Irony of the evolutionary belief

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not speaking of mixing wool and linen.

Well, when you talk about Mosaic law, not mixing wool and linen is one of the commandments. It has been a subject of great debate as to why this law would have been given.

OK, so the idea is so foreign to you as to the morality or sense of right and wrong (good and evil) placed by God in the Genesis account that you would not consider discussing it as written for a while. OK, thank you.

Well, I pretty much summed up how I think moral sentience evolved. I don't really have anything further to add.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, when you talk about Mosaic law, not mixing wool and linen is one of the commandments. It has been a subject of great debate as to why this law would have been given.

Well, I pretty much summed up how I think moral sentience evolved. I don't really have anything further to add.

I don't think mixing of wool and linen was a moral issue unless of course they disobeyed it. I'm not quite sure about that point as to why that was included. I'll look for that though.
I'm going to make one more comment about good vs evil. As I see it as denoted in the Garden of Eden. Adam was new. Meaning like a baby in a man's body. He likely had great intelligence being he was made by God. (Try to bear with me here.) He was obviously allowed to explore his environment. He had to make decisions or choices. That's it, that's all I can say right now. Except that he should have been consulting with God his Maker.

 

[YoursTrue]

Many animals have morality. They do not do abstract reasoning about their morality. That is all.
https://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/338936897/do-animals-have-morals
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (Published 2007)

It is firmly established in science now that there is nothing in humans that is special or unique compared to our animal kin. What we have is a difference in quantity....like the difference between the computing power of 1980 PC and modern PC.
I do not know how your religion's theology will deal with this, but that is what it is.

Right now I don't think I can be convinced that humans do not have unique ability, that includes reading and writing

 

[Willamena]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

What makes you think it was lifeliess?

 

[Willamena]

I think therefore I am could mean we thought ourselves into existence very much like abiogenesis that gave us a brain capable of creating ourselves. I see a new religion in our future. Or perhaps this is just a splinter group from scientism.

Nietzscshe punched a hole in Descartes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously gorillas and chimpanzees do not have the same type brain we as humans do.

That's not actually correct.
We have the same type of brain. One is just a bit bigger then the others.

Just to clarify. As a further note, I haven't spoken to a gorilla or chimpanzee about this, and they (thankfully) have not tried to communicate with me about the following, but -- (1) they haven't invented telescopes, and (2) they are not known to contemplate whether God exists or not. At least not that I know of...

So what?

Now the point: only only only humans contemplate how things got started in the universe. (I think that's telling...but...that's me and my "worldview" as i see it described here by some)

So what?

FYI: the other great apes do engage in tool making.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm speaking of morality. And the fact that the only ones in flesh talking or wondering in words about science and/or God are humans. I conclude some things from that, others conclude differently.

And the stuff you "conclude" from that are textbook examples of confirmation bias.

 

[MikeF]

Science by its very nature can only investigate things that can be empirically tested. For example, it cannot test what is moral and what is not. It cannot test whether an intelligence exists outside the universe. I'm not sure why you are arguing against this. It's pretty obvious.

And here lies your misconception. Science is not about what we think about, it is about how we think about it. More to the point, it is about how our thinking can go wrong in trying to think, understand, and talk about the real world (which includes we human beings along with our thoughts), and developing methodologies that mitigate that inherent problem and keep us from getting lost. Our thoughts are made up of abstract representations that have no boundaries, nor governed by any laws other than those we establish. If we wish to speak of real and existent things, then we require methodologies to distinguish, or demarcate between thoughts that correspond to the real world and those that are pure abstract creations of the mind.

For those who wish to maintain a distinction between what is real and that which non-real abstraction, scientific principles and standards would be applied to our thinking about topics like, "Is there an outside to the universe?", "Do proposed universe creating entities exist, and are they even possible in the real world?", "How are observed moral systems derived and why do they differ across cultures and change over time?" All of these can be addressed in a scientific manner, and in my opinion, they should be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Too bad they can't get out of their crib and do anything about it.

Do anything about what?

