What Is Man?

[Tassman]

Then the laws of nature did not create us to be truth seekers, nor did they care if we were truth seekers. So where this ability to know and understand truth come from?

It evolved as a survival mechanism, where else would it come from, God? There’s no evidence of this. The capacity to investigate and understand factual truths about how the laws of nature function have great survival value.

And I'm not speaking of "spiritual values." I'm speaking of truths, like 1+1=2.

There are no absolute truths, merely what we define to be true, including mathematical “truths” such as 1+1=2.

But Tass, I have told you a dozen times. I'm a Christian and dualist, I am not limited to seeing everything in a materialistic, deterministic model.

You are if you intend to offer more than unsubstantiated theological opinions. There is no credible evidence for the existence of a 'soul' and unevidenced conjecture based upon religious dogma is unacceptable.

Having said that, I already suggested that our intelligence can lift us our of that model. A monkey does not think in concepts or abstracts. He may build a nest by instinct, but we can create an abstract shelter in our minds and act on that. A dog doesn't understand long term consequences of certain acts - we do and can adjust our behavior based on that abstract understanding.

For a million years Homo sapiens lived almost identically to the other primates, fashioning primitive tools, exercising the ability for strategic planning and maintaining social units. Our higher intelligence has enabled to move beyond our simian cousins. But it has been a continuous process and we remain no more than highly intelligent primates despite your delusions of grandeur about our special place in the universe.

Wait, so there is immoral behavior according to you? But does it really matter since we have no choice in whether we act immorally or not.

Yes it matters. We are genetically predisposed to care about the cohesion of the social organism to which we belong and we actively work to ensure its maintenance. It's instinctive. It matters a great deal if anti-social individuals damage the fabric of our society and we remove such persons from society for its own protection.

I have to hand it to you Tass, that is a great way to dismiss your guilt.

What guilt? Speak for yourself seer and stop judging others.

Yes it is a fact that you have formed a world view

YES! A world-view based upon empirically verified facts in contrast your world-view based upon unsubstantiated, pre-scientific supernatural ideation.

that let's you off the hook for any and all immoral behavior. Kudos bro!

Nonsense! The community in which we live does not let me, or you, off the hook for immoral behavious. We are responsible to the laws of the community, not an alleged invisible deity, and the community has the power to punish us when we transgress.

[seer]

It evolved as a survival mechanism, where else would it come from, God? There’s no evidence of this. The capacity to investigate and understand factual truths about how the laws of nature function have great survival value.

But the laws of nature do not care about our survival or aim for our survival. Any more than they care for, or aim, at truth or rationality. Of for that matter consciousness. So where do these abilities come from?

You are if you intend to offer more than unsubstantiated theological opinions. There is no credible evidence for the existence of a 'soul' and unevidenced conjecture based upon religious dogma is unacceptable.

But why should I assume that you, or science in general, understands the universe or the human mind so completely that you can categorically reject the idea. In other words why should I believe that science can answer all questions?

For a million years Homo sapiens lived almost identically to the other primates, fashioning primitive tools, exercising the ability for strategic planning and maintaining social units. Our higher intelligence has enabled to move beyond our simian cousins. But it has been a continuous process and we remain no more than highly intelligent primates despite your delusions of grandeur about our special place in the universe.

Sure and perhaps our freedom of the will grew as our cognitive abilities grew. Thinking in the abstract, in sophisticated language, understanding long term consequences of behavior offers choices and understanding that other animals simply do not have. So yes, I think our minds, or intelligence, breaks the causal chain - we are not slaves to our genetics.

Yes it matters. We are genetically predisposed to care about the cohesion of the social organism to which we belong and we actively work to ensure its maintenance. It's instinctive. It matters a great deal if anti-social individuals damage the fabric of our society and we remove such persons from society for its own protection.

But why does it even matter if we survive as a species? Does it matter any more than the millions of species that went extinct before us? And given our history it seems that it also instinctive to slaughter our fellow man.

What guilt? Speak for yourself seer and stop judging others.

See, your determinism is working great for you!

