The naturalist problem of suffering.

[SkepticThinker]

We're done.

Why would I want to deal with this again? You have reading comprehension issues and blame others with scurrilous and defamatory accusations to explain your own shortcomings.

Because of that, you're not somebody that I can discuss issues with. I'll still respond to some of your posts when it suits me, but I'm not expecting you to benefit from them or to even know or remember what they said, nor for a discussion between us to ensue except one like this one, where you continually don't see and understand sentences.

There's nothing in such a discussion for me after I've given my response to your words. You might want to think about that when posting. What's in this for the other guy? What does he expect or require to engage in discussion with you, and am I giving him that? You give me nothing, Leroy. Nothing. At a minimum, I expect you to take the necessary time and effort to understand and retain what I write to you and answer responsively. That doesn't happen. Instead, I get this. No thanks.

And why would you want to have a discussion with somebody that you think lies and evades?

This ^^^^

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok, what does “finding meaning” means in this context?

I’m open to the ide that perhaps you ment something different from what i think you ment

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.

You were corrected by me and other users……………. You refuted straw man

 

[leroy]

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

Yes granted, if you personally don’t make that affirmation, then that would-be straw

From previous conversations I had the impression that you and TagliatelliMonster would affirm that the conscious mental state that we call suffering should have selective benefit………… but if you don’t affirm that , then sure you have no burden proof .

See how easy it is to admit mistakes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Because playing and having quality time with your daughter enforces social bonds, while you only get fat, lazy and lonely from that other thing.

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

I disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Who made that claim?

I'm just responding to your statements concerning why suffering would evolve if it has no selective benefit.
I just gave you plausible scenario by which such things can come about.

Suffering is not a single trait. There are many different things involved in it. It's not like a couple of mutations could simply "switch it off".

And it seems to me that even if we would consider selection pressures resulting from suffering, I'ld say it's beneficial.
Suffering is something one is going to try and avoid. Pursue hapiness instead. That is very good for survival and reproduction. An extra motivator to "do well" in life.

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

I didn't make any such off topic affirmation. I'm just responding to your statements concerning suffering and evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes granted, if you personally don’t make that affirmation, then that would-be straw

From previous conversations I had the impression that you and TagliatelliMonster would affirm that the conscious mental state that we call suffering should have selective benefit………… but if you don’t affirm that , then sure you have no burden proof .

See how easy it is to admit mistakes?

You keep claiming that people made those claims when they never did. They do not say that. They do not imply that. This is some very very poor reading comprehension on your part at best. And that is being overly generous to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Dude.......................
I kept it simplistic for the purpose of clarity with just "A+B+C will cause +D"

Consider that there are billions of A's and B's and C's and many more letters, and possible combinations thereof resulting in many more D's and other things.

But your argument from complexity / ignorance is noted.

Funny actually...
The simplistic example you instantly agree with, but the complex one that you can't visualize due to "big numbers syndrom", gets the "I don't understand when it's too complex so therefor it can't happen" treatment


I also note you suddenly switched subjects going from "suffering" to consciousness.
It doesn't even bother me since your appeal to ignorance / complexity / incredulity already invalidated your stance.
But still. I note.

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

Wait, so you didn't even understand the simplistic example??

That's so depressing.

Also, no clue what "chance" has to do with it.

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.........

Pain.
Very useful.

 

[leroy]

Because playing and having quality time with your daughter enforces social bonds, while you only get fat, lazy and lonely from that other thing.


I disagree.

If I will be in heaven experiencing joy and happiness for a potentially infinite amount of time……….. why is it relevant if I build bonds with my daughter or not for insignificant 50 years or so? 50 years are nothing compared to “infinite”

Given the existence of heaven, life in this planet seems irrelevant …….. life would be like the lemonade that you order in restaurant. ….. it would be nice to get testy lemonade, but the lemonade is ultimately irrelevant, ………… the hamburger that I will get for lunch is the relevant thing, who cares if the lemonade is good or not, as long as the hamburger is grate the lemonade becomes irrelevant.

In this analogy life in this planet would be the lemonade, and the hamburger would be heaven……… the point that I’m making is that it shouldn’t be big of del if I do the best I can do in this life, if I will go to heaven anyway.

 

[leroy]

You keep claiming that people made those claims when they never did. They do not say that. They do not imply that. This is some very very poor reading comprehension on your part at best. And that is being overly generous to you.

Well it is implicit, the thread was directed for those who make that assertion.

If you don’t have say on this topic, then why did you participated in the thread?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your alleged refutation was based on a strawman and I explained you why you missuderstood ..... what else do you expect from me?


Why didn't you answered with a simple and honest

"Yes leroy you are correct, I dont know why/how the ability of conscious suffering evolved" ... that is a good question , lets see if someone finds an answer in the future.

The irony is through to roof when you respond that to the post you are responding to.
You're just showing him how correct he was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well it is implicit, the thread was directed for those who make that assertion.

If you don’t have say on this topic, then why did you participated in the thread?

No, you need to show how you keep coming to such incredibly poor interpretations.

