[dlorde]

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...

[dlorde]

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

[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 <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

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[dlorde]

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).

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.

Useful or pragmatic are  not always  synonymous of the truth though

Are they ever?  Ah, but what is truth?

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.

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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

[alancalverd]

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. 

[AntonMaeso]

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ 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 .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 ?

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 .

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 .

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 ?

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   .

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 ?

[alancalverd]

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.

[dlorde]

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.

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?

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 Materialist^tm?

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

[alancalverd]

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.

[/quote]

What do you mean the 2 mechanisms are not the same , from the materialistic perspective at least , considering the fact that we are allegedly just machines or robots driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , as Dawkins says here below :

How can consciousness, the mind, feelings , the thought process...be mechanical, or at least rise from our alleged mechanical biological systems ?

Dawkins says , as well, that we can "revolt against the selfish tyranny of our genes and against the "fact" that we were born selfish " : how are we supposed to do just that , if we are just machines ?

How can the mind ,consciousness, feelings , the thought process  , ...rise from mechanical biological  systems such as ours then ?

Once again, mind and body are certainly interdependent and do interact with each other .

That said : would you  just cut the crap, please , and tell me how the thought process can be mechanical ,or that it can rise from mechanical systems ?

Excerpts from Dawkins ' "Selfish Gene " :

Quote :
"
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others.
 " End Quote .

P.S.:

Let's just move to that consciousness thread , instead of wasting our energies on 3 related threads at the same time: consciousness , evolution and the scientific method are related to each other .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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.

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?

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 Materialist^tm?

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

See my reply to our alancalverd here above : see that Dawkins' quote as well there about the "fact or truth " that we are just machines or robots driven by DNA through the natural selection of evolution , i did copy and paste from Dawkins ' "Selfish Gene "

In the thread concerning consciousness, i will post some more Dawkins' quotes from that same book of his on the subject ,so, we can discuss that there ,instead of wasting energy on 3 related topics at the same time

Deal?.

[alancalverd]

What do you mean the 2 mechanisms are not the same

Exactly that. Evolution is an endogenous consequence of the reproduction of living things. Selection is a consequence of their environment - exogenous. 

from the materialistic perspective at least , considering the fact that we are allegedly just machines or robots driven by DNA via the natural selection of evolution , as Dawkins says here below :

How can consciousness, the mind, feelings , the thought process...be mechanical, or at least rise from our alleged mechanical biological systems ? etc.....

You see? Dawkins did not confuse natural selection with evolution, any more than Darwin or any person with half a brain would.

Let's just move to that consciousness thread , instead of wasting our energies on 3 related threads at the same time: consciousness , evolution and the scientific method are related to each other . [/size]

No way! So far, nobody has defined consciousness. and I won't get involved an an argument where nobody knows what anyone else is talking about. No problem with the scientific method: I think we all know what it purports to be, but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it being invented by muslims, whereas I have seen it used by a gorilla with no known religious persuasion. Little point in arguing with you about that, but I would abjure you to look more closely at the behaviour of other mammals, and to consider the pre-islamic origins of Chinese medicine, or its use by Aristarchus, 1000 years before the Prophet was born..   

[dlorde]

see that Dawkins' quote as well there about the "fact or truth " that we are just machines or robots driven by DNA through the natural selection of evolution...

Quite right; but that doesn't mean we can't identify and label particular behaviours and traits, and attribute certain abstract qualities to them. In fact, as you well know, that's exactly what we have done.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

see that Dawkins' quote as well there about the "fact or truth " that we are just machines or robots driven by DNA through the natural selection of evolution...

Quite right; but that doesn't mean we can't identify and label particular behaviours and traits, and attribute certain abstract qualities to them. In fact, as you well know, that's exactly what we have done.

You do not get it yet , do you ?

How, on earth , are  we supposed to be able to accomplish such a magical trick or extraordinary performance , if we are just determined machines robots then ?

You tell me , mr. great illusionist . make my day .

Thanks , bye , gotta go . i spent too much time here i can hardly afford , but it was worth it though , i must add indeed, to be honest .