Nonsense! The community in which we live does not let me, or you, off the hook for immoral behavious. We are responsible to the laws of the community, not an alleged invisible deity, and the community has the power to punish us when we transgress.

No Tass, I did not say illegal behaviors, I said immoral behaviors, the two are not necessarily the same. But like you said "what guilt."

[seer]

Most physicists agree that, given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws inevitably governs both the future and the past. In short we live in a deterministic universe. And since all living creatures in this universe interact with each other and with other objects in it, determinism must hold true for animals and people as well.

Yes and 99% of Dentists recommend Crest toothpaste! Please, we can't even figure out this universe, we really don't understand the quantum world, dark matter/energy - things that are key - but you can make such sweeping claims!

[JimL]

Well no Jim, even leaving the subjective objective argument, science is no where near proving that we don't have free will. Again, if they can not even figure out how or even why in principle, one of the main features of human rationality, self-awareness came about then sorry - science is in no position to make any claim. Never mind the fact that science is often wrong. And again, you discount the subjective way too much - your consciousness experience, your self-awareness, is completely subjective.

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.

Again from Harris:

Unlike that of consciousness, free will does not attest to itself, so you are misapplying Harris's quote to this argument.

But you already agree that the evolutionary process did not create us to be logical, that the process does not aim for such things.

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.

OK, so let me get this right - we were created by a process that cares nothing for truth, logic, rationality or even survival yet it created creatures that do care for all these things? Really? To me that is like saying that a river can rise about its source.

The evolutionary process produced creatures that don't care for these things as well seer, but the one thing they all care about is survival, which is only natural.

[Tassman]

But the laws of nature do not care about our survival or aim for our survival. Any more than they care for, or aim, at truth or rationality. Of for that matter consciousness. So where do these abilities come from?

They evolved as survival mechanisms such as are common to all living creatures. It has nothing to do with “goals” or “caring” or “purpose”. It’s just the way things are, no more than that.

But why should I assume that you, or science in general, understands the universe or the human mind so completely that you can categorically reject the idea. In other words why should I believe that science can answer all questions?

The existence of a “soul” is not being categorically rejected. But to date there is no credible evidence for the existence of a 'soul' and unevidenced conjecture based upon religious dogma is unacceptable.

Science doesn't claim to answer all questions but nevertheless all the reliable evidence we have of the universe and the human mind points to a natural explanation and none of it points to a supernatural explanation.

Sure and perhaps our freedom of the will grew as our cognitive abilities grew. Thinking in the abstract, in sophisticated language, understanding long term consequences of behavior offers choices and understanding that other animals simply do not have. So yes, I think our minds, or intelligence, breaks the causal chain - we are not slaves to our genetics.

Begging the Question! You are assuming that autonomous Free-Will exists in the first place. There is no good reason to think that it does or that we are anything more than highly intelligent primates.

But why does it even matter if we survive as a species? Does it matter any more than the millions of species that went extinct before us? And given our history it seems that it also instinctive to slaughter our fellow man.

It matter as to us instinctively as a species; it doesn't matter at all in the general scheme of things.

See, your determinism is working great for you!

So your argument is that Determinism works to my advantage in justifying my unbridled lusts and violence? Actually, it works to curb them as a member of a social species genetically predisposed to observe the rules of the community. But it's an interesting reflection on your reliance on the fear of eternal punishment to keep your insatiable lusts in check; I have no such need.

No Tass, I did not say illegal behaviors, I said immoral behaviors, the two are not necessarily the same. But like you said "what guilt."

Morality is not eternal and absolute. It is a codified system of behaviour grounded in our evolved instincts for reciprocity, altruism, conflict resolution and response to the social rules of the group.

Yes and 99% of Dentists recommend Crest toothpaste!

Minimization/Trivialisation argument!

Please, we can't even figure out this universe, we really don't understand the quantum world, dark matter/energy - things that are key - but you can make such sweeping claims

Science knows a great deal about this universe and “such sweeping claims” are based on the demonstrable fact that ALL the reliable evidence we have points to Causal Determinism, and none of it points to anything else.

[seer]

They evolved as survival mechanisms such as are common to all living creatures. It has nothing to do with “goals” or “caring” or “purpose”. It’s just the way things are, no more than that.

