even no place in evolution :
Dawkins , as a materialist of course ,thinks that man is all about just biological genetic processes shaped by evolution ...so, he contradicts himself in many ways , when he copies the behaviors of non-human living species to man that way , an approach or so-called evolutionary genetic social theory of his which extends the biological evolution of man to man's non-biological sides of consciousness, altruism, behaviors, societies  , altruism , cultures , religions ....

He should just confine himself to the material physical biological sides of life , man ...instead of applying the mechanisms of the biological evolution to the non-material sides of the behavior, consciousness, cultures, religions, societies ...of man .

I'll talk to you about Dawkins' further misinterpretations of the biological evolution later on, after you read the above :

Deal ?

[cheryl j]

So Darwinism is fine as long as we restrict our discussion to things like the pancreas, but the brain, human behavior individually and in groups, is off limits, either because it "might result in similar outcomes , similar to those of Eugenics and social darwinism in the past" or because, Darwinism simply can't, and never will be able to, fully explain these supposedly immaterial, ethereal  processes? Is that your position?

In regards to altruism, is it possible that Dawkins could have just been wrong or short sighted in his attribution of altruism to expected reciprocity, but not necessarily wrong in attempting to study it in terms of evolutionary biology? There are many human traits or behaviors which would not appear to provide much selective advantage, musical ability being one of them, yet some biologists believe they may be fortunate by-products of other cognitive functions that were selected for.In addition, there are benefits and explanations for altruism besides expected reciprocity.

The biological basis for empathy and altruism may have its roots in brain processes involved in learning. Cells called mirror neurons light up in your brain when you witness a person performing an action, as if you were actually performing that action yourself, whether lifting a teacup or throwing a baseball.  If I witness you do something that results in pain and injury, I can learn from your experience without having to injure myself, but in order to make my observation truly memorable and negatively reinforcing, I have to "feel your pain" so to speak. But the natural response to pain, ones own and perhaps others, is to try to stop it.

Another advantage to being sensitive to the emotional states of others is if I know how they feel, I can better predict what they will do, whether they will share their food with me or hit me over the head with a club.


FMRI imaging studies can demonstrate empathetic pain. Physical pain causes activity in two specific areas of the cortex. There’s increased activity in the touch sensitive areas of the somatosensory cortex at the top of the brain, and also in a spot in the temporal region. The greater the pain, the greater the activity in both areas.   Subjects who are shown pictures of, say, a person having a car door slammed on his fingers, show no activation in the higher region –  which makes sense since there is clearly a difference in your body's reaction to having a car door slammed on your own hand and someone else’s - but people still show activity in the temporal pain region. Some people show this effect more than others. The greater the activity in that region on the scan, the more subjects rated the image as unpleasant or painful to view. Sociopaths have been shown to lack an automatic empathic brain response on these imaging studies.

If wanting to help others or relieve their suffering because of our empathic pain response still seems selfish to you, so be it. But I’m glad humans possess this trait, whether endowed by evolution or God.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

So Darwinism is fine as long as we restrict our discussion to things like the pancreas, but the brain, human behavior individually and in groups, is off limits, either because it "might result in similar outcomes , similar to those of Eugenics and social darwinism in the past" or because, Darwinism simply can't, and never will be able to, fully explain these supposedly immaterial, ethereal  processes? Is that your position?

Who said that ? You are putting words in my mouth again : i see a pattern here :
Anyway: i just said that the biological genetic evolution  via the natural selection  cannot be applied to the non-biological processes of man in the absolute sense , especially not in the way Dawkins and co. do just that .
Need some examples ? Shoot.
If thoughts , feelings , love , emotions, empathy , solidarity ....consciousness ...are not immaterial , despite their biological neurological hormonal ...side or basis , then , what are they exactly ? To say that they are just biological processes is meaningless : they cannot be generated by biological processes ,no way : biological processes cannot generate but biological processes , not something entirely different ,  it's the other way around in fact = Feelings , consciousness, emotions, love ... generate those biological processes after being informed by our senses about their corresponding inputs  ,while interacting with them at the same time . i guess.
When i hear some bad news on the phone, for example , i feel sad and can ever have tears in my eyes as a result : my hearing nerves in my ear just conduct those nerve signals to my brain ,which make me , as a person, realise those sensory inputs  are "bad" (sensory inputs are neutral in fact = biologically neutral ) , which trigger my biological process that produces my tears .....= The conscious sadness feeling generates the biological process giving birth to my tears ...after the fact that my nervous system informed my consciousness of that input via my ears .

