What Is Man?

[shunyadragon]

Have you ever heard of syntax, shuny?

Oh yes, but the syntax referred to is not suitable here. Accident in this case does not work either way.

[shunyadragon]

When I say accidental I mean without intent or purpose. accidental: occurring by chance, unexpectedly, or unintentionally

Still does not work, the processes of nature including evolution do not take place by 'chance,' nor 'unexpectedly.' If you include intentionally/unitentionally' you are giving an anthropomorphic context to 'accident.' Yes, evolution is not intentional, but it is not by 'chance,' 'unexpected,' nor 'accidental.'

Everything that takes place in nature involves events that must follow the constraints of Natural Law including evolution. Lawman's use of the word chance fails to describe the variation of events in nature. These variation events in nature follow a fractal pattern within the constraints of the Laws of Nature and the environment. Fvolution follows a predicable pattern in nature that is predicable and falsifiable Methodological Naturalism.

[JonathanL]

Oh yes, but the syntax referred to is not suitable here. Accident in this case does not work either way.

I'm referring to the syntax (i.e sentence structure) of your writing. At times it's so off the walls that trying to figure out what you mean feels more like pure guesswork than anything else.

[seer]

Still does not work, the processes of nature including evolution do not take place by 'chance,' nor 'unexpectedly.' If you include intentionally/unitentionally' you are giving an anthropomorphic context to 'accident.' Yes, evolution is not intentional, but it is not by 'chance,' 'unexpected,' nor 'accidental.'

Nonsense Shuny, random mutations that create biological novelty are not directed, they have no purpose, and they do not aim towards a goal. It is only by chance that we ended up as we did. There is nothing in the laws of nature that makes it inevitable that we turn out this way - that is pure chance.

[Tassman]

This is a nice bed time story Tass, but makes no sense. Most creatures are not rational yet survive just fine. So this ability is not necessary for survival, neither is self-awareness.

Yet again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody has said it is "necessary". But it is useful for some species, including the primate species to which we belong. Shunya spells it out in greater detail in his excellent post #522, which is in direct response to this comment of yours.

LOL, so now your are a psychologist!

Yes, actually.

The fact is Tass, you are not an authority on what is possible or not, your knowledge is too limited. And like we discussed in the past Tass, you could not even offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence. One that would actually track with our experience. Everything Tass, every true thing, does not have to be open to scientific investigation to be valid.

Besides, if you are correct - I was predetermined to be religious, which probably enhances our ability to survive. Atheism is the minority position in human history and most likely detrimental to human survival.

So, mini-rant aside, what is your evidence for the existence of a “soul”, apart from your alleged “revelation” that it exists. Also, at what point in the evolutionary chain was it implanted? And how does a purely spiritual entity, such as a soul, interact with the material body, i.e. what is the nexus?

Nonsense, simple tool making tells us nothing. Animals do think in the abstract, us sophisticated language, or understand long term consequences of behavior. That is why higher primates are still living in trees and we are living in air conditioned skyscrapers and flying to the moon.

Nevertheless, despite your species snobbery, we are not unique. Evolutionary biologists and socio-biologists have demonstrated that, though human social behaviours are complex, the precursors of most human qualities, including morality, can be traced to the behaviours of many other social animals. Thus, we are merely highly intelligent primates, no different in kind to the other primates.

And with greater intelligence comes more options, and with more options come more choices.

Certainly! But this is not an argument for Free-Will. Nor is it an argument for humans being different in kind from our simian cousins; just more intelligent.

Are you here claiming that you never did anything immoral?

I was responding to your ludicrous Evangelical attitude of ascribing dire motives for my views on Determinism, namely to avoid the consequences of my depraved addiction to “immoral behaviour”.

Come back you me when you can fully explain the quantum world - which is the basis for everything. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

Oh! YOU can fully explain the quantum world?

I’m stating the undeniable fact that ALL the reliable evidence we have acquired to date points to a complete set of laws fully determining both the future and the past of the universe. Over several hundred years of applied scientific research, conducted by countless experts, ALL the reliable evidence we have acquired to date about the universe, and our place in it, points to naturalism. NONE of it points to anything else

[seer]

Yet again you misrepresent the argument. Nobody has said it is "necessary". But it is useful for some species, including the primate species to which we belong. Shunya spells it out in greater detail in his excellent post #522, which is in direct response to this comment of yours.

No Shuny assumes. There are many higher forms of mammals that survive just fine with zero self-awareness. There is absolutely no reason to assume it is, or was, necessary for the survival of any species. You are just making stuff up now.

Yes, actually.

Then you are not a very good...

