The naturalist problem of suffering.

[Subduction Zone]

That Natural Selection selects stuff with selective advantage *IS* trivially true . Its a tautology , it is true by definition.

No, that is not so. It is not by definition, it is by observation. We can still test the concept. Something that is trivially true is true without much thought involved. Your example clearly is not trivially true because you can only claim that it is true, you cannot demonstrate that it is true. Your argument fails right there. This may help:

What is a trivial truth? - Answers

Just because something is trivially true does not let you off the hook. In fact it makes it even worse for you since you should be able to demonstrate that it is true with no problem at all.

 

[danieldemol]

I never said that NS selects humans over trees

So you admit it doesn't necessarily select concious pain response over unconscious pain response (humans over trees)?

 

[Unfettered]

Just a few strawman replies that I corrected.

Do you believe that an evolutionist could offer a response that will square with reality?

 

[Unfettered]

Answering Leroy is impossible, since he doesn't pay attention to what is written to him. The answer to his question about the selective advantage of experiencing dysphorias is all over this thread, which is less than four pages long now, and comes from multiple posters. He's seen none of them. He still wants to know why nobody will try to refute his claim about suffering being useless to animals that can suffer. You try answering him and see what happens. Explain to him if you know why an aversion to noxious stimuli and other unpleasant feelings saves lives and facilitates fecundity in those who can experience fear, nausea, the pain of fire, etc.. You might as well write it in Chinese.

The definition of suffering he provided is not synonymous with pain response. He defined it as the psycho-emotional stress of conscious preoccupation with the circumstance of being in pain of some kind. So a response given using a definition not offered would justifiably be dismissed as not relevant.

And apparently, you haven't either.

I don't agree that I haven't paid attention. I agree that the responses akin to that which you just offered are not square with the definition of suffering provided.

Why is this so prevalent among the faithful? Have you read any of this thread? It's pretty short. If so, why can't you answer that yourself?

Answer what? The OP? I did. I answered it according to my understanding, which had nothing to do with being "faithful," but sought to capture the "answer" nature would give to the question.

The psychology of faith and its effect on minds is a topic of interest to me, but I confess that I really don't understand how or why Christian dogma has such an untoward effect on processing information for so many.

The answer would depend on the combination of the person, Christian dogma and information in question.

 

[1213]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Assuming that that first sentence means that if there is no god, everything is meaningless,...

I think usefulness is not exactly the same as meaningfulness. But, I would like to know, in naturalistic point of view, what is the meaning, or purpose of existence?

I find great value in this life.

Nice.

 

[joelr]

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

The most convincing argument is there is no evidence for any God.

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

Of course we are, how would you explain the fossil record?

The Hominid Family Tree A - Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya) B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya) D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya) E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya) F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya) G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya) H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya) J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya) K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya) L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya) M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya) N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya) O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present) mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

1 useless complex things re not expected to evolve

You are starting with a strawman? "One of the main reasons the majority of nonhuman animals may experience more suffering than happiness in nature is that many more animals are born than can survive. The reasons behind these high mortality rates are rooted in the function of evolutionary processes and natural selection.

Evolution doesn’t optimize happiness, but fitness"​

Evolutionary reasons why suffering prevails in nature

www.animal-ethics.org

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

Consciousness is a complex mental state. So?

"The important thing to know about these traits is that the ones that are more common in nature aren’t traits that maximize the animals’ wellbeing; they are traits that maximize the chances that animals who have them will continue to have descendants through time."

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

Not useless.

"positive and negative experiences (sometimes referred to as “states of welfare”) evolved as mechanisms motivating animal behavior that is more likely to lead to the animals’ survival, reproduction, or helping animals with similar genotypes to survive and reproduce (such as siblings). Ultimately, this leads to increasing the fitness of that animal, that is, promoting the transmission of the animal’s genetic information to new generations.


We must also note that while happiness and suffering exist because they can increase fitness, they are not perfectly adjusted to maximize it. In natural history, features determined by genetic inheritance are selected simply when they work well enough to make a difference for genetic transmission. It is not necessary for them to work perfectly. So, conscious individuals have positive and negative experiences even if they themselves will never reproduce or contribute in other ways to the transmission of their genetic information (that is, helping other individuals with shared genes to reproduce).
In natural history, sentience is selected for because in many situations it increases an animal’s fitness, by encouraging behaviors that increase their fitness and discouraging ones that don’t, through the experience of pleasure and pain. But in natural history, certain life histories are also selected that favor certain reproductive strategies. These strategies imply that only a fraction of sentient beings can survive past infancy, and those who do survive usually suffer because of inhospitable environments that they cannot avoid. Of course, there can be many individuals whose lives contain much happiness. The argument we have seen doesn’t mean that suffering necessarily prevails for members of all populations or species. But it provides a basic explanation of why it is prevalent for so many of them."

