My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[RandFan]

So what? I never said it was impossible that there was a benefit...

Hmmm.....

Yes it does. For crying in the dark. westprog's statement is as commonsense as can be. It's not saying that it demonstrates a benifit only that it is possible that it has benifits. Of course it's possible.

No it doesn't.

Ah, that'll mean that paedophilia isn't harmful then.

THAT'S a straw man. It's possible that it's a beneifit.

 

[RandFan]

I applied the adjective "wrong" to a biological process viewed from the POV of human DNA. For the DNA which makes us want to have sex, any sort of sex which has no hope of passing on genes is "wrong." It is a waste of energy, time and biological resources.

But homosexuals share genes with other family members. From the POV of the gene it's NOT wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hmmm.....

??????

THAT'S a straw man. It's possible that it's a beneifit.

I never said it wasn't, Randfan. That was your strawman, remember?

And you still can't spell "benefit".

 

[RandFan]

I never said it wasn't...

If you can look at that post and deny that you directly controverted my assertion that it was possible by saying "No it doesn't" then you are a bald face pervaricator.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But homosexuals share genes with other family members. From the POV of the gene it's NOT wrong.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, there's no actual evidence to support the claim that homosexuals put any more effort into helping to raise their siblings' children than to any other activity they take part in. This is just pseudoscientific hypothesising - saying something that sounds scientific but is actually motivated by sociopolitics and unsupported by any scientific evidence.

 

[RandFan]

How you got from what I actually posted to this strawman I do not know.

You said, "None that I can see...". That isn't grounds for a conclusion other than you know of no benefit.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you can look at that post and deny that you directly controverted my assertion that it was possible by saying "No it doesn't" then you are a bald face pervaricator.

The fact that the behaviour exists in a species that has survived at least shows that it is at least possible that it has benefits.

No it doesn't...

You are confusing the specific case of homosexuality with the general case of "all possible behaviour". It is possible that homosexuality is beneficial, but there's no evidence support the claim that it actually is. It is not possible that suicide is beneficial, regardless of the fact that it exists in humans.

And it's "bald-faced."

 

[RandFan]

Look up ant and bee genetics on the internet then come back when you have some idea what you are talking about, Randfan. Try "Haplodiploid sex-determination system".

I didn't invent the idea. A published evolutionary biologist did. It's not meant to be a conclusive answer. Just a possible explanation.

There are others.

Sniffing Out the Gay Gene by Pinker

Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.

See, instead of simply saying I can't see any benefit therefore it's "wrong" others are taking all of the facts into account and looking for answers.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You said, "None that I can see...". That isn't grounds for a conclusion other than you know of no benefit.

Wrong again. I have REPEATEDLY explained why it can be considered harmful. I never once said "I can't see a benefit therefore it is harmful" that is just your PERSISTENT strawman representation of what I am actually saying. I have said (a) that there is no evidence to support the claim that it is beneficial, just unsupported hypothesising of one sort or another and (b) that the very fact that it makes the passing-on of genes more difficult supports the claim that it is harmful from the POV of the individual organism concerned.

STOP ERECTING STRAWMEN.

 

[RandFan]

You are confusing the specific case of homosexuality with the general case of "all possible behaviour".

No. And it isn't even a nice try. You are lying. You could man up and admit you made a mistake.

 

[RandFan]

Wrong again. I have REPEATEDLY explained why it can be considered harmful. I never once said "I can't see a benefit therefore it is harmful" that is just your PERSISTENT strawman representation of what I actually saying. I have said (a) that there is no evidence to support the claim that it is beneficial, just unsupported hypothesising of one sort or anotjer and (b) that the very fact that it makes the passing-on of genes more difficult supports the claim that it is harmful from the POV of the individual organism concerned.

STOP ERECTING STRAWMEN.

So you give us "wrong" which means absolutely nothing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

See, instead of simply saying I can't see any benefit therefore it's "wrong" others are taking all of the facts into account and looking for answers.

Oh God! He used the word "maladaptive" about homosexuality! He must be a raving homophobe!!! Why use such offensive language?!!

Maladaptive? On the contrary, Dear Watson, it is an adaptation designed to aid the passing on of genes of brothers and sisters!

 

[RandFan]

UCE is demonstrably arguing from ignorance.

UCE: I can't see how it benefits therefore it's harmful.

IOW: I'm ignorant of the benefits threfore it's harmful.

This IS a straw man argument and I appologize (it's really not that hard to do).

It should have been.

UCE: I can't see how it benefits therefore it's "wrong".

Still an argument from ignorance.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No. And it isn't even a nice try. You are lying. You could man up and admit you made a mistake.

Oh dear...run out of arguments again, Randfan? You really ought to learn to stop posting when you've been beaten. Have a nice evening. I have some mushrooms to identify.

 

[RandFan]

Oh God! He used the word "maladaptive" about homosexuality! He must be a raving homophobe!!! Why use such offensive language?!!

Maladaptive? On the contrary, Dear Watson, it is an adaptation designed to aid the passing on of genes of brothers and sisters!

I think you need to re-read the post.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This IS a straw man argument and I appologize (it's really not that hard to do).

It should have been.

UCE: I can't see how it benefits therefore it's "wrong".

Still an argument from ignorance.

Still a strawman. I never said what you are quoting me as saying. Go back and read the last two pages again.

 

[RandFan]

Oh dear...run out of arguments again, Randfan? You really ought to learn to stop posting when you've been beaten. Have a nice evening. I have some mushrooms to identify.

Can't own up to the facts? Yeah, run away.

 

[RandFan]

Still a strawman. I never said what you are quoting me as saying. Go back and read the last two pages again.

No. I'm happy to stand by that. It's accurate.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Randfan, you are talking ****. A lot of bravado, but you gave up actually trying to argue with me several posts ago. Calm down, have a cup of tea and go away and think about what I ACTUALLY SAID.

 

[cyborg]

Of course it ****** isn't! Reproduction is the KEY characteristic of all living things.

Yes. But it's still accidental. Living things certainly fail to reproduce for all sorts of reasons. When they don't fail interesting things can happen.

The only thing I have stated to be immoral in this thread is active paedophilia, and that wasn't on the grounds that it was unnatural.

Then the sidebar seems needlessly inflamitory.