So, mini-rant aside, what is your evidence for the existence of a “soul”, apart from your alleged “revelation” that it exists. Also, at what point in the evolutionary chain was it implanted? And how does a purely spiritual entity, such as a soul, interact with the material body, i.e. what is the nexus?

This is all predicated on the idea that we even have a clue. We don't. And if the soul did exist it would be beyond science to understand or quantify, we would only know about it by Revelation. Or perhaps there simply would be unanswerable questions that point to "something" else - like human consciousness.

Nevertheless, despite your species snobbery, we are not unique. Evolutionary biologists and socio-biologists have demonstrated that, though human social behaviours are complex, the precursors of most human qualities, including morality, can be traced to the behaviours of many other social animals. Thus, we are merely highly intelligent primates, no different in kind to the other primates.

Nonsense, higher primates in the wild are light years behind us. They haven't even developed primitive writing or art. And there is zero evidence that they ever will. They do not think in the abstract, us sophisticated language, or understand long term consequences of behavior. Like I said, that is why they are still living in trees and we are living in air conditioned skyscrapers and flying to the moon. Greater intelligence obviously brings more options and choices.

Certainly! But this is not an argument for Free-Will. Nor is it an argument for humans being different in kind from our simian cousins; just more intelligent.

No, because we are no longer slaves to instincts. Perhaps you are, but that is your problem.

I was responding to your ludicrous Evangelical attitude of ascribing dire motives for my views on Determinism, namely to avoid the consequences of my depraved addiction to “immoral behaviour”.

So I'm asking you - are you claiming that you never did anything immoral? The answer is important to the discussion.

Oh! YOU can fully explain the quantum world?

No, I can't fully explain the quantum world, and neither can anyone else. And the quantum world is the basis for everything - so get back to me when that proves determinism.

[Tassman]

No Shuny assumes.

Nonsense! Shunya gave a very succinct summary; it was spot on.

There are many higher forms of mammals that survive just fine with zero self-awareness. There is absolutely no reason to assume it is, or was, necessary for the survival of any species. You are just making stuff up now.

Correct! Self-awareness has not universally evolved. But the fact that it has evolved in some creatures indicates that has survival value for them.

Ten creatures with self-awareness are listed here:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.c...awareness.html

Note that our two nearest relatives, Bonobos and Chimpanzees, are included so self-awareness presumably has survival value for the likes of us. If it didn't it most probably would have been bred out.

Then you are not a very good...

No longer practising but good enough to recognize escapist wish fulfilment fantasies when I see them.

This is all predicated on the idea that we even have a clue. We don't. And if the soul did exist it would be beyond science to understand or quantify, we would only know about it by Revelation.

So you don’t know how the soul developed or how it interacts with the material body. You just KNOW that it does. Right!

Or perhaps there simply would be unanswerable questions that point to "something" else - like human consciousness.

Human consciousness does not point to “something else”. There is no reason to think that it is not a naturally selected human quality just as every other attribute has been shown to have evolved naturally. NONE, upon investigation, have been shown to have some sort of non-natural or supernatural origin.

Nonsense, higher primates in the wild are light years behind us. They haven't even developed primitive writing or art. And there is zero evidence that they ever will. They do not think in the abstract, us sophisticated language, or understand long term consequences of behavior. Like I said, that is why they are still living in trees and we are living in air conditioned skyscrapers and flying to the moon. Greater intelligence obviously brings more options and choices.

That’s not the point.

The demonstrable fact is that the other primates posses, in rudimentary form, the precursors of virtually every human quality – including altruism, communication skills, morality and obeying the rules of the group. We were much the same as them a million years ago but our high intelligence has enabled us to rise above our origins – as you say. But essentially we are merely intelligent primates – or “naked apes” (meaning hairless) as zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris describes our species.

No, because we are no longer slaves to instincts.

Neither we nor our simian cousins are slaves to instincts, although we are heavily influenced by our genetic preconditioning. But Determinism doesn’t imply that we cannot make effective choices as an interactive part of the causal process.

Perhaps you are, but that is your problem.

Ah, the smug self-assurance of the "saved"; or is it delusion? The latter I think, there's no credible evidence of the former.

So I'm asking you - are you claiming that you never did anything immoral? The answer is important to the discussion.

I don’t recognize the existence of morality as an absolute concept. Any notion that an invisible deity is responsible for our ethical constructs is a bald assertion, not least because the postulate that this invisible deity even exists is also a bald assertion. As a direct consequence, the evidence supports the notion that morality is a human invention the precursors of which can be found among the other primates.