In regards to altruism, is it possible that Dawkins could have just been wrong or short sighted in his attribution of altruism to expected reciprocity, but not necessarily wrong in attempting to study it in terms of evolutionary biology? There are many human traits or behaviors which would not appear to provide much selective advantage, musical ability being one of them, yet some biologists believe they may be fortunate by-products of other cognitive functions that were selected for.In addition, there are benefits and explanations for altruism besides expected reciprocity.

Well, Dawkins and co. just push the logical limits of the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolutions to their logical ends , in almost the same fashion David Hume did just similar things in relation to the empricism of John Locke at least, as post -modernism is the logical outcome or logical limit  of modernism = different examples from different areas ,  in order to make you understand what i am saying  .

The other scientists who prefer to stand outside that Dawkins and co . club in that regard are in fact schizophrenic when it comes to the logical implications of that materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution .
Therefore, Dawkins was not making any mistakes : he was just adhering to the real materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution , by pushing it to its logical limits : the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution cannot but conclude , for example, that there is no altruism , no free will, no good or evil as such...
Regarding the latter : i am referring mainly to Spinoza's monism that was later on recuperated by materialism which gave birth to materialistic monism in modern science and elsewhere , in the sense that neither good nor evil do exist as such : what benefits us is good ,and what's not good for us is bad = good and evil exist only in this sense then = a perfectly logical assumption in evolutionary terms = utilitarianism or pragmatism= what's good for us is true , and what's bad for us ,both  in the above mentioned sense, is untrue  : good and evil do not exist as such or rather they are meaningless in evolutionary terms even thus = meaningless in the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution , to be more precize = Dawkins and co. are in fact the ones who are consistent with themselves and with their materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution thus .

The biological basis for empathy and altruism may have its roots in brain processes involved in learning. Cells called mirror neurons light up in your brain when you witness a person performing an action, as if you were actually performing that action yourself, whether lifting a teacup or throwing a baseball.  If I witness you do something that results in pain and injury, I can learn from your experience without having to injure myself, but in order to make my observation truly memorable and negatively reinforcing, I have to "feel your pain" so to speak. But the natural response to pain, ones own and perhaps others, is to try to stop it.

Well, yeah : but if we apply only the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution to what you said ,then, it's pretty logical to assume that neither altruism, nor empathy do exist as such , let alone the rest , including pain, feelings , love , good or bad behavior, free will, consciousness ...= they are just mechanical survival strategies = just illusions , no matter how "real " they might appear to be to us  .

Another advantage to being sensitive to the emotional states of others is if I know how they feel, I can better predict what they will do, whether they will share their food with me or hit me over the head with a club.

That's just the instinctive pragmatic utilitarianist  reading of empathy though : you have to sort of "read " your fellow humans and the environment well enough , if you wanna make efficient "decisions " based on that reading , in order to act up on them , and survive as a result .

I would share my food with you , i will not hit you on the head haha , do not worry , if my own survival does not get threatened by sharing my food with you though :
I might even share my food with you at the very expense of my own survival , if i can fully grasp and act up on the potential possibility that your survival might be more beneficial to yourself and to others as well , more than my own survival can be = that's a potential behavior the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution can never be able to explain as such , or it would just try to "rationalize " it somehow in the same way we "rationalize " or justify legetimize our bad behaviors by deceiving ourselves that way in the form of trying to find rational justifications and excuses for those bad behaviors of ours  , in order to avoid guilt , responsibilty , accountability  ...