I think that you are arguing against what you wish that people said since you cannot refute what they actually said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes granted, if you personally don’t make that affirmation, then that would-be straw

From previous conversations I had the impression that you and TagliatelliMonster would affirm that the conscious mental state that we call suffering should have selective benefit………… but if you don’t affirm that , then sure you have no burden proof .

See how easy it is to admit mistakes?

This thread is about your claims in the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I will be in heaven experiencing joy and happiness for a potentially infinite amount of time……….. why is it relevant if I build bonds with my daughter or not for insignificant 50 years or so? 50 years are nothing compared to “infinite”

Are you confusing me with something else or ...?
I don't get the point of your magical what if.

Given the existence of heaven, life in this planet seems irrelevant …….. life would be like the lemonade that you order in restaurant. ….. it would be nice to get testy lemonade, but the lemonade is ultimately irrelevant, ………… the hamburger that I will get for lunch is the relevant thing, who cares if the lemonade is good or not, as long as the hamburger is grate the lemonade becomes irrelevant.

In this analogy life in this planet would be the lemonade, and the hamburger would be heaven……… the point that I’m making is that it shouldn’t be big of del if I do the best I can do in this life, if I will go to heaven anyway.

Cool, cool.

Meanwhile, back in reality: spendig time with your daughter enforces social bonds. It's a good thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well it is implicit, the thread was directed for those who make that assertion.

If you don’t have say on this topic, then why did you participated in the thread?

I'm sorry in the name of all atheists that we have failed to see your hidden message between the lines of who the target audience was.

I'll let them have the floor then...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I already refuted that -- and you ignored it. Remember what a "spandrel" is...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I can't help but notice that you totally ignored @Subduction Zone's post #92, in which he mentions the gene for sickle cell anemia. The fact is that having one copy of the gene for sickle cell can protect against malaria, and that makes it a definite advantage to those living where malaria is prevalent. And having inherited only 1 such gene from one of your parents isn't likely to cause much harm (the anemia part). It's only when an individual receives 2 copies of the gene that real problems start. You should look it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't help but notice that you totally ignored @Subduction Zone's post #92, in which he mentions the gene for sickle cell anemia. The fact is that having one copy of the gene for sickle cell can protect against malaria, and that makes it a definite advantage to those living where malaria is prevalent. And having inherited only 1 such gene from one of your parents isn't likely to cause much harm (the anemia part). It's only when an individual receives 2 copies of the gene that real problems start. You should look it up.

I asked him if he knew about that mutation and why it was not necessarily negative. He should have asked if he did not know. It is a clear refutation of his OP and also demonstrates why his demand of:

"Show that natural selection would select useless stuff."

Was a strawman demand. No one ever claimed that. No one ever implied that.

Natural selection does not select useless stuff. It selects better stuff. In an environment where malaria is endemic the sickle cell mutation is beneficial mutation. It is not a negative one because a higher percentage of children survive in when some have just a single sickle cell mutation.

 

[leroy]

Dude.......................
I kept it simplistic for the purpose of clarity with just "A+B+C will cause +D"

Consider that there are billions of A's and B's and C's and many more letters, and possible combinations thereof resulting in many more D's and other things.

But your argument from complexity / ignorance is noted.

Funny actually...
The simplistic example you instantly agree with, but the complex one that you can't visualize due to "big numbers syndrom", gets the "I don't understand when it's too complex so therefor it can't happen" treatment


I also note you suddenly switched subjects going from "suffering" to consciousness.
It doesn't even bother me since your appeal to ignorance / complexity / incredulity already invalidated your stance.
But still. I note.



Wait, so you didn't even understand the simplistic example??

That's so depressing.

Also, no clue what "chance" has to do with it.




Pain.
Very useful.

Ok in that case Sure if A+ B+C are useful and D is caused by A+ B+C then sure D could also be perceived even if it is useless…………… consequently if you show that suffering (D) is the consequence of positive hereditable traits, then the challenge in the OP would be answered

I also note you suddenly switched subjects going from "suffering" to consciousness.
It doesn't even bother me since your appeal to ignorance / complexity / incredulity already invalidated your stance.
But still. I note.

I’m not switching anything, since the OP I made clear that in this context suffering is defined as conscious state of the mind

Pain.
Very useful.

Yes maybe, it all depends on what you men by pain………. But can you show that what I Defined as “SUFFERING” is useful in the context of natural selection?

If you don’t answer with clear and ambiguous YES I will assume that you can’t show that to be true

 

[vulcanlogician]

Yes maybe, it all depends on what you men by pain………. But can you show that what I Defined as “SUFFERING” is useful in the context of natural selection?

Sorry late to the party. I read the OP. What is your definition of suffering?

 

[leroy]

Are you confusing me with something else or ...?
I don't get the point of your magical what if.


Cool, cool.

Meanwhile, back in reality: spendig time with your daughter enforces social bonds. It's a good thing.

I shred n issue that I have with Christianity, the fact that you replied suggested that you were interested in having this dialog.

The only point that I made is that the argument of “under naturalism life has no meaning” applies for Christianity too.