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

Suffering is a feedback mechanism critical for survival. A species just needs to get to the age of reproduction and be reasonable healthy. Suffering comes from illness and injury which cause a behavior most conducive to making it through the problem. It also keeps us in pair bonds and group bonds because it's uncomfortable to leave them. Also we remember suffering from periods of drought or food shortages and work to create solutions.

If we lived in a probabilistic reality, where we are just governed by probabilities we would see things like : most species don't survive as well as large areas of suffering from war, lack of food or pandemic.
We see all this. While the majority of humans are able to reach reproduction age and live reasonable lives there are terrible areas of suffering like the black plague, world wars and the 25,000 people who die every day, right now from lack of food.
It all points to a natural world without a theistic deity.

 

[joelr]

1 things that are not expected to evolve by random mutations and natural selection

Why? If an organism can eat, reproduce, raise its young, random mutations have nothing to do with a complex, useless behavior. Mutations occur with random traits, mostly unhelpful, sometimes they help the organism fight better or get more food and it will be passed on. But any other traits (even complex and useless) are still being passed on.
In fact, why would they change if they are useless? A mutation that trended toward ending that behavior has no advantage unless it is interfering with food and mating. So it would not be passed on.
You are looking at evolution as if it has a mind and says "this behavior is complex and useless so it cannot be passed on".

• Traits that are not adaptive can still exist in the organism as vestigial traits. This can be because the trait was recently useful but no more, over evolutionary time scales, and not enough time has passed for the trait to be lost.
• Some traits can very indirectly affect other traits.
• The trait may simply be very useful

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

in naturalistic point of view, what is the meaning, or purpose of existence?

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.

 

[leroy]

No, that is not so. It is not by definition, it is by observation. We can still test the concept. Something that is trivially true is true without much thought involved. Your example clearly is not trivially true because you can only claim that it is true, you cannot demonstrate that it is true. Your argument fails right there. This may help:

What is a trivial truth? - Answers

Just because something is trivially true does not let you off the hook. In fact it makes it even worse for you since you should be able to demonstrate that it is true with no problem at all.

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.

 

[leroy]

So you admit it doesn't necessarily select concious pain response over unconscious pain response (humans over trees)?

aGree, that is part of the point that I’m making in the OP.

 

[leroy]

Do you believe that an evolutionist could offer a response that will square with reality?

No, obviously I was not expecting n answer for the OP, this are very hard questions, and anyone with an answer would be publishing such a revelatory discovery in scientific journal, aiming for Nobel price.

I was expecting “good question I don’t know the answer” type of replies……….. my point being that both theist and naturalist have the same problem (non can relly explain why is there suffering in the world)

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Well there's your problem You are conflating "harmful" with being useless. Here is a real world example. Believe it or not the gene that causes sickle cell anemia is not useless. It is in fact quite useful at times. Do you understand that? I should not explain to you how it is not useless. But guess what, that can also lead to suffering. That is only one example and your argument is refuted because you used a strawman version of natural selection

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

That is correct, and not only that, it can be demonstrated easily. You fail again because you cannot demonstrate your claim. It is in fact refuted by reality.

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.

How many times do you have to be told not to tell people that they believe your ridiculous and ignorant claims. No, your argument failed. Do you understand that yet?

 

[leroy]

The most convincing argument is there is no evidence for any God.




Of course we are, how would you explain the fossil record?

The Hominid Family Tree A - Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya) B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya) C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya) D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya) E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya) F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya) G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya) H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya) I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya) J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya) K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya) L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya) M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya) N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya) O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present) mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago

Evolution: Humans: Origins of Humankind

You are starting with a strawman? "One of the main reasons the majority of nonhuman animals may experience more suffering than happiness in nature is that many more animals are born than can survive. The reasons behind these high mortality rates are rooted in the function of evolutionary processes and natural selection.

Evolution doesn’t optimize happiness, but fitness"​

Evolutionary reasons why suffering prevails in nature

www.animal-ethics.org

Consciousness is a complex mental state. So?

"The important thing to know about these traits is that the ones that are more common in nature aren’t traits that maximize the animals’ wellbeing; they are traits that maximize the chances that animals who have them will continue to have descendants through time."




Not useless.

"positive and negative experiences (sometimes referred to as “states of welfare”) evolved as mechanisms motivating animal behavior that is more likely to lead to the animals’ survival, reproduction, or helping animals with similar genotypes to survive and reproduce (such as siblings). Ultimately, this leads to increasing the fitness of that animal, that is, promoting the transmission of the animal’s genetic information to new generations.