 

[cladking]

Nietzscshe punched a hole in Descartes.

Nietzsche's ideas don't underlie western civilization, Descartes' do.

I might point out as well that my theory is derived from a single assumption; that all of reality is as it appears to be and each observer makes sense all the time. It appears every sparrow is unique with its own set of knowledge and personality. I certainly have no reason to doubt my own existence or individuality.

If I am wrong then my conclusions are likely to be wrong. In the meantime I have still shown that species change suddenly because of consciousness at speciation events such as the "tower of babel". I have shown that ancient people didn't experience thought just like every other species than ours and solved the source of the power of our predecessor species (homo sapiens).

Descartes was entirely wrong and Nietzsche wasn't even wrong. His ideas apply to nothing in any way. Life is consciousness and it must be axiomatically for us to progress.

 

[cladking]

If we wish to speak of real and existent things, then we require methodologies to distinguish, or demarcate between thoughts that correspond to the real world and those that are pure abstract creations of the mind.

This is where your train of thought went wrong; you assumed the conclusion. Thoughts never can correspond to the real world because to our species the real world is composed of models and beliefs. Even if we could make such a demarcation we can not communicate it because EVERY observer hears a different message.

Every single observer holds different beliefs but there is a single reality. All other consciousness exists within and is part of this reality. Only we think and only we are each different in terms of our perceived realities.

Many people today share a very similar reality called "science". Some are devout and others know the limitations of their knowledge. I personally believe science has yet to even scratch reality.

When you use abstract language to think then every thought is abstract.

 

[cladking]

And the stuff you "conclude" from that are textbook examples of confirmation bias.

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

Your signature line shows confirmation bias and circular reasoning. It is fundamentally flawed on multiple levels.

Reality exists independently of all science and if you choose to see it only in terms of existing paradigms it is highly limiting.

Morality exists outside of science. Consciousness exists outside of science. Most of reality exists outside of science.

The cause of the change in species exists outside of science (how's that for irony).

 

[YoursTrue]

Nietzsche's ideas don't underlie western civilization, Descartes' do.

I might point out as well that my theory is derived from a single assumption; that all of reality is as it appears to be and each observer makes sense all the time. It appears every sparrow is unique with its own set of knowledge and personality. I certainly have no reason to doubt my own existence or individuality.

If I am wrong then my conclusions are likely to be wrong. In the meantime I have still shown that species change suddenly because of consciousness at speciation events such as the "tower of babel". I have shown that ancient people didn't experience thought just like every other species than ours and solved the source of the power of our predecessor species (homo sapiens).

Descartes was entirely wrong and Nietzsche wasn't even wrong. His ideas apply to nothing in any way. Life is consciousness and it must be axiomatically for us to progress.

I tried reading Nietzsche years ago figuring he was a big name. I think I prefer knitting but don't have the time now. Anyway I think I prefer crocheting rather than knitting now that I'm thinking about it.

 

[cladking]

I tried reading Nietzsche years ago figuring he was a big name. I think I prefer knitting but don't have the time now. Anyway I think I prefer crocheting rather than knitting now that I'm thinking about it.

I could watch paint dry.

 

[ratiocinator]

Morality exists outside of science. Consciousness exists outside of science. Most of reality exists outside of science.

The cause of the change in species exists outside of science...

Four unargued assertions.

...(how's that for irony).

Did you mean 'fantasy', rather than 'irony'?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science does not comment on the existence of God. The supernatural is outside its purview.

The idea that there is an undetectable aspect of reality which can modify that which is detectable (our universe) is incoherent when we analyze what we are saying.

If it is meaningful to postulate realities which are causally disconnected from our universe, they would be undetectable and unable to affect us. Ad if we postulate objects and processes that CAN affect our world, we are talking about causally connected aspects of our reality, which makes them detectable with the right detector in the right place.

