Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:10pm PT
|
I want to be very clear on explaining why I believe as I do. Because I am both science-minded and algorithm-minded, I like to think of solving a problem in the following way.
1. State clearly the facts that I know to be pertinent to the problem.
2. Postulate a hypothesis that is consistent with all of those facts.
3. Sit around and wait and hope that somebody doesn't come up with a good conjecture that falsifies your hypothesis.
So, let's get on with it. Here are the facts pertinent to the problem.
1a. We are a branch (or twig) on the tree of life and share an evolutionary history with all other living things on the planet
1b. We and the African apes share on the order of 96-97 percent of our genes. We have a common ancestor who lived around 8 million years ago
1c. Animal studies have shown that much of what we used to assume was behavior only humans were capable of is actually in the repertoire of our evolutionary cousins (and not only them). This includes things such as using tools and communicating to other members in the species using symbols.
1d. Even the smartest human minds are rendered as the equivalent of infants if their brains are ravished by Alzheimer's.
1e. Similarly, an individual mind might come to a very different decision if the attached body had just consumed 10 beers.
1f. Humans have a sense of agency for our actions and decisions that appears to be quite different from even our closest cousins. I am calling this self-reflective consciousness.
1e. Studies have shown that we actually make our decisions some large fraction of a second before we are conscious of making them.
Edit: I'll add on to this list as I think of stuff. And please, make suggestions for me to add to this list.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:15pm PT
|
No, and I meant 3 beers...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:50pm PT
|
For the record, I don't disparage liberal arts. I engage them everyday and I love them. What I "disparage" are certain liberal arts communities (eg, some college circles, academic apparently) and their members whose pastime if not profession is to compare themselves to science and, as deemed necessary to their interests, to "denigrate" science and its achievements. Big difference. People shouldn't confuse them. Yet they do.
As a thought experiment substitute science for liberal arts and vice versa. Might be the heart of a problem here.
As for meaning: the comments above find meaning in problem solving...fine. But what about the unsolvable problems, the grave and constant issues that all humanity faces. The means that solve problems are no longer ends once the solving has occurred and we are left with a contemplation of what we are.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:51pm PT
|
Since much of the conversation on this thread is only loosely grounded regarding initial definitions and postulates, here are elementary relations that might provide a consensus. What do you agree with in the following?
(1) Mind ⇒ Consciousness
(2) Consciousness ⇒ Mind
(3) Mind ⇔ Consciousness
(4) No causal relationship.
Is there an active "mind" while unconscious? Are subconscious processes part of "mind?"
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 04:54pm PT
|
They are synonyms -- they are products of brain (3). My wife, a psychologist, suggests that mind includes unconscious phenomenon, which would suggest 1).
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:04pm PT
|
More good books (except for maybe Gould's).
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:14pm PT
|
eeyonkee, that would be (2). (to be conscious implies mind but not vice versa)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:22pm PT
|
The scientific viewpoint has no problem with this issue, by the way. We have evolved to where most of us abide by certain rules of conduct because we are a social species. In a social species, there will be a hierarchy of norms that individuals are expected to follow. The particular rules that are hard to abide by, of course, are the ones that require us to sacrifice our individual pleasures in some way for the group. Which brings up the whole notion of cheaters. Cheaters can achieve, at least in the short term, some benefit by cheating. The possibility and actuality of cheaters is the foundation of our sense of morality, IMO.
This is scientism pure and simple
The notion that evolution is the source of morality is like saying the foundation is the source of the house.
Morality in most cultures is remarkably complex as it recognizes the complexities of interpersonal relationships and agonizes over the needs of the many in relation to the needs of the individual. Put down your Darwin and pick up Thomas Aquinas or Augustine and see to what degree morality has disengaged from evolution.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
|
That's interesting, jGill -- in software, this symbol (=>) means "goes to". It's called the lambda operator. Quite the opposite meaning.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:32pm PT
|
Morality in most cultures is remarkably complex as it recognizes the complexities of interpersonal relationships and agonizes over the needs of the many in relation to the needs of the individual. Put down your Darwin and pick up Thomas Aquinas or Augustine and see to what degree morality has disengaged from evolution.
What about Mohammed? Is there a "right one" -- a worldview that is based on something other than a scientific worldview?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 05:39pm PT
|
What about Mohammed? Or is there a "right one" -- world view that is.
