The naturalist problem of suffering.

[leroy]

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.

Most organism receive this signal of “pain” and they avoid it without feeling conscious suffering………….only the higher animals seem to have this conscious experience of suffering.

So if animals already avoided “pain” what was the benefit of adding conscious suffering?

Keep in mind that “I don’t know” is valid answer”

 

[leroy]

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.

But you can’t quote any……………can you?

 

[leroy]

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

again that is only true with simple traits…… it is unlikely to evolve complex trait without NS

- suffering is NOT useless in context of survival

It is useless. Conscious suffering is not necessary (or even useful) to react and prevent harm……. We know this because this is how most organisms prevent harm

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You changed the definition of suffering

No, I haven't.

reacting to avoid danger is beneficial, but such reaction do not require “conscious suffering”

Require? Straw man. No such claim was made either by you in the OP nor by any of the multitude who refuted it. I'll bet you don't know what that means or refers to.

the presence of conscious suffering doesn’t add any additional benefit……… you haven’t dressed this point.

Sure I have, as have about a dozen others. You didn't understand the responses. I can't tell if you even looked at them. You haven't addressed (that's the word you were looking for) any of them, so one can only guess why. Either you never looked, couldn't understand the words, couldn't remember for more than a few seconds what they said, or you're trolling. I've been charitable to date and assumed that you don't what's been written to you for whatever reason - more charitable than you, who accuses others of lying (bad faith disputation) as you have me, but I'm reconsidering. Is anybody really that blind?

 

[leroy]

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.

COULD

In the same way God could have good reasons to create a world with so much suffering …….. my point is that naturalist don’t have better solution than theists…….

 

[leroy]

}

Require? Straw man. No such claim was made either by you in the OP nor by any of the multitude who refuted it. I'll bet you don't know what that means or refers to.

The fact that you are in need for making semantic games shows how deserted and cornered you are

Sure I have, as have about a dozen others. You didn't understand the responses. I can't tell if you even looked at them. You haven't addressed (that's the word you were looking for) any of them, so one can only guess why. Either you never looked, couldn't understand the words, couldn't remember for more than a few seconds what they said, or you're trolling. I've been charitable to date and assumed that you don't what's been written to you for whatever reason - more charitable than you, who accuses others of lying (bad faith disputation) as you have me, but I'm reconsidering. Is anybody really that blind?

No you did not, you refuted straw man you have been told multiple times……………. And you know it…………. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any problems in quoting the alleged “refutation”

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you can’t quote any……………can you?

Still playing the same games, I see. What a surprise.

See posts #29, 33, 43, 69, 86, 87, 92, 104, 105, 106, 112, 125, 126, 129, 146, 147, 151, 153 and 157.

Don't ask me again. I'm not playing your games.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fact that you are in need for making semantic games shows how deserted and cornered you are

Projection.

No you did not, you refuted straw man you have been told multiple times……………. And you know it…………. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any problems in quoting the alleged “refutation”

Projection.

Same old tired games.

 

[leroy]

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.

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

no that doesn’t follows……… being intelligent and capable of solving problems doesn’t necessarily imply that you also have to experience conscious suffering.

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.

Yes but that is not the kind of “useful” that would be selected by NS

 

[leroy]

Still playing the same games, I see. What a surprise.

See posts #29, 33, 43, 69, 86, 87, 92, 104, 105, 106, 112, 125, 126, 129, 146, 147, 151, 153 and 157.

Don't ask me again. I'm not playing your games.

Ok you re unable to quote the alleged refutation

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok you re unable to quote the alleged refutation

I just gave you the post numbers.
Is this a joke??

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

no that doesn’t follows……… being intelligent and capable of solving problems doesn’t necessarily imply that you also have to experience conscious suffering.

Oh, I see. There should be a consciousness "off switch" if you get a boo-boo! Yes, of course -- evolution is thoroughly refuted now!

Yes but that is not the kind of “useful” that would be selected by NS

Why not? The various gaits of animals for different speeds/reasons would certainly be selected by NS, so why not a limp to keep weight off of a wound? Why would NS not select for licking a wound, if that helps it heal?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact that you are in need for making semantic games shows how deserted and cornered you are

*I'm* playing semantic claims? No, Leroy, it's you doing that. "Require" and "benefit from" or "being useful" are distinct concepts. You're sloppy with your use of words. Meanings morph between sentences.

No you did not, you refuted straw man

How would you know? You don't understand either the meaning of what you write or the meaning of the words you read.

And you know it…………. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any problems in quoting the alleged “refutation”

I don't have any problem finding my or any of the other dozen or so refutations of your claims in this thread. I just won't do it for you, and you know why. You get one chance at each post (or more if you choose to go back and reread one). You either need to pay attention to it then and reply responsively at that time or say goodbye to that information forever. And if your memory is poor, make notes. No second chances for you Leroy. You've called me a liar, and you still are. Why would you think that I want to help you after that? I don't. Find it yourself or remain in darkness. I'm good with both, but not with fetching old posts for you.

