Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 04:01am PT
|
I'll have to think about that for awhile. I think part of my distinction of the cultural from the biological is the long standing division of them within the field of anthropology, the idea that they represent two very separate aspects of the human. In fact, their outlooks have grown so far apart that in some universities, physical or biological anthropology has been put in the biology department and cultural anthro remains in the social science department with some courses within the humanities.
While many religionists put human culture in a separate category from the biological, I've never met a cultural anthropologist who did so. What you seem to be advocating however, is that biology is now usurping the role of religion as the sole explanation for human behavior. This I think is the crux of the problem. Both religion and science are claiming ultimate truth while culture is claiming both as having some truth.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 07:03am PT
|
What you seem to be advocating however, is that biology is now usurping the role of religion as the sole explanation for human behavior.
To be honest, it's never even occurred to me to consider religion as any form of explanation for human behavior, but rather the other way around as an affinity for group identity and storytelling are human behaviors. From my perspective, religion a social construct 'evolved' from those behaviors. I also don't consider biology (or science) as an 'explanation' for behavior; behavior doesn't need an explanation, it's simply what life does.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 07:06am PT
|
But take a walk in the woods, watch the birds, the squirrels, turn over a rock or look over your shoulder for that cougar which may be stalking you. From viruses on up to you and the cougar the evolution of increasingly more sophisticated behavior is on display and easily observable.
Here is a larger picture we are a part of. It extends to the Moon, the Sun, distant galaxies and the beginning of time. There is beauty in the reach and grasp of mankind.
However, we should be careful about calling ourselves sophisticated. We need a second opinion.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 07:52am PT
|
However, we should be careful about calling ourselves sophisticated. We need a second opinion.
I'm not claiming we're [behaviorally] sophisticated in an absolute sense, but rather in a relative sense compared to other forms of life on the planet.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 08:01am PT
|
written in was the possibility...
not the inevitability.
No, inevitability, as in an infinite system of material and time governed by inviolate physical laws will manifest all that is possible within that system.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
Yes, in an infinite system everything possible becomes a requirement. It must be so by definition, if it is truly infinite. If it is constrained by the laws of physics, or a set of physical laws, that changes it. Only physically possible events must happen. They MUST, for it to be truly infinite.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 08:37am PT
|
The anti science group
There's no The anti science group.
More nonsense from the clueless.
Only Science itself can show the truth .......
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 09:03am PT
|
Dennett is the compatibilist, not Harris.
Sorry, I misunderstood the wiki quote:
Commenting on Harris's book Free Will, Daniel Dennett disagrees with Harris' position on compatibilism, and asks if Harris is directing his arguments against an unreasonably absolute or "perfect freedom" version of compatibilism, which Dennett would describe as an incoherent, straw man version
I guess that I am a compatibilist. Actually, I'm not up on the philosophy terminology. I just do science.
And HFCS, I don't run from anything you say. That is why I am a thorn in your side, although we share much more in common than either of us does with Largo.
I apply the scientific method to everything that I work on. I have to. Mistakes cost a lot of money, and are to be avoided as much as possible.
So I am riddled with what JL called in the OP of this thread: scientism.
HFCS, many of my posts are long. You can attack them more easily simply because I say more than you and most others, who make 2 or 3 line posts. Well, come after me. I'm not afraid of you or anyone else. If I am wrong, and you can show that, I will amend my internal knowledge base.
The problem with this thread is that everyone is fixed. They have been fixed for years, and still go on posting. Nobody changes anyone's mind. When it comes to Mind, everybody has one, and everyone has their opinion.
When I say that the soul is in the brain, it irritates the snot out of the woo contingent, who are, let's say it, are still preaching woo. They are as determined as ever, just like Werner is. That is why this thread is often a waste of time. It has become a creative writing contest more than anything. People might learn things, if you teach them, but I can't think of anyone who has changed their ideas of mind very much since this thread started.
The area where I have changed is recognizing that we are sadly subjective animals. Our senses are faulty, or incapable of sensing all that is out there. We must use instruments and measurements, and this pisses Largo off so much that he uses that to attack people, somehow saying that measuring won't get you anywhere.
Largo is a writer. He mainly writes about climbing. He mainly writes about climbing during the seventies, and has made a nice living from it. He knows little about science, so he has others write posts for him to needle Ed. Case in point being his last post about the processes in an atomic explosion.
Ed works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. They have designed most of our nuclear weapons there, and still do work related to these devices. They also do other homeland security oriented things. Of course I checked out the wiki page of the lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory
I would think twice before I took on Ed when it comes to nuclear weapons. A physicist working there, I assume, must have a security clearance to work on the cool stuff. So he can't tell us everything he does, or even anything he does. I just don't know.
I do know that I am inclined to listen to Ed when it comes to Physics instead of Largo.
I've watched many videos of Harris lecturing. I haven't bought any of his books, although I have a few written by Dawkins.
I disagree with Harris. His argument for free will in one lecture was composed of the neurological fact that your brain knows a thought before you are aware of it. So what? All he is showing is that the brain is slow.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 09:16am PT
|
The science group is trying to point out that consciousness is a product of evolution.
The anti science group is ignoring that fact completely and focuses on culture, religion, spirituality, etc.
Honestly, that's just not true. The problem with evolution as an explanation is it's simply not a final term. Why is there evolution and what is its source if not the structure of the universe itself?
And in that structure we find consciousness and that's a remarkable thing.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 09:22am PT
|
No, inevitability, as in an infinite system of material and time governed by inviolate physical laws will manifest all that is possible within that system.