But why would the laws of nature do any such thing? They are non-rational, non-intending, they do not aim for survival - yet they accidentally(?) created rational creatures who care about survival, truth, etc...?

The existence of a “soul” is not being categorically rejected. But to date there is no credible evidence for the existence of a 'soul' and unevidenced conjecture based upon religious dogma is unacceptable.

Science doesn't claim to answer all questions but nevertheless all the reliable evidence we have of the universe and the human mind points to a natural explanation and none of it points to a supernatural explanation.

Who says that Revelation is unacceptable? You? Why does your opinion carry any weight? And if men have an immaterial spirit it would be beyond science to prove or disprove. So science has nothing to add.

Begging the Question! You are assuming that autonomous Free-Will exists in the first place. There is no good reason to think that it does or that we are anything more than highly intelligent primates.

No Tass, I'm not begging the question, I'm making the argument that thinking in the abstract, with sophisticated language, and understanding long term consequences of behavior offers choices that other animals do not have. I have no reason to assume that higher cognitive abilities can not lead to more freedom of the will.

It matter as to us instinctively as a species; it doesn't matter at all in the general scheme of things.

Correct, in the big picture we are meaningless...

So your argument is that Determinism works to my advantage in justifying my unbridled lusts and violence? Actually, it works to curb them as a member of a social species genetically predisposed to observe the rules of the community. But it's an interesting reflection on your reliance on the fear of eternal punishment to keep your insatiable lusts in check; I have no such need.

Nice try Tass! But again, it must be comforting to know that no matter what immoral behavior you practice that it wasn't your fault - you were predetermined to act that way. It was out of your control.

Science knows a great deal about this universe and “such sweeping claims” are based on the demonstrable fact that ALL the reliable evidence we have points to Causal Determinism, and none of it points to anything else.

That is absolute bunk, we don't even understand the main features of the universe.

[seer]

Unlike that of consciousness, free will does not attest to itself, so you are misapplying Harris's quote to this argument.

I'm not misapplying his quote. I'm making the point that science can not account for consciousness. So what's the big deal if they can not account for freedom of the will? They simply do not know enough. Also, my free choices attest to themselves everyday. I freely chose to reply to you this morning - there was nothing preventing from not replying.

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.

Well no it is not obvious. There is no reason to assume that we are merely the by product of laws that did not intend us, did not aim at rationality, or survival, or consciousness. That these dumb forces of nature just happened to accidentally create such things.

[JonathanL]

First off, you can not empirically verify anyones subjective experiences, and the claims of spiritual experiences are not empirical verification of the experience itself, they are empirical verification of the claims made. Do you see the difference?

But you would presumably be able to have these experiences yourself by going through some spiritual exercises, such as meditation, or prayer. And when the claims are numerous enough, it seems more like a cop out to assert that it only verifies the claims of spiritual experiences, but not the experiences themselves. At some point such a rejection begins to look more and more ludicrous.

When you say that the knowledge or data is filtered through your mind, you are admitting to your belief that your mind is not the source of the data that it filters, which means that it is a subjective verification of an objective reality.

Yes, I believe that there is an external objective reality. But I don't believe it because of some sort of repeatable empirical verification, I believe it as an axiom.

Except for the fact that there are specific differences in each of our particular internal models of reality as compared to the consensus reality that we all agree on. Color blindness for example: You may see the house as red while i see it as blue, but we will both agree that the door is open. There are many more examples, animals for instance subjectively experince the objective reality differently than we do. In other words our subjective perceptions of reality may somewhat differ, but in contrast the consensus reality concerning the objective world is shared.

There's absolutely nothing in this paragraph that let's you avoid the fact that using repeatable empirical verification in order to try and prove the objectivity of the external reality is an exercise in circularity.

Thats rather funny Chrawnus. You have a small collection of books, a small portion of physical reality, and all we have is the entirety of physical reality to verify truth. That doesn't even make sense on its face. Besides if it were books that made the difference, there are many more books about the truth of existence written from a scientific perspective than there are of your biblical account. I guess we win. The only consensus reality agreed upon concerning the bible is that there is a book called the bible.