FMRI imaging studies can demonstrate empathetic pain. Physical pain causes activity in two specific areas of the cortex. There’s increased activity in the touch sensitive areas of the somatosensory cortex at the top of the brain, and also in a spot in the temporal region. The greater the pain, the greater the activity in both areas.   Subjects who are shown pictures of, say, a person having a car door slammed on his fingers, show no activation in the higher region –  which makes sense since there is clearly a difference in your body's reaction to having a car door slammed on your own hand and someone else’s - but people still show activity in the temporal pain region. Some people show this effect more than others. The greater the activity in that region on the scan, the more subjects rated the image as unpleasant or painful to view. Sociopaths have been shown to lack an automatic empathic brain response on these imaging studies.

Ok, the interesting top docu here below shows similar findings to what you said here above , scientists studying good and bad behaviors , a certain scientist in the video will find out about his own psychopathic "nature " via a brain scan which revealed the same brain patherns psychopaths displayed , while that scientist was lucky enough not to be a psychopath on the reality ground despite that : his own environment played a big role in that :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-you-good-or-evil/

Look, i am aware of the neurological biological , hormonal ...basis of our behaviors , empathy , ....but thye cannot be fully explained just via that evolutionary biological neurological approach , and certainly not via that reductionistic mechanical materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution :
Take the example of someone trying to save a child from drowning in a river , sea ...by risking his / her own life , and by eventually dying in the process : what would be the materialistic so-called evolutionary explanation of that behavior ?
Matrialists would come up with perfectly rational explanations for that behavior , and might even succeed in making it fit into their own interpretation of the biological evolution , by saying , for example, that the person savior, in this case, was just being driven by his biological instinctive evolutionary empathy  he / she could not ignore or escape from : the outcome of that behavior can be maximised by the success of the person in question via his / her swimming skills , his / her efficiency and calm ...which make her / him be able to survive after rescuing the child ....but , if he /she would go down , then that would be the result of his / her miscalculations of his / her own  ability to survive such a risky attempt ...
But materialists would never say : that person savior was in fact risking his /her life regardless of the outcome ....regardless of his / her potential swimming and other survival skills ...just because he / she cannot tolerate to see a child drowning  ...

In short : the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution fails pathetically at many levels, fails to explain progress which is in fact meaningless in evolutionary terms, fails to explain love , empathy , consciousness ....and most of the rest.

Feelings, love , consciousness, empathy . .....do not only have biological , but also non-biological sides ,materialism can never fully explain, just partly interpret in accordance with its materialistic world view ...

If wanting to help others or relieve their suffering because of our empathic pain response still seems selfish to you, so be it. But I’m glad humans possess this trait, whether endowed by evolution or God.

Right : you just put your finger on  the core issue of our discussion :

If we just accept the materialistic interpretation of the biological evolution at face value , then it's pretty logical to say that empathy , love , consciousness, feelings , altruism ...are just survival strategies = just illusions in fact , not to mention the inherent intrinsic paradox or contradiction contained in those materialistic so-called evolutionary assumptions , in the sense that if the above are  all just illusions , then are therefore all our knowledge , including the scientific one, including our knowledge of evolution itself even ...empathy , love ...via our biological senses thus ,are just illusions and pragmatic survival strategies , we deceive ourselves and others in the process into believing they are real ...........while our senses just give us a representation of reality in the process in fact , our consciousness acts up on , by trying to make sense of them ...
For example , what do my own senses tell me about you ,via  just this limited   communication of ours ? They just give me a certain representation of reality , my own consciousness tries to make sense of : right or wrong .
I cannot see you , so, i cannot read your body language , for example ,which might give me some additional information about you or about what you're saying , so, i just rely on my own consciousness this limited way to make sense of you, as a person, and of your words .....my own senses cannot fully give me ....even if you were standing in front of me, in real life .
Thanks, appreciate indeed .
Take care

Kind regards

[MarkPawelek]

Why then is the theory of evolution extended to cultures, societies, religions or spirituality , politics, philosophy, economics, intellect, psychology, human consciousness, ....?