Thus, my breaches of morality have consisted of breaking minor laws, speed tickets and the like. And sadly, on occasions, causing hurt to others wittingly or unwittingly, which I deeply regret.

OTOH: Given the shocking history of cruelty and injustices of religion (right up to today) there's no reason to think that religious dogma results in high moral standards anywhere where it is dominant.

No, I can't fully explain the quantum world, and neither can anyone else. And the quantum world is the basis for everything - so get back to me when that proves determinism.

So, you acknowledge that you don’t understand the quantum world although you say that it is the basis for everything. Thus, you are not in a position to argue the case for Libertarian Free-Will or the existence of divinely revealed absolute morality.

As for "proving Determinism", given that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states, the onus is upon you say how and why this doesn't apply to humans along with everything else. To argue that God intervened and gave a selected few Free-Will is a faith-statement, nothing more.

[seer]

Nonsense! Shunya gave a very succinct summary; it was spot on.



Correct! Self-awareness has not universally evolved. But the fact that it has evolved in some creatures indicates that has survival value for them.

Ten creatures with self-awareness are listed here:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.c...awareness.html

Note that our two nearest relatives, Bonobos and Chimpanzees, are included so self-awareness presumably has survival value for the likes of us. If it didn't it most probably would have been bred out.



No longer practising but good enough to recognize escapist wish fulfilment fantasies when I see them.



So you don’t know how the soul developed or how it interacts with the material body. You just KNOW that it does. Right!



Human consciousness does not point to “something else”. There is no reason to think that it is not a naturally selected human quality just as every other attribute has been shown to have evolved naturally. NONE, upon investigation, have been shown to have some sort of non-natural or supernatural origin.



That’s not the point.

The demonstrable fact is that the other primates posses, in rudimentary form, the precursors of virtually every human quality – including altruism, communication skills, morality and obeying the rules of the group. We were much the same as them a million years ago but our high intelligence has enabled us to rise above our origins – as you say. But essentially we are merely intelligent primates – or “naked apes” (meaning hairless) as zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris describes our species.



Neither we nor our simian cousins are slaves to instincts, although we are heavily influenced by our genetic preconditioning. But Determinism doesn’t imply that we cannot make effective choices as an interactive part of the causal process.



Ah, the smug self-assurance of the "saved"; or is it delusion? The latter I think, there's no credible evidence of the former.



I don’t recognize the existence of morality as an absolute concept. Any notion that an invisible deity is responsible for our ethical constructs is a bald assertion, not least because the postulate that this invisible deity even exists is also a bald assertion. As a direct consequence, the evidence supports the notion that morality is a human invention the precursors of which can be found among the other primates.

Thus, my breaches of morality have consisted of breaking minor laws, speed tickets and the like. And sadly, on occasions, causing hurt to others wittingly or unwittingly, which I deeply regret.

OTOH: Given the shocking history of cruelty and injustices of religion (right up to today) there's no reason to think that religious dogma results in high moral standards anywhere where it is dominant.



So, you acknowledge that you don’t understand the quantum world although you say that it is the basis for everything. Thus, you are not in a position to argue the case for Libertarian Free-Will or the existence of divinely revealed absolute morality.

As for "proving Determinism", given that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states, the onus is upon you say how and why this doesn't apply to humans along with everything else. To argue that God intervened and gave a selected few Free-Will is a faith-statement, nothing more.

Tass, I'm going to let this go for now. Peace...

[seer]

How or why consciousness came about is irrelevant in this discussion, it did, unless you want to argue that consciousness doesn't exist either. And again, i do not discount the subjective, its like saying that i discount the mind which is silly, what i discount is that the mind is the source of its own knowledge. The human mind, a.k.a. the brain, is a mechanism for learning, accumulating, and using knowledge, it isn't a vessel of inherent knowledge. If there were only human minds and no objective reality, no objective source from which to accumulate knowledge, then guess what, it wouldn't know anything. Subjective knowledge is a misnomer without an objective source from out which that knowledge is empirically derived.

No Jim, consciousness is relevant since it may be pointing to the limits of science. As Harris said there is nothing in the physical brain that would lead you to believe that we were self-aware. That even in principle physical causes can not account consciousness. So again, if our knowledge is that limited why on earth should I believe that freedom of the will is not possible? Based on what?

Well, obviously we did evolve to be logical, but evolution is not a mind, the evolution of the rational, logical thinking human mind is the result of a natural process.

It may be obvious to you that the laws of nature that care nothing for logic, rationality, self-awareness or survival, created creatures that do have these attributes, but it is not obvious to me at all. Nor is it obvious that they could.

