The naturalist problem of suffering.

[leroy]

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...


View attachment 83429

The target audience is anyone who affirms that consciousness (including the conscious experience that we call suffering) evolved naturally, mainly through random mutations and natural selection .

You have to admit that form previous conversation I had good reasons to think that you and @Subduction Zone are part of this audience.

 

[leroy]

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

Suffering is a mental and conscious state that allow us to be aware that were experience an unpleasant experience.

* Conscious is n important part of the definition.

For example clams and oysters struggle and fight to prevent being eaten by predators, but oysters are just reacting, they don’t really suffer in conscious way.

My point is that “RECTING” is good enough in the context of natural selection ……… adding the variable of “conscious suffering” doesn’t add any selective benefit (it seems to me)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The target audience is anyone who affirms that consciousness (including the conscious experience that we call suffering) evolved naturally, mainly through random mutations and natural selection .

You have to admit that form previous conversation I had good reasons to think that you and @Subduction Zone are part of this audience.

Yes, but the audience does not agree with your arguments. They are always poorly formed and loaded with logical fallacies. In this case you appear to be relying upon false dichotomies.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Suffering is a mental and conscious state that allow us to be aware that were experience an unpleasant experience.

* Conscious is n important part of the definition.

For example clams and oysters struggle and fight to prevent being eaten by predators, but oysters are just reacting, they don’t really suffer in conscious way.

My point is that “RECTING” is good enough in the context of natural selection ……… adding the variable of “conscious suffering” doesn’t add any selective benefit (it seems to me)

The thing about natural selection is that it doesn't favor the most optimal outcomes when selecting for traits in an organism. If pain and suffering increases the likelihood of survival (and such a trait appears in a genome) it will contribute to species' survival and may be retained as a trait. It just so happens that, in the evolutionary chain of animals, pain and suffering appeared. Those animals survived, and the ones without the trait didn't. If "advanced reactivity" appeared perhaps IT would have been favored. But that's not the way things panned out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing about natural selection is that it doesn't favor the most optimal outcomes when selecting for traits in an organism. If pain and suffering increases the likelihood of survival (and such a trait appears in a genome) it will contribute to species' survival and may be retained as a trait. It just so happens that, in the evolutionary chain of animals, pain and suffering appeared. Those animals survived, and the ones without the trait didn't. If "advanced reactivity" appeared perhaps IT would have been favored. But that's not the way things panned out.

The ability to feel pain is clearly a beneficial trait. Think of cooking and not being able to feel the heat from the stove. My paternal grandmother had that problem late in her life and she often was sporting small burns that she got because she could not feel the heat. But since nature is not perfect the ability to feel pain can also lead to suffering. A little pain is very useful. A lot is not.

 

[Koldo]

Suffering is a mental and conscious state that allow us to be aware that were experience an unpleasant experience.

* Conscious is n important part of the definition.

For example clams and oysters struggle and fight to prevent being eaten by predators, but oysters are just reacting, they don’t really suffer in conscious way.

My point is that “RECTING” is good enough in the context of natural selection ……… adding the variable of “conscious suffering” doesn’t add any selective benefit (it seems to me)

Is it even possible to experience pain without experiencing suffering at the same time?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The target audience is anyone who affirms that consciousness (including the conscious experience that we call suffering) evolved naturally, mainly through random mutations and natural selection .

Then why wasn't your OP about that?

You have to admit that form previous conversation I had good reasons to think that you and @Subduction Zone are part of this audience.

It doesn't seem to matter much since your OP isn't about that.
In all honesty, to me this species of "bait and switch" gives us some insights into your character. It's not positive.

The focus of your OP was how to explain the experience of suffering in context of an evolutionary past.
You have received ample answers to that. Now you're just moving goalposts and trying to make it about something else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it even possible to experience pain without experiencing suffering at the same time?

Exactly. It's always going to be an unpleasant experience.
The signal that corresponds to pain must always be something you are going to want to avoid.
Making that experience unpleasant is a very efficient way of doing that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Why would I have to show that?
You didn't provide any evidence, just assertions, based on nothing but "it's useless", "it's annoying" and "natural selection wouldn't favor it".