Yes, what about Mohammed? Do you think his writings are a representation of the needs/laws of evolutionary process?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:04pm PT
|
The more I think of it, the more I think that science needs a massive P.R. makeover. Frankly (Ed;)), I think that overly complicated explanations for the nature of things are construed by the "layman" as a reason for distancing themselves from science. Maybe it's inevitable in physics, but in geology, evolution, meteorology, climatology, zoology, glaciology ... and all of the other natural and physical sciences (biology, excepted), what is known through careful observations and scientific experiments over the decades and centuries is easily explained in everyday terms. What is to be learned from the science could be explained to a child (in Israel -- maybe Finland, too). But make no mistake, this kind of knowledge is extremely important in that it adds to the accumulating edifice of knowledge that humans have access to, in which we know that the only way in was through the scientific method. In other words, it could be, but hasn't been (presumably) falsified.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:13pm PT
|
Put down your Darwin and pick up Thomas Aquinas or Augustine and see to what degree morality has disengaged from evolution.
Or maybe pick up Darwin just one more time. Evolution fosters morality in cases where morality conveys reproductive benefits. Evolution also fosters immorality when it does the same. Evolution doesn't care, it's a mindless process.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:14pm PT
|
Yes, what about Mohammed? Do you think his writings are a representation of the needs/laws of evolutionary process?
Um, I guess that I was referring to the fact that it is likely that the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine are in conflict about several points about morality from, say, Mohammed.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:25pm PT
|
Or maybe pick up Darwin just one more time. Evolution fosters morality in cases where morality conveys reproductive benefits. Evolution also fosters immorality when it does the same. Evolution doesn't care, it's a mindless process.
Yes, and morality within cultures follows that morality whether it is reproductively successful or not: consider Gnostics such as the Shakers who simply don't reproduce period. Morality has left evolution behind. Morality is fostered by human concerns with regard to reconciliation to the difficulties of being.
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:53pm PT
|
Don't see many Shakers around anymore. Nice furniture though.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:54pm PT
|
The Shakers sexual morality did not seem to serve them well as they died off.
but no doubt they must have felt morally good about their fate so they had that
The Shakers | March 18, 2011 | Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/03/18/september-17...shakers/7026/
PBS
Mar 18, 2011 - Today, there is just one active Shaker village left, with just three members. |
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 06:59pm PT
|
Yes, and morality within cultures follows that morality whether it is reproductively successful or not: consider Gnostics such as the Shakers who simply don't produce period. Morality has left evolution behind. Morality is fostered by human concerns with regard to reconciliation to the difficulties of being.
The assertion that human cultures are capable of disconnecting from naturally organic forces such as evolution ,should come as no surprise to the scrupulous observer. Much of technology often accomplishes the same "disconnect" in myriads of ways. We live with such outcomes daily.
It would represent an intellectual tour de force to attempt to identify any given moral precept in any given culture as being organically developed either by evolutionary process or by the intricate demands of modern cultures fully disconnected from evolutionary determinism.
Moreover, the " difficulties of being" in any given human cultural sphere are often arrived at by attitudes, experience ,and their attendant precepts formed at a specific time under specific formative conditions. When the conditions change the precepts often continue in an outmoded fossilized state ---because they tend to override the epigenetic flexibility and responsive feedback inherent in natural systems.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2016 - 07:16pm PT
|
The only people that I see disparaging "science" are fundamental religious folk; and that is about it. Where their strongly held beliefs are in conflict with simple scientific facts and theories and it makes them insecure.
There are quite a few of them in the US. It's unfortunate. My gut feeling is even most of the fundamentals stay connected for the social/cultural aspect of their religion and understand that science has debunked that god made the earth in 7 days etc, etc. , etc.. Only a very isolated or very naïve person would believe such a thing (7 days etc.) in the US and in this day and age. They all have cell phones, cars, TV's etc. and understand that science is responsible for all that and consequently believe in science. They don't understand it but know it is amazing and responsible for most of there activities.
IMO it is a small fringe group that really truly believes in fundamental creationist theory and even many of them don't care what other people think and just want to be left alone with their beliefs.
IMO the fundamentalists that make the news with violent acts and start wars are disenfranchised and angry lost young people being taken advantage of by corrupt political and religious leaders.
Add on top of that a few civil wars and long term (centuries old) religious/political/cultural conflicts and these straw man people that don't believe in science that HFCS , eeoyonkee and sam harris are exposing barely exist.
IMO it is just more corrupt politics hiding under the veil of religion.
It is tragically amusing to see HFCS holding up "science" the way fundamental preachers hold up the bible. Most of the audience knows it is just a show and already know what is right and wrong.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!