[JimL]

No Jim, consciousness is relevant since it may be pointing to the limits of science. As Harris said there is nothing in the physical brain that would lead you to believe that we were self-aware. That even in principle physical causes can not account consciousness. So again, if our knowledge is that limited why on earth should I believe that freedom of the will is not possible? Based on what?

And my point was that this fact, that we don't understand consciousness as of yet, has nothing to do with the free will argument. Whether we understand consciousness as an emergent property of matter or not, its existence as a property attests to itself, as opposed to free will which does not attest to itself. Besides that, Harris's statement, in my opinion, is merely a statement based on ignorance, his own and ours alike. Just because he doesn't/we don't, see how matter could be conscious, doesn't mean that there is no explanation to be found. But again, the reason to doubt free will, is because no evidence for it, so far at least, has been found, and all the evidence that so far has been found points to a determined universe. Perhaps matter can free itself from its otherwise determined nature, I don't know, but I think its possible.

It may be obvious to you that the laws of nature that care nothing for logic, rationality, self-awareness or survival, created creatures that do have these attributes, but it is not obvious to me at all. Nor is it obvious that they could.

So, you do not believe in evolution, that at one time in the distant past, 9 billion years after the beginning of our universe, the emergent life was not rational or self aware but evolved to be so?

[Tassman]

To SEER:

So, you do not believe in evolution, that at one time in the distant past, 9 billion years after the beginning of our universe, the emergent life was not rational or self aware but evolved to be so?

Yes, that's the crux of the matter, for sure. Self-aware, intelligent creatures demonstrably do exist. So either they evolved via Natural Selection, as the considerable accumulation of evidence shows, OR they were created by God for which there is no substantiated evidence at all.

[seer]

So, you do not believe in evolution, that at one time in the distant past, 9 billion years after the beginning of our universe, the emergent life was not rational or self aware but evolved to be so?

No, I don't believe it all happened by "chance." I'm not saying there wasn't a progression of life from lower to higher forms. But unguided, accidental - no... I probably, at this point, lean towards Augustine's position.

http://www.rufnorthwestern.org/augus...gin-of-species

[JimL]

No, I don't believe it all happened by "chance." I'm not saying there wasn't a progression of life from lower to higher forms. But unguided, accidental - no... I probably, at this point, lean towards Augustine's position.

http://www.rufnorthwestern.org/augus...gin-of-species

So you do believe that matter, which of itself has nothing of consciousness or rationality, has the potential within itself to evolve to a point where it attains consciousness and rationality? Your issue does not seem to be that matter does not have this potential, your issue seems to be that the inherent potential of matter to become conscious and rational necessitates an engineeer. But if matter has the potential within itself to evolve consciousness and rationality, then it is only natural if it should over time reach its potential. Afterall we're talking 13 or more billion years of evolution. Surely if it were engineered, the process should have gone much faster. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence of an engineer or designer of the process, nor of design, since mutations seem to be completely random.

[seer]

So you do believe that matter, which of itself has nothing of consciousness or rationality, has the potential within itself to evolve to a point where it attains consciousness and rationality? Your issue does not seem to be that matter does not have this potential, your issue seems to be that the inherent potential of matter to become conscious and rational necessitates an engineeer. But if matter has the potential within itself to evolve consciousness and rationality, then it is only natural if it should over time reach its potential. Afterall we're talking 13 or more billion years of evolution. Surely if it were engineered, the process should have gone much faster. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence of an engineer or designer of the process, nor of design, since mutations seem to be completely random.

Time Jim would not be relevant. If we are in fact dealing with an eternal being time is of no consequence. This is what I don't have to believe: That this universe with its laws and parameters came about by chance. That biological life came about by chance, the the ecosystems that molded the progressive formation of higher life forms came about by chance. That non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did create something that is not inherent to their nature - consciousness and rationality, by chance. BTW Jim, mutations my be random to us, they would not be random to God.

[Tassman]

To: JimL

No, I don't believe it all happened by "chance." I'm not saying there wasn't a progression of life from lower to higher forms. But unguided, accidental - no... I probably, at this point, lean towards Augustine's position.

http://www.rufnorthwestern.org/augus...gin-of-species

You can believe whatever you like, but unless you can support your conjecture with some credible evidence then you are dealing with speculative faith-beliefs, not facts.

E.g. the opening section of your link about Augustine asserts: “Augustine draws out the following core themes: God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop…” etc.

These basic premises are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. They're bald assertions. Therefore any resultant conclusion cannot be shown to be true; they are faith-statements, no more than that.

You will have to do a lot better than this if you want to make a case that our rational, conscious attributes arose via any other means than natural processes.