I provided you with a simple mechanism by which useless and annoying traits could show up in species without natural selection even having anything to do with it directly. You agreed that such a mechanic would idd account for useless and annoying traits. I don't need to do more. I explained how useless and annoying traits COULD end up in a species, and you agreed to it. This is in contradiction with your statements that it is "unlikely". It is not. It's in fact pretty much inevitable that such traits end up in species.

Other people have provided you with ample explanation as well from other angles. Like how suffering is NOT useless as you claim and how it DOES aid survival.

So to conclude:
- it is NOT unlikely that useless annoying traits end up in species
- suffering is NOT useless in context of survival

There doesn't seem to be anything else that has to be addressed.

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

Which doesn't change the fact that the OP is about suffering in context of an evolutionary past

Yes maybe, it all depends on what you men by pain……….

The unpleasent sensation you get when you hit your toe, when a wasp bites you, when you cut your finger, when you burn yourself on the stove, when a lion rips your arm off,...

The "unpleasant" part is what motivates you to avoid such sensation.

But can you show that what I Defined as “SUFFERING” is useful in the context of natural selection?

Plenty of people already did. And I just did again in the previous paragraph.
The unpleasantness of suffering is what motivates you to avoid such experience both in social conduct as well as in physical settings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why wasn't your OP about that?


It doesn't seem to matter much since your OP isn't about that.
In all honesty, to me this species of "bait and switch" gives us some insights into your character. It's not positive.

The focus of your OP was how to explain the experience of suffering in context of an evolutionary past.
You have received ample answers to that. Now you're just moving goalposts and trying to make it about something else.

It appears that instead of admitting that he was wrong in the OP he is trying to change the topic so that he doesn't "lose". Well too late for that.

 

[joelr]

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

Do you imagine that tigers don't have matters to suffer over and that suffering gives a memory to avoid something harmful?
While a tiger suffers with a sprained leg, if it survives, it remembers to stay away from elephants.

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

Yes all organisms need some mechanism to create a lasting memory of things that cause types of harm. There is a purpose.
Because it's not a design, it cannot be turned off when it isn't useful. Like when a lover dies, in nature you can get a new one. But pair bonding creates a chemical state that depends on the companion. When they leave we suffer withdrawal. But the initial chemicals are needed to create pair bonding. So when a mate leaves or dies you just suffer, low sertogenic balance, emotional trauma etc.
Were it a design you would control runaway emotions and chemical imbalances.

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)

Right, that's why we have all types of mental illness. Many really smart people go insane. Gauss, Hilbert, Cantor, Godel. Because it's random.
It's why many people cannot bear emotional suffering and it's a serious problem leading to drugs and worse.

 

[joelr]

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.

Freewill, choice

the basic Zoroastrian doctrine of the existence of free-will, and the power of each individual to shape his own destiny through the exercise of choice.

From

Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices
Mary Boyce

During the 2nd Temple Period, 600-300 BCE, Judaism and later Christianity took many ideas from the Persian theology, that was one.




others are:

Doctrines

fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

 

[joelr]

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.

There was no heaven for people in Judaism. That was a Greek invention. What they has was a Persian rip-off of a final war with God/devil and everyone has a bodily resurrection on Earth. In the NT Hellenistic fallen/redeemed souls that return to heaven was finally added.
Christianity was a Jewish version of Hellenism with some Persian myths added in.
Christianity started in Antioch, the hub of Hellenism and it admits it in the Bible. So does Biblical scholarship, the apologetics kind, even they cannot ignore it entirely.

The odds of it being true are about equal to Zeus and his afterlife.



During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them. Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology. By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return thereThe idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC). Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.


You build bonds with a daughter because after you die it's the same as before you were born. Nothing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what does “finding meaning” means in this context?

When I say that I find meaning and purpose in life, it means that I am glad to be alive, that life has inherent meaning and value for me, that I enjoy my days for whatever reasons make it enjoyable. I'm retired now, and my job is to spend the rest of my days doing things that give me satisfaction according to my values, means, and opportunity.

You refuted straw man

No, Leroy. Like everybody else, I refuted your claim that suffering conferred no survival benefit in animals and therefore would not arise and be selected for naturalistically - what you called "the-naturalist-problem-of-suffering."

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”

I'm not going to answer that question, because my answer would have no meaning to you even if you tried to understand it. I'm just going to comment on how much harm I find in Abrahamic theology. You should be able to answer that yourself. This worldview has made everything that exists inferior in your mind as to call it irrelevant including the love of a father for his daughter, because it happens in nature, and nothing there matters.