Imagine that there exists another collection of objects, processes, and spaces interacting with one another but not our universe. The existence of such an unattached reality would be untestable, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. These can be seen as two disconnected bubbles of reality, each unknowable to the other, each undetectable to the other, each unable to affect the other, and each irrelevant to the other. Such a hypothetical reality would more properly be referred to as extra-natural (outside of nature), not super-natural. Neither reality is superior to the other.

Now imagine them becoming causally connected such that one can affect the other, perhaps by bumping into one another and connecting. Now, they are both part of a single reality - nature - and each is detectable by the other.

The religious view is that there is a one-way causality, which is an incoherent concept for the reasons just given.

 

[MikeF]

This is where your train of thought went wrong; you assumed the conclusion. Thoughts never can correspond to the real world because to our species the real world is composed of models and beliefs. Even if we could make such a demarcation we can not communicate it because EVERY observer hears a different message.

Although I’m sure it was not your intent, you are actually illustrating my point.

We do not consider the real world to be composed of models and beliefs, we consider the real world to consist of matter with certain properties (on the most basic and primitive level) and we form models and expectations about the material world in our mind. There is a difference. Expectations we hold with confidence we call knowledge.

We have confidence that our abstract mental representations of real things correspond to real things because our expectations are continually met. Where we get into trouble is when we try to understand things beyond the limits of our current perspective, our current ability to experience and create informed mental representations. Any real world limitation on our perspective does not place restrictions on our imagination however, and hence the need for clear demarcation between abstract thoughts and concepts that are actual corroborated abstractions that correspond to real things and events, and those that are not.

… there is a single reality.

Perfect. A point of common ground from which to build from.

All other consciousness exists within and is part of this reality.

As there is only the single reality this would be true regardless of our definition of consciousness. Your past use of this term, however, would give me some pause as to whether I know exactly what you mean when you use it.

Every single observer holds different beliefs …

This is too vague. Many can come to agreement on specific points, share the same conclusion on a specific matter. I certainly agree that every human being is subjectively unique, the culmination of a wide variety of events and experiences. I would also stress that we are imperfect creatures, each with our own unique combination of strengths and fallibilities.

Only we think and only we are each different in terms of our perceived realities.

Only who thinks? In my view, there are plenty of other species that think, though not to the level of Homo Sapiens or other, now extinct human species.

Many people today share a very similar reality called "science". Some are devout and others know the limitations of their knowledge.

Here would be an example of blurring or failing to maintain a clear demarcation between reference to the real world and references to non-real abstract constructs. We just agreed above that there is only one reality that everyone shares. Why slip into figurative and imprecise language usage? Perhaps you are instead trying to refer to an individual's subjective perception of the one shared reality. If that is so, then you seem to have a fundamental misconception as to what science is. The whole point of a scientific approach and outlook is to expressly get beyond one’s own individual subjective perceptions that can be adversely affected or influenced by a whole host of factors. To eschew or reject scientifically gained knowledge means to surrender or lose one’s self in imagination untethered to reality.

I would also stress here that having strong confidence in the scientific process does not indicate a lack of understanding or failure to appreciate the limitations inherent in the scientific process, inherent because the whole endeavor is carried out by imperfect and fallible human beings. That obstacle cannot be overcome, simply mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

I personally believe science has yet to even scratch reality.

Great. Personal opinion noted. But does it have any meaning? How can one say what remains to be known that is beyond one’s limited perspective and ability to know? The only avenue available to us is to continue to build our objective understanding incrementally, with each incremental advancement improving our perspective from which to continue to build our understanding. Simply reviewing the historical record is sufficient to provide confidence that this process is working.

When you use abstract language to think then every thought is abstract.

And as should be clear from my explanations above, we can and should differentiate between which of those abstract thoughts correspond to phenomena and events in the real world and which do not. It is also interesting to note that with the advent of written or symbolic language, we are no longer limited in the ways in which we store and transmit our abstract thoughts, this post being an example. This ability to transmit and share our thoughts is counterpoint to your implication that each of us is stuck within our own subjective reality, when in fact there is a quite robust amount of intersubjective corroboration that is continually taking place.