We must also note that while happiness and suffering exist because they can increase fitness, they are not perfectly adjusted to maximize it. In natural history, features determined by genetic inheritance are selected simply when they work well enough to make a difference for genetic transmission. It is not necessary for them to work perfectly. So, conscious individuals have positive and negative experiences even if they themselves will never reproduce or contribute in other ways to the transmission of their genetic information (that is, helping other individuals with shared genes to reproduce).
In natural history, sentience is selected for because in many situations it increases an animal’s fitness, by encouraging behaviors that increase their fitness and discouraging ones that don’t, through the experience of pleasure and pain. But in natural history, certain life histories are also selected that favor certain reproductive strategies. These strategies imply that only a fraction of sentient beings can survive past infancy, and those who do survive usually suffer because of inhospitable environments that they cannot avoid. Of course, there can be many individuals whose lives contain much happiness. The argument we have seen doesn’t mean that suffering necessarily prevails for members of all populations or species. But it provides a basic explanation of why it is prevalent for so many of them."





Suffering is a feedback mechanism critical for survival. A species just needs to get to the age of reproduction and be reasonable healthy. Suffering comes from illness and injury which cause a behavior most conducive to making it through the problem. It also keeps us in pair bonds and group bonds because it's uncomfortable to leave them. Also we remember suffering from periods of drought or food shortages and work to create solutions.

If we lived in a probabilistic reality, where we are just governed by probabilities we would see things like : most species don't survive as well as large areas of suffering from war, lack of food or pandemic.
We see all this. While the majority of humans are able to reach reproduction age and live reasonable lives there are terrible areas of suffering like the black plague, world wars and the 25,000 people who die every day, right now from lack of food.
It all points to a natural world without a theistic deity.

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 ?

 

[leroy]

Well there's your problem You are conflating "harmful" with being useless. Here is a real world example. Believe it or not the gene that causes sickle cell anemia is not useless. It is in fact quite useful at times. Do you understand that? I should not explain to you how it is not useless. But guess what, that can also lead to suffering. That is only one example and your argument is refuted because you used a strawman version of natural selection

Irrelevant to the OP

That is correct, and not only that, it can be demonstrated easily. You fail again because you cannot demonstrate your claim. It is in fact refuted by reality.

Well then show the refutation.

Show that natural selection would select useless stuff.

How many times do you have to be told not to tell people that they believe your ridiculous and ignorant claims. No, your argument failed. Do you understand that yet?

well then tell me clearly and ambiguously what is it what you believe?

Do you believe that NS selects useless stuff? (I bet No)

 

[leroy]

Why? If an organism can eat, reproduce, raise its young, random mutations have nothing to do with a complex, useless behavior. Mutations occur with random traits, mostly unhelpful, sometimes they help the organism fight better or get more food and it will be passed on. But any other traits (even complex and useless) are still being passed on.
In fact, why would they change if they are useless? A mutation that trended toward ending that behavior has no advantage unless it is interfering with food and mating. So it would not be passed on.
You are looking at evolution as if it has a mind and says "this behavior is complex and useless so it cannot be passed on".

• Traits that are not adaptive can still exist in the organism as vestigial traits. This can be because the trait was recently useful but no more, over evolutionary time scales, and not enough time has passed for the trait to be lost.
• Some traits can very indirectly affect other traits.
• The trait may simply be very useful

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.

 

[leroy]

I think usefulness is not exactly the same as meaningfulness. But, I would like to know, in naturalistic point of view, what is the meaning, or purpose of existence?

Nice.

aS Christian theist, I struggle with the same question

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant to the OP

No it is not. It refuted your claim. I am ignoring the rest of your post since you failed so early. All that you have is a strawman argument. No one has proposed that the harmful traits are "useless"

You are aware of what a strawman argument is don't you? You now need to show that harm and suffering arose from traits that are useless. The sickle cell trait refutes your claims.

By the way, if you did not understand how you should have asked questions. Something that you never learned how to do correctly.

 

[Unfettered]

No, obviously I was not expecting n answer for the OP, this are very hard questions, and anyone with an answer would be publishing such a revelatory discovery in scientific journal, aiming for Nobel price.

I was expecting “good question I don’t know the answer” type of replies……….. my point being that both theist and naturalist have the same problem (non can relly explain why is there suffering in the world)

I'm not sure why you started the thread if you only wanted to hear people repeat what you'd already concluded.

Perhaps you should start another thread to discuss your assertion that the theist and naturalist have the same problem in regards to the question of suffering. I disagree with that assertion (I suggest a new thread because addressing the new assertion in this thread would seem to subvert the intent of this thread with a substantive discussion).

 

[danieldemol]

aGree, that is part of the point that I’m making in the OP.

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

 

[leroy]

No it is not. It refuted your claim. I am ignoring the rest of your post since you failed so early. All that you have is a strawman argument. No one has proposed that the harmful traits are "useless"

You are aware of what a strawman argument is don't you? You now need to show that harm and suffering arose from traits that are useless. The sickle cell trait refutes your claims.

By the way, if you did not understand how you should have asked questions. Something that you never learned how to do correctly.

There is something really, really wrong with your reading comprehension.

Nowhere in the OP or elsewhere have I suggested that harmfull traits are useless.

Reeeed the OP, and make an honest effort to understand the argument.

The point of the OP is that some concious experiences (like suffering) currently lack an explanation of how/why they evolved.