If you use a term like evolution in a biology forum it means something very particular: evolution by natural selection.

When you use evolution in a political forum the term is open to many meanings because the word evolution existed before the concept of biological evolution. In this context, you can hardly even accuse the author of misusing a word.

I think people extend it because they don't really understand it.  Also, because evolution is widely accepted in science, a paper called The Evolution of Hairdressing seems to have more credibility than one called The History of Hairdressing.  I'm sure the author of the first would justify their title by claiming to write about how hairdressing had changed (aka evolved) over time.

cheryl j described it above. I think writers are falling for the "naturalistic fallacy" by misusing the word evolution (with the implication of 'evolution by natural selection').

[dlorde]

...But materialists would never say : that person savior was in fact risking his /her life regardless of the outcome ....regardless of his / her potential swimming and other survival skills ...just because he / she cannot tolerate to see a child drowning  ...

Of course they would; they would also answer the question of why he/she can't tolerate to see a child drowning with the evolutionary answer, kin altruism, driven by kin selection. There is a strong evolutionary drive to preserve the young, largely because, in family or tribal groups, they are the future, and they are kin - they are likely to carry your genes. Simplistically, the gene lines of groups that didn't have that protective behaviour didn't survive to the present. In the modern world, the child may not be kin, but, in general, the drive to protect is still there.

It doesn't make us robots - we feel these things emotionally, but the underlying drives are rooted deep in evolutionary history.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why then is the theory of evolution extended to cultures, societies, religions or spirituality , politics, philosophy, economics, intellect, psychology, human consciousness, ....?

If you use a term like evolution in a biology forum it means something very particular: evolution by natural selection.

When you use evolution in a political forum the term is open to many meanings because the word evolution existed before the concept of biological evolution. In this context, you can hardly even accuse the author of misusing a word.

I think people extend it because they don't really understand it.  Also, because evolution is widely accepted in science, a paper called The Evolution of Hairdressing seems to have more credibility than one called The History of Hairdressing.  I'm sure the author of the first would justify their title by claiming to write about how hairdressing had changed (aka evolved) over time.

cheryl j described it above. I think writers are falling for the "naturalistic fallacy" by misusing the word evolution (with the implication of 'evolution by natural selection').

Well, for your info :
Dawkins and co. , plus the rest of the materialistic scientists ,philosophers such as Daniel Dennett ....do find it perfectly ok to extend the biological evolution to cultures, religions or spirituality , politics , society ...

The mainstream science do just that ...simply because science is dominated by the materialistic paradigm stating that reality is exclusively material :  that life is just a matter of biological processes ...that consciousness is therefore just a biological process  created by the brain ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...But materialists would never say : that person savior was in fact risking his /her life regardless of the outcome ....regardless of his / her potential swimming and other survival skills ...just because he / she cannot tolerate to see a child drowning  ...

Of course they would; they would also answer the question of why he/she can't tolerate to see a child drowning with the evolutionary answer, kin altruism, driven by kin selection. There is a strong evolutionary drive to preserve the young, largely because, in family or tribal groups, they are the future, and they are kin - they are likely to carry your genes. Simplistically, the gene lines of groups that didn't have that protective behaviour didn't survive to the present. In the modern world, the child may not be kin, but, in general, the drive to protect is still there

.

I will read that link ,later on : that's about siblings,relatives ... though .

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 ?

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 .

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  .I was once extremely shocked by a story told by some Moroccans when i was there on  the beach: they described how a man drowned in front of many people ,and no one tried to move a single finger to rescue him ...

After the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima , i saw , on a video, the reconstruction of some horrible facts , like the one that shocked me so much when a woman deliberately let her own burning child die , by moving away from her ,while crying  : sorry , darling , i cannot help you ...I am so sorry .

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 .

[dlorde]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cheryl j]

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?

[dlorde]

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

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 .

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.

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 ..

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 .

[dlorde]

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.

[dlorde]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

there are  also no such things as good and evil as such either ...

At last, a glimmer of rational thought.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.


 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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  .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .