• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

There has to be a point about what we are arguing about and in this case I have no idea what it is.
Let me give you my understanding of the debate. You are defending two claims:

1. Homosexuality does not contribute positively to group selection and,
2. Reproduction is not accidental​

With respect to the second, your defense suggests you have confused the term accidental with incidental. Nobody has claimed, as far as I am aware that reproduction is incidental.

If reproduction were accidental, then as far as I can see this would entail that life began as a result of either:

a) Purpose
b) Necessity​

I have been asking you to clarify which you meant or if neither then what else non-accidental could mean.

With respect to the first claim I was asking as a preliminary:

In a group who's population had reached the limit of what it's environment could sustain, would a fertile member of that group worsen the group's survival chances by failing to reproduce?​

Now that is