It doesn't make sense because the point flew right over your head. My statement was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but my point was simply that when it comes to diversity of sources, the bible seems to win by far, given that you'd arguably count the external reality as a single source, while the Bible consists of several different sources.

And if we're talking consensus, the fact that idealism exists as a metaphysical worldview is a pretty big blow to your assertion of consensus concerning the objective reality of the external world.

As above, the objectivity of the external reality is evident in the differences in each of our particular subjective experiences of it as well as in our consensus experiences. We don't all agree on everything, but we all agree on the essentials. We all agree on whether or not the door is open!

Do we? What about the idealists? Do they have a say in this, or does "we all" only include everyone who agrees with you?

[seer]

Do we? What about the idealists? Do they have a say in this, or does "we all" only include everyone who agrees with you?

Jim should know better, since he had an interesting discussion with a pretty knowledgeable idealist recently.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...problem/page15

[Tassman]

But why would the laws of nature do any such thing? They are non-rational, non-intending, they do not aim for survival - yet they accidentally(?) created rational creatures who care about survival, truth, etc...?

The Laws of Nature didn't set out to do anything as such. But the structure of of our brains, and the ability to think and reason, has been refined over the millennia via minute incremental changes to adapt to specific needs. This is what we call "Evolution".

Thus, Evolution via natural selection resulted in the modifications which enhanced our ability to survive and remained for future generations more often than those which didn't. And obviously our ability to think rationally and draw reliable conclusions from our reasoning enhanced our ability to survive. If it didn't this ability would probably have died out.

Who says that Revelation is unacceptable? You? Why does your opinion carry any weight? And if men have an immaterial spirit it would be beyond science to prove or disprove. So science has nothing to add.

...and you have nothing to say except that “I want to believe in a soul”. And your sole evidence (pun intended) for this belief is unevidenced “revelation”. This is known in psychology as Wish Fulfilment, i.e. "the satisfaction of a desire or the release of emotional tension through such processes as dreams, daydreams, and neurotic symptoms”.

No Tass, I'm not begging the question, I'm making the argument that thinking in the abstract, with sophisticated language, and understanding long term consequences of behavior offers choices that other animals do not have.

The precursors of all the above qualities (language, future planning, tool-making etc) exist among all the primates in nascent form. All the evidence indicates that we are merely highly intelligent primates, no different in kind to the other primates. Just cleverer!

I have no reason to assume that higher cognitive abilities can not lead to more freedom of the will.

And no reason to assume that it can lead to more freedom of the will. In short you believe you have Free-Will without substantive evidence

Correct, in the big picture we are meaningless...

…but as a species our natural instinct is to survive, which is an evolved instinct we have in common with ALL living things from earthworms to gorillas.

Nice try Tass! But again, it must be comforting to know that no matter what immoral behavior you practice that it wasn't your fault - you were predetermined to act that way. It was out of your control.

What "immoral behaviour"?

You assume without evidence that “morality” exists in absolute terms as something separate from the community to which we belong and our natural instinct to conform to the norms of the group. It doesn't. Our code of morality is based upon our evolved genetic predisposition to observe the rules of the community. And yes, such behaviour is largely determined behaviour, just as it is for all other living creatures.

That is absolute bunk, we don't even understand the main features of the universe.

We understand considerable more than our ancestors did, thanks largely to the natural sciences, despite the consistent, continual resistance of religion - even to this day. And the fact remains that ALL the reliable evidence we have acquired to date points a complete set of laws fully determining both the future and the past of the universe.

[seer]

The Laws of Nature didn't set out to do anything as such. But the structure of of our brains, and the ability to think and reason, has been refined over the millennia via minute incremental changes to adapt to specific needs. This is what we call "Evolution".

Thus, Evolution via natural selection resulted in the modifications which enhanced our ability to survive and remained for future generations more often than those which didn't. And obviously our ability to think rationally and draw reliable conclusions from our reasoning enhanced our ability to survive. If it didn't this ability would probably have died out.

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. And you are correct, the laws of nature did not set out to do anything - so we have incremental accident after incremental accident that just happen, by luck, to create rational beings.

