The naturalist problem of suffering.

[leroy]

Then natural selection is doing what it is expected to do (select trees over humans) so there is no problem with it right?

Agree

 

[1213]

aS Christian theist, I struggle with the same question

what is the point of life, if we’re going to haven anyway?..........

I believe God made us free to decide our own point of life, purpose or meaning. But, for him, I believe love is the point. I think love is the best meaning and purpose for life.

 

[1213]

We make our own. The world has meaning to me, but not I to it.

Ok, I can understand that everyone makes own, but I don't think that can be called then naturalistic, in a way it is spiritual, it is for example from your point of view. I think naturalistic means just material, nothing from higher state of mind. If we look just material, it just exists in different states without meaning, unless the meaning is given by some conscience being. For example, in naturalistic point of view, world came to existence, stays some time and then is destroyed. Nothing of it lasts and it could be said that it all could as well not have existed.

 

[blü 2]

Why did suffering evolved?

Because of ─

the existence of natural disasters, whether storm, flood, drought, lightning, volcanic and seismic activity, plague &c
the evolution of germs and viruses that can distress the human body
the evolution of parasites that can distress the human body
the evolution of other animals that may regard humans as prey
competition with other animals for resources, starting with food
competition with other humans for resources, starting with food
the natural existence in a society of a peck order, whether ablist, hereditary, religious or whatever
competition with other humans for a better place in the tribal peck order
competition with other humans for access to sex
the natural existence of violence in society, including theft, assault, rape, murder

My argument is based on 3 premises

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

Not clear what you mean by "useless".
And "useless" according to whom?

2 to suffer is a complex mental state (complex brains are needed)

To suffer is a condition naturally occurring with animals, as above.

To suffer can also be a necessary spur to action to enhance individual or collective survival.

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

No, I think it's an ordinary element of being alive,

For example, if there weren't negative consequences for staying in bad, why get out of bed?

 

[joelr]

All the reply is based on confusion on what my actual point is.

The question is: why did the conscious mental state that we cll suffering evolved? Why do we even have the ability to suffer in conscious way?

Let’s say that there are 2 types of *suffering”

1 Not conscious suffering: Plants bacteria and most animals only experience this type of suffering., an oyster or a calm will run away from it´s predators to avoid being eaten, but the clam is not relay suffering in conscious way, it is just reacting.

2 conscious suffering. Is the type of suffering that humans and some vertebrates experience , this is mental state, that allows us to be aware of all the pain and stress that we’re feeling.

My point is that there is not a selective benefit for selecting “2” if you already have 1””……….. then clam with run way anyway, making the clam conscious wouldn’t change anything in terms of survivability


so my Question is why/how did "2" evolved given tht "1" is good enough ?

"1" is not good enough. Humans adapted by thinking through problems/suffering for long periods on a problem. 10,000 years ago we find egg shells with a small hole. They were hidden with water inside to plan for periods of drought.

Most innovations come from war. People who do not experience significant stress will not work hardest to find innovations to survive.

Without stress humans did not spend the required mental energy on solutions and survival. "2" is needed for hominids because we are successful through intelligence, innovation and being forced to find ways to survive and defeat enemies.
Tigers don't, when it's time to fight, they fight. Then it's over and they go back to hunting and sitting.

 

[joelr]

Yes . Useless traits can be passed to the next generation, but not by selection , but rather by genetic drift or some other mechanism

The problem is that you can’t build complex systems with genetic drift alone, you need NS, otherwise you would be “climbing mount improbable

Something s complex s consciousness could have not evolved by random genetic drift, you need path of positive mutations.

That is intelligence, which is how we survived. With it comes a philosophical mind and a mind prone to suffering. But in the end it wins out because we obviously solved many problems, had offspring and raised them. Suffering is a problem, especially in a peaceful society, hence drugs, medications, doctors. But it worked. From the first homo to figure out how to sharpen a stick and fight in formation, intelligence was preferred which includes a mind that suffers more.
Although innovation comes from a small minority, the average person may suffer less, think philosophical less and focus on the immediate task at hand. The great minds often lose to insanity.

 

[wellwisher]

The naturalist problem of suffering.

Probably the most sound and convincing argument against the existence of God, is the problem is the problem of suffering.

The argument goes s follows “if God exists why is there so much suffering in the world”?

Things like cancer, or tornados come to mind, (why would God allow such things?)

While I admit that this is a very strong argument against the existence of God and I personally have no satisfactory response , I would argue that naturalism has no explanation for suffering ether

Why is this problem for naturalism?

Because too suffer is a complex and useless mental state

Useless complex stuff is not expected to evolve naturally, the mechanism of mutation + natural selection is unlikely build and keep something useless and complex

Why is suffering “complex”?

Well it is an assumption obviously, but given that only complex animals suffer and given that we can’t make robots that can suffer, it seems to be a valid assumption.

Why is suffering useless

To suffer has no selective benefit, organisms like plants or invertebrates can react and prevent danger even though they don’t really suffer, the experience of suffering adds no selective benefit over simply “reacting”


So ill simply ask the naturalist, if we are product of evolution, why do we even suffer? Why did suffering evolved?