Given the existence of heaven, life in this planet seems irrelevant

Somebody taught you that and did you a great disservice.

the argument of “under naturalism life has no meaning” applies for Christianity too.

"Christianity, too"? It ONLY applies in Christianity and perhaps other Abrahamic religions as well. Atheistic humanism isn't saddled with such a dismal and nihilistic worldview. Neither are other atheistic worldviews, nor the polytheists or other nature-directed isms. To my knowledge, just Christianity, and maybe Islam and Baha'ism.

I don't know enough about the Jains and Sufis to comment, except to say that I think that they are also monotheists and believe in a supernatural god but maybe they haven't had the spirituality sucked out of nature and invested in an angry, judgmental, supernatural ghost with no respect for nature or mankind, who issues threats and commandments from outside of nature.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My point is that “RECTING” is good enough in the context of natural selection ……… adding the variable of “conscious suffering” doesn’t add any selective benefit (it seems to me)

Oysters are not "conscious" of anything at all, neither pleasure nor suffering.

What you are missing here is that conscious intelligence, the ability to be aware of problems and work through various solutions to them is an enormous evolutionary advantage. But being conscious means being conscious of everthing happening -- so being consciously aware of pain is the price we pay for being consciously aware of all the things that are not painful to us. You don't get to be conscious of chairs, but not three-legged stools. Consciousness does not work that way.

Besides, being conscious of a painful wound has a positive result -- you consciously try not to use that part of your body, and consciously try to keep it clean, promoting healing. If you weren't aware of such a wound, you would very likely ignore and possibly die of sepsis from it.

 

[Bthoth]

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.

Solid comprehension

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.

That part is quite relevant

 

[leroy]

y.

No, Leroy. Like everybody else, I refuted your claim that suffering conferred no survival benefit in animals and therefore would not arise and be selected for naturalistically - what you called "the-naturalist-problem-of-suffering."

You changed the definition of suffering in your reply, hence you made straw man

Yes as you said, reacting to avoid danger is beneficial, but such reaction do not require “conscious suffering”……… the presence of conscious suffering doesn’t add any additional benefit……… you haven’t dressed this point.

I'm not going to answer that question, because my answer would have no meaning to you even if you tried to understand it. I'm just going to comment on how much harm I find in Abrahamic theology. You should be able to answer that yourself. This worldview has made everything that exists inferior in your mind as to call it irrelevant including the love of a father for his daughter, because it happens in nature, and nothing there matters.

Somebody taught you that and did you a great disservice.

"Christianity, too"? It ONLY applies in Christianity and perhaps other Abrahamic religions as well. Atheistic humanism isn't saddled with such a dismal and nihilistic worldview. Neither are other atheistic worldviews, nor the polytheists or other nature-directed isms. To my knowledge, just Christianity, and maybe Islam and Baha'ism.

I don't know enough about the Jains and Sufis to comment, except to say that I think that they are also monotheists and believe in a supernatural god but maybe they haven't had the spirituality sucked out of nature and invested in an angry, judgmental, supernatural ghost with no respect for nature or mankind, who issues threats and commandments from outside of nature.

aS rational thinker I like to reflect on the implications of my world view and other world views……… and when I find “problem” with my world view I push it until I find an answer.

Which is much better than to live in denial

 

[leroy]

Is it even possible to experience pain without experiencing suffering at the same time?

This is just semantics, it ll means on how do you define pain.

But you can react without feeling conscious pain or suffering ………. Most organisms are like this

 

[leroy]

Then why wasn't your OP about that?


It doesn't seem to matter much since your OP isn't about that.
In all honesty, to me this species of "bait and switch" gives us some insights into your character. It's not positive.

The focus of your OP was how to explain the experience of suffering in context of an evolutionary past.
You have received ample answers to that. Now you're just moving goalposts and trying to make it about something else.

The goal post has not been moved, the OP is and has always been about the conscious experience that we call “suffering” and the lack of an evolutionry explanation for its origin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The goal post has not been moved, the OP is and has always been about the conscious experience that we call “suffering” and the lack of an evolutionry explanation for its origin.

You've been given several good explanations and illustrations.
As usual, for some reason, you're just going to keep claiming that you haven't.