...and you have nothing to say except that “I want to believe in a soul”. And your sole evidence (pun intended) for this belief is unevidenced “revelation”. This is known in psychology as Wish Fulfilment, i.e. "the satisfaction of a desire or the release of emotional tension through such processes as dreams, daydreams, and neurotic symptoms”.

LOL, so now your are a psychologist! 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.

The precursors of all the above qualities (language, future planning, tool-making etc) exist among all the primates in nascent form. All the evidence indicates that we are merely highly intelligent primates, no different in kind to the other primates. Just cleverer!

And no reason to assume that it can lead to more freedom of the will. In short you believe you have Free-Will without substantive evidence

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

What "immoral behaviour"?

Are you here claiming that you never did anything immoral?

We understand considerable more than our ancestors did, thanks largely to the natural sciences, despite the consistent, continual resistance of religion - even to this day. And the fact remains that ALL the reliable evidence we have acquired to date points a complete set of laws fully determining both the future and the past of the universe.

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.

[shunyadragon]

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. And you are correct, the laws of nature did not set out to do anything - so we have incremental accident after incremental accident that just happen, by luck, to create rational beings.

There are no specific behaviors that are of survival in general in the diverse spectrum of life on earth. Just because most life does not necessarily evolve self awareness and the ability to think and reason to have 'survival value,' does not mean that some species like those in the primate family do not have survival value for their evolution. In fact the evolution of an intelligent opportunistic omnivores of the primate family definitely do have survival value for progressively evolving these abilities in competing with those that do as well. No, you cannot assume anything in evolution is 'accidental.' Evolution is not a process of 'accidents,' it is a process of opportunistic 'change' through genetic mutations which create a genetic diversity to evolve in adaptation to different environments.

[JonathanL]

There are no specific behaviors that are of survival in general in the diverse spectrum of life on earth. Just because most life does not self awareness and the ability to think and reason have 'survival value,' does not mean fore some species like those in the primate family do not have survival value for their evolution. In fact the evolution of an intelligent opportunistic omnivores of the primate family definitely do have survival value for progressively evolving these abilities in competing with those that do as well. No, you cannot assume anything in evolution is 'accidental.' Evolution is not a process of 'accidents,' it is a process of opportunistic 'change' through genetic mutations which create a genetic diversity to evolve in adaptation to different environments.

Have you ever heard of syntax, shuny?

[seer]

No, you cannot assume anything in evolution is 'accidental.' Evolution is not a process of 'accidents,' it is a process of opportunistic 'change' through genetic mutations which create a genetic diversity to evolve in adaptation to different environments.

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

[JimL]

I'm not misapplying his quote. I'm making the point that science can not account for consciousness. So what's the big deal if they can not account for freedom of the will? They simply do not know enough. Also, my free choices attest to themselves everyday. I freely chose to reply to you this morning - there was nothing preventing from not replying.

Science cannot account for consciousness, but consciousness, unlike that of free will, just like Harris said, attests to itself. There is no question as to whether we are conscious or not, but consciousness itself does not do anything, so in its present existing context there is no causal chain. But the question does remain as to whether or not our choices are free. Your choices attest to themselves every day yes, but they do not attest to being free choices. Thats an assumption that you are making on the basis of your subjective feeling that the choices you make are freely made. You could be right, and i have a feeling that you may be right, but we could also be wrong, and the science to this point does not support those feelings.

Well no it is not obvious. There is no reason to assume that we are merely the by product of laws that did not intend us, did not aim at rationality, or survival, or consciousness. That these dumb forces of nature just happened to accidentally create such things.

But there is reason to assume it, which is why we do assume it, and the reason is because the laws as we so far understand them predict it. As i said before, i have a sneaky suspiscion that there may be still a not yet understood mystery within the laws wherein both consciousness and free will, the two of which i think are correlated, somehow emerge from out of the otherwise deterministic laws which seem to pertain for the rest of the universe. I think that this emergent property may be a product of the evolution and complex structure of the brain itself. But of course, and i have no problem admitting it, this is pure speculation on my part at this point.