My argument is based on 3 premises

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

2 to suffer is a complex mental state (complex brains are needed)

3 to suffer is useless (from the point of view of N Selection)

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

The answer is, necessity is the mother of invention. Will and choice make more sense if we have goals, with necessity making goals for us. For example, the military is the leader of new technology. This is due to the necessity created by anticipatory fear, paranoia and desire of war. This leads to advancements in offense and defense.

The main problem with suffering is the materialist view of the world has no connection to the inner world of the unconscious mind. The materialists believes reality is on the outside where everyone's can sense and agree. If you cannot see the solution, it does not exist, so suffering lingers.

But innovation for necessity comes from within. It starts in the imagination, which materialism cannot see. The materialists, who blames god for suffering, do so, because the outer world does not fix the suffering but often is the source of the problem. The solutions have to come from within, which is not allowed since materialists cannot see it. The materials waits for the outside world to fix itself, through chance, allowing suffering to linger. The innovator uses his intuitions, for the challenge, and becomes wrapped up in the R&D of overcoming and forgets about the suffering.

If you look at the early Christians after Jesus, the outer material world was very hostile to them. They were taught to live in an inner world of the inner man. Though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff to comfort me. (necessity and solution; look at the bright side though the mind's eye instead of the negativity of the sensory eyes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think that can be called then naturalistic, in a way it is spiritual

The spiritual experience is conscious matter experiencing and appreciating other matter (nature).

I think naturalistic means just material, nothing from higher state of mind.

It appears that all mental states are naturalistic, that they arise from material brains created by nature, which then awakened.

If we look just material, it just exists in different states without meaning, unless the meaning is given by some conscience being.

If we look at matter, that is conscious matter experiencing and assigning meaning to other surrounding matter just as each of us is doing now.

in naturalistic point of view, world came to existence, stays some time and then is destroyed. Nothing of it lasts and it could be said that it all could as well not have existed.

That may be the case, yes. If it is, it is.

 

[Kfox]

So ill simply ask the naturalist, if we are product of evolution, why do we even suffer? Why did suffering evolved?

Not sure how you are defining naturalist, but mankind has reduced a lot of suffering; though not all. We create medicines for sickness, agriculture to prevent mass starving, and housing to shield us from the natural elements hostile to us, and countless more examples of preventing suffering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NS by definition would not select useless stuff

Which does not exclude "useless stuff" ending up in the genome anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This view is restricted to “only things with selective benefit” re expected to emerge.

To be more exact "selective benefit at that moment, in that context".
That's a hint btw, in reference to my previous post.

1 Loving gods are not expected to create worlds with so much suffering

I disagree, btw

I think the argument from evil is very weak.
I can easily come up with ad hoc explanations like "suffering is inevitable if you are going to create a world where happiness and health is a thing".

2 natural selection is not expected to select things that have no selective benefit.

And you have completely failed to show that the underlying processes that make up for "suffering" had no selective benefit at any time in the lineage of species that can experience suffering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes but you don’t have to suffer (I’m talking about actual conscious suffering) in order to get that benefit

That suffering doesn't in any way lessen your chances of survival and reproduction.
So there is no selection pressure against it.

Plants insects and bacteria react to prevent threads …….. But they don’t really suffer in conscious way………..so why did “conscious suffering” evolved at some point? (perhaps in early vertebrates)

You continue to claim that it is a trait by itself that evolved.
Why can't it be a result of other things that by themselves have benefit?

Evolution most of the time is actually a tradeoff where the question is if the good outweighs the bad.

So say that if you combine traits A, B and C... that D then automatically emerges as a result of A+B+C.
Suppose D is something annoying, or "useless" for survival, yet it does not hinder survival and reproduction.
Also suppose that traits A, B and C are all by themselves rather vital / important / beneficial for survival and reproduction.


The good of A, B and C will outweigh the annoyance of D.
The species will be "stuck" with D.
And it won't hinder its survival or reproductive abilities.



Questions for you:
- Did D "evolve"?
- Was D "selected for" by natural selection?
- Does D have any impact on selection pressures, positive or negative, once it is present?

And finally, in this scenario, would you expect trait D to:
- disappear (this would mean that A, B or C would have to be selected against)
- be kept in the phenotyp as a logical result of A, B and C being beneficial to survival / reproduction

 

[leroy]

I believe God made us free to decide our own point of life, purpose or meaning. But, for him, I believe love is the point. I think love is the best meaning and purpose for life.

But why should I play and have high quality time with my daughter, instead of eating Cheetos and watching movies all the time?

In both cases my daughter and I are going to heaven and get infinite happiness and joy anyway.

Obviously this is just philosophical struggle, in the real life do spend high quality time with my daughter

 

[leroy]

We make our own. The world has meaning to me, but not I to it. My purpose at this third stage of life (retirement) is to live mindfully and enjoying the pleasures life has to offer, which includes the experiences of love and beauty while minimizing the dypshorias like anxiety, insecurity, fear, guilt, shame, remorse, discomfort, and privation.