 

[cladking]

We do not consider the real world to be composed of models and beliefs, we consider the real world to consist of matter with certain properties (on the most basic and primitive level) and we form models and expectations about the material world in our mind. There is a difference. Expectations we hold with confidence we call knowledge.

No. You are describing reality from a very poor perspective and you are assuming that our models and beliefs closely correlate to reality. You are assuming your models are essentially complete and are accurate to the degree they are not complete. The real world is very different from what you believe. Otherwise what you say is accurate.

The real world does not respond to anyone's beliefs yet this is how we each perceive it; that it is as we believe.

It is nothing like anyone believes and no matter how much confidence you have you still can't predict the future.

You assume that you have the proper formatting of reality and every homo omnisciencis always has. Once we do have a formatting we can begin finding what it contains, the reality.

Nobody can see the real world. They look and see a reflection of what they believe. This is the nature of our species. It is obviously the nature of our species and every experiment shows it. People simply choose not to see this reality.

 

[MikeF]

The real world is very different from what you believe. Otherwise what you say is accurate.

I see this as a rare concession from you and I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks!

 

[cladking]

We have confidence that our abstract mental representations of real things correspond to real things because our expectations are continually met. Where we get into trouble is when we try to understand things beyond the limits of our current perspective, our current ability to experience and create informed mental representations. Any real world limitation on our perspective does not place restrictions on our imagination however, and hence the need for clear demarcation between abstract thoughts and concepts that are actual corroborated abstractions that correspond to real things and events, and those that are not.

This is much more true but I would use different words.

As there is only the single reality this would be true regardless of our definition of consciousness. Your past use of this term, however, would give me some pause as to whether I know exactly what you mean when you use it.

No. There is one reality and every consciousness except homo omnisciencis experiences this reality.

This is too vague. Many can come to agreement on specific points, share the same conclusion on a specific matter. I certainly agree that every human being is subjectively unique, the culmination of a wide variety of events and experiences. I would also stress that we are imperfect creatures, each with our own unique combination of strengths and fallibilities.

No. We often think we agree but we do not- -ever. This can be seen in myriad ways such as individuals' solution to the question of whether or not a plane can take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Only 97% of physicists get this correct. But the remarkable thing is only half of aviation engineers get it correct. Every pilot of which I am aware has gotten it wrong. If all these models were the same there would be 100% agreement and it might right and it might be wrong.

We gloss over differences when we speak and rarely if ever dig down to the premises. We simply don't communicate most of the time. Look at these boards!!! You and I communicate a little bit (probably because we have similar backgrounds) but otherwise there is very little communication going on between opposing arguments.

I would also stress here that having strong confidence in the scientific process does not indicate a lack of understanding or failure to appreciate the limitations inherent in the scientific process, inherent because the whole endeavor is carried out by imperfect and fallible human beings. That obstacle cannot be overcome, simply mitigated to the greatest extent possible.

I agree in principle but where you think that most of reality is known or can be understood in scientific terms I believe it is not yet at this time.

The scientific process is fine in theory (not computer modeling and other Look and See Science) and the methodology is fine but we know a tiny tiny fraction of what people think we know.

Great. Personal opinion noted. But does it have any meaning? How can one say what remains to be known that is beyond one’s limited perspective and ability to know? The only avenue available to us is to continue to build our objective understanding incrementally, with each incremental advancement improving our perspective from which to continue to build our understanding. Simply reviewing the historical record is sufficient to provide confidence that this process is working.

....No

We don't even know the nature of gravity and people think science is fueled by genius in a reality where intelligence doesn't even exist as we perceive it.

And as should be clear from my explanations above, we can and should differentiate between which of those abstract thoughts correspond to phenomena and events in the real world and which do not.

Abstractions never apply to the real world. They do not exist in the real world by definition. They didn't exist in Ancient Language and nobody ever noticed until I spotted it!!! There is no such thing as "species" and there is no evidence any group of individuals have ever gradually changed because of survival of the fittest. It is a mirage created by poor definitions and abstractions. It didn't exist when Darwin dreamed it up in a circular argument and it still doesn't.