I heard from a philosopher (and logician) that you can have both an immovable object and an irresistible force. But not both in the same universe.
the problem of consciousness and experience are so far beyond any scientific/materialist explication it's plainly ridiculous and yet we are assured, so wonderfully/ironically that through faith, science will get there and explain what is so staggeringly inexplicable .
Which universe are you in, Paul? Both?
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 09:50am PT
|
Is that snake thingy eating itself or is it really just vomiting itself?
Do we gain knowledge and experience because of one particular train of thought or in spite of it?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 10:07am PT
|
If you are a physical determinist, you must believe that everything is caused by an effect, and that relationship must be precise. It must reject any randomness.
The idea is: If you know the initial conditions of every particle in a system, that system must follow the laws of physics, and, over time, arise at a result that could be, in principle, predicted from those initial conditions.
That is physical determinism, and it is one of the reasons that Harris says that we are biochemical puppets, incapable of free will.
Physical determinism falls to pieces if something unpredictable happens. I say that many physical processes are Stochastic, or random in nature. We know from mathematics that a tiny, seemingly insignificant, change in initial conditions greatly affects the behavior of a system given enough time. Since those random physical processes exist, at least in gas and fluids, I cry foul at the notion of absolute physical determinism.
HFCS, having a loving relationship with everything Sam Harris says, rejects this. I'm saying "Wait. Not so fast."
In Harris's lectures, he returns to the neurological finding that our brains perform a thought up to 7 seconds before we are aware of that thought. Apparently, this is his evidence that we cannot control our thoughts and are inevitable biochemical puppets whose entire lives are, at least in principle, physically predictable. I disagree with this notion. Nature doesn't work that way. I don't think that the mind works that way either. The notion that a thought occurs before you are aware of it, a fact that has been shown experimentally many times, merely shows that your brain can be slow. All it says is this is how thoughts take place. Neurology is a rapidly growing science, one that we all hope will become precise, and increase not just knowledge, but treatment of disease. It isn't a threat to religion like geology is.
That is all that I am saying. Stochastic processes are all around us. They prevent Harris's main point when he talks about free will.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 10:12am PT
|
the problem of consciousness and experience are so far beyond any scientific/materialist explication it's plainly ridiculous and yet we are assured, so wonderfully/ironically that through faith, science will get there and explain what is so staggeringly inexplicable
I think that people believe this simply because science has proven very useful. You can't really predict the future of science, so people go off of its track record, which has been light years ahead of myth and religion.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 11:11am PT
|
Where has HFCS said that?
He mainly posts links.
If there is any random behavior in a closed physical system, then over time, the precision of predictability decreases. You can make generalizations, of course, particularly with large features, like stars.
I can predict that it will rain here next spring and be comfortable with the statement.
What I cannot predict is when and where the first raindrop will fall.
That is why Feynman's path integral is an amplitude rather than a precise point. Light travels along every conceivable path. This can be shown experimentally. What you come out with is an amplitude: Which target is the light most likely to hit.
You can learn a little by reading the wiki page on path integral, but to really understand it, you need to read Feynman's book. He explains it in laymen's terms, and it is both weird and fascinating.
I don't see how you can argue against free will without also arguing for physical determinism. Dennet, for example, talked about that in an easy to find youtube video that I watched yesterday.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 11:29am PT
|
Also, and as I've said in the past, I think the subconscious mind is vastly under considered in discussions, thought and research on the topic of mind/consciousness. I also chalk that up to a kind of intellectual dismissal on the basis of an unwillingness to accept any role for supervenience in the equation. That fact it gets little shrift even when people talk about neural precognition time in free will discussions somewhat amazing as well. As much as we are in love with our conscious selves, I personally suspect and have some personal evidence that consciousness is the very small tip of a very large and hardworking iceberg.
I touched on this over in Free Will land. My last link over there gets into it. The idea that hard determinism is right below the surface is gross.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 11:50am PT
|
Also, as some pointed out here, randomness would make our decisions random rather then mindful. Not exactly a free will, eh?
How about if you have a source of noise plus a mindful decision maker? You could call the result pre-determined but it would not be predictable and it could be molded by yet not fully determined by free will.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 12:11pm PT
|
To be honest, it's never even occurred to me to consider religion as any form of explanation for human behavior, but rather the other way around as an affinity for group identity and storytelling are human behaviors. From my perspective, religion a social construct 'evolved' from those behaviors. I also don't consider biology (or science) as an 'explanation' for behavior; behavior doesn't need an explanation, it's simply what life does.
What I like about this thread is that it exposes me to views that I never would otherwise encounter, like the one above. My jaw dropped when I read it. Behavior may be what life does, but does that mean all behavior is equal? You don't have to be a moralist to think that some behaviors are more likely to support survival and reproduction (the goal of evolution) than others.
The next most obvious question is what influences behavior and how might we direct it in ways that support life and even human happiness? As soon as we do that, I think religion and social science do have something to say. Biological understanding and socio-religious understanding together have even more to say. I can't think of a single human social problem that got solved with biology or a single ecological problem that was solved without a knowledge of it.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 12:14pm PT
|
Of course it does, but we are a little more complex than bees. Bees don't have to be motivated by ideas whereas humans do.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 12:25pm PT
|
So humans really ARE different from all other categories of life
Yes their consciousness is more advanced from the lower forms of life.
The root is consciousness ....
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2015 - 12:28pm PT
|
Yes, our nearest competitors are the Bonobos and they are far behind though with great potential given human intervention and time.
Their cognitive and linguistic abilities are far beyond the other primates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUHWoFnuB4
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!