Do you think you have free will? If not then how can you *make* your own meaning for life?

 

[leroy]

"1" is not good enough. Humans adapted by thinking through problems/suffering for long periods on a problem. 10,000 years ago we find egg shells with a small hole. They were hidden with water inside to plan for periods of drought.

Most innovations come from war. People who do not experience significant stress will not work hardest to find innovations to survive.

Without stress humans did not spend the required mental energy on solutions and survival. "2" is needed for hominids because we are successful through intelligence, innovation and being forced to find ways to survive and defeat enemies.
Tigers don't, when it's time to fight, they fight. Then it's over and they go back to hunting and sitting.

But yet, tigers do suffer, tigers do have this mental state that we call “suffer”

So the ability to suffer evolved long before humans and wars and all the stuff that you mentioned.

Not to mention that all the benefits that you mentioned re not selectable…………NS will not select trait that is only good in the long term……..(unless there is mind involved)

 

[leroy]

And you have completely failed to show that the underlying processes that make up for "suffering" had no selective benefit at any time in the lineage of species that can experience suffering.

Well no, the burden proof is on anyone who claims that consciousness (including the conscious state that we call suffering) had selective benefits.

if you Make that affirmation you have burden proof, if you don’t affirm such thing, then this thread is not for you

 

[leroy]

That suffering doesn't in any way lessen your chances of survival and reproduction.
So there is no selection pressure against it.


You continue to claim that it is a trait by itself that evolved.
Why can't it be a result of other things that by themselves have benefit?

Evolution most of the time is actually a tradeoff where the question is if the good outweighs the bad.

So say that if you combine traits A, B and C... that D then automatically emerges as a result of A+B+C.
Suppose D is something annoying, or "useless" for survival, yet it does not hinder survival and reproduction.
Also suppose that traits A, B and C are all by themselves rather vital / important / beneficial for survival and reproduction.


The good of A, B and C will outweigh the annoyance of D.
The species will be "stuck" with D.
And it won't hinder its survival or reproductive abilities.



Questions for you:
- Did D "evolve"?
- Was D "selected for" by natural selection?
- Does D have any impact on selection pressures, positive or negative, once it is present?

And finally, in this scenario, would you expect trait D to:
- disappear (this would mean that A, B or C would have to be selected against)
- be kept in the phenotyp as a logical result of A, B and C being beneficial to survival / reproduction

That would only be realistically possible if D is a simple trait………. Complex traits like consciousness (conscious suffering) can’t evolve without the help of natural selection……….. that would be like having a car from a junkyard

Questions for you:
- Did D "evolve"?....................NO
- Was D "selected for" by natural selection?..................no
- Does D have any impact on selection pressures, positive or negative, once it is present?.................no

My point is that D wouldn’t evolve in the first place, (unless D is simple trait, that could evolve by chance lone)

You continue to claim that it is a trait by itself that evolved.
Why can't it be a result of other things that by themselves have benefit?

Shure it could be the case that it was result of other things that by themselves have benefit………… but there is no evidence to my knowledge for that.........

 

[Subduction Zone]

any trait selected by natural selection, by definition cannot be useless that is what I meat. ……..



this is true because stuff that was selected by NS , was selected because it had positive impact in the survival of the specie.

But this is all irrelevant, you agree with the clam anyway, you agree that NS wont select useless stuff anyway, so we both agree on the main point, whether if this is true by definition or by observation is irrelevant for the argument in the OP…………….. If that makes you feel more comfortable, we can assume for the sake of this thread, that the statement is true by observation as you claimed.

Well that is a crock of ****. You did exactly that. And you knew it. In fact in the post that I responded to you said: "Show that natural selection would select useless stuff.". That has been your strawman from the start.

Now that you realize that is a terrible argument you have to try to deny that you said it.

And you are back to your false claims of others agreeing with you. No one agrees with you. You are simply wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well no, the burden proof is on anyone who claims that consciousness (including the conscious state that we call suffering) had selective benefits.

if you Make that affirmation you have burden proof, if you don’t affirm such thing, then this thread is not for you

And that is a strawman argument too. Plus an attempt to try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you think you have free will? If not then how can you *make* your own meaning for life?

That question is irrelevant. One can find meaning in life with or without free will. Or maybe you don't know what finding meaning means.

the burden proof is on anyone who claims that consciousness (including the conscious state that we call suffering) had selective benefits.

There is no burden of proof with somebody that can't understand the argument. There is no duty to explain anything at all to such a person.

The survival benefit of consciousness is self-evident, as is that of the ability to consciously experience assorted dysphorias. It's been explained to you by multiple posters, but apparently, you didn't see or understand any of that, since you're making comments like the one above.

If I could teach you anything, Leroy, it would be how to read a post and learn from it, and to gift you with the insight that you don't pay attention or give responsive replies to the words written to you and what that costs you.