You’re just typing random numbers

This is also why I don't bother fetching data for you. You don't look when spoon-fed post numbers just as you didn't look when they were originally posted. You play a game where you end up calling others liars without even lifting a finger to try to validate that accusation, claiming like the other creationist currently active on RF that nobody can refute you when the opposite is the case - everybody can and has refuted you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why is suffering “complex”?

Suffering simply exists in animals with a complex nervous system as a natural part of life. Complex nervous systems are naturally complex and evolve.

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”

False suffering can lead to the failure of animals to thrive, reproduce, or be active in the survival of the community of animals. Suffering exists in all animals with a complex nervous system. It is the extremes of suffering that are detrimental to the survival of the species.

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 are not expected to evolve.

Only if they are harmful to the survival of the species then, of course. they do not survive. There are genes that are sort of useless and some unknowns that persist, but they are not subject to selection survival of the species.

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

Yes, animals with complex nervous systems do suffer and feel pain and are consumed by other animals. Simple animals and plants do not suffer, because they lack the complex nervous system This is natural nature of life on earth.

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

This is not true. Those animals that suffer to the extent they fail to survive and reproduce do indeed are subject to natural existence. Yes, animals may suffer and die naturally in the course of their life. Suffering is a natural part of animals with a centra nervous system.

The skeptic is expected to refute one of these premises.

All refuted. Methodological Naturalism has an adequate explanation for the suffering of life in the world, and suffering is a factor in Natural Selection..

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

There is a very adequate explanation for the evolution of consciousness in the evolution of the complex nervous system, which independently evolved in cephalopods independent of the nervous systems in the rest of the animal kingdom, and shows extreme intelligence and consciousness. Actually, consciousness and intelligence in degrees of complexity are ubiquitous in all the animal kingdoms with an advanced complex nervous system.

 

[leroy]

I just gave you the post numbers.
Is this a joke??

You’re just typing random numbers………

Quote my actual words and the alleged refutation for those words…………. Can you do that? No because you know that such refutation doesn’t exists.

 

[leroy]

Oh, I see. There should be a consciousness "off switch" if you get a boo-boo! Yes, of course -- evolution is thoroughly refuted now!

There are many mechanisms that work unconsciously……. One can be conscious about something and unconscious bout other things………… it is not like you ether become conscious bout everything or nothing,

Why not? The various gaits of animals for different speeds/reasons would certainly be selected by NS, so why not a limp to keep weight off of a wound? Why would NS not select for licking a wound, if that helps it heal?

Ok, I thought you were talking about something different .

Licking an injury is n uncocoius reaction; animals do it without the awareness that it would help them.

one doesnt need concious suffering in order to lick an injury.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There are many mechanisms that work unconsciously……. One can be conscious about something and unconscious bout other things………… it is not like you ether become conscious bout everything or nothing,


Ok, I thought you were talking about something different .

Licking an injury is n uncocoius reaction; animals do it without the awareness that it would help them.

one doesnt need concious suffering in order to lick an injury.

Okay, now you're just being silly. As always, you are wedded to your theory, and will torture each and every bit of data that contradicts it into something it simply is not. You are hinting, for example (without saying so directly), that a dog or a cat with an injury isn't consciously aware of pain. Anybody who has ever had a pet can tell you how incorrect you are.

But alas, this has always been your way.

 

[leroy]

*I'm* playing semantic claims? No, Leroy, it's you doing that. "Require" and "benefit from" or "being useful" are distinct concepts. You're sloppy with your use of words. Meanings morph between sentences.

How would you know? You don't understand either the meaning of what you write or the meaning of the words you read.

I don't have any problem finding my or any of the other dozen or so refutations of your claims in this thread. I just won't do it for you, and you know why. You get one chance at each post (or more if you choose to go back and reread one). You either need to pay attention to it then and reply responsively at that time or say goodbye to that information forever. And if your memory is poor, make notes. No second chances for you Leroy. You've called me a liar, and you still are. Why would you think that I want to help you after that? I don't. Find it yourself or remain in darkness. I'm good with both, but not with fetching old posts for you.

Why would you think that I want to help you after that?

No I wouldn’t think that you would want to help me, …… but I would think that you would try to show that you are not lying ,if you’re being accused for being liar. Specially because you could show that you’re not lying with simple copy-paste

That is what typical person would do.

The fact that you’re not willing to show the opposite and making ridiculous excuses for not supporting your claim is very telling ………

 

[leroy]

Okay, now you're just being silly. As always, you are wedded to your theory, and will torture each and every bit of data that contradicts it into something it simply is not. You are hinting, for example (without saying so directly), that a dog or a cat with an injury isn't consciously aware of pain. Anybody who has ever had a pet can tell you how incorrect you are.

But alas, this has always been your way.

no I never said nor implied that (in red letters above)

What I said is that licking an injury is natural reaction and this reaction is not dependent on “conscious suffering”……… even us humans lick our injuries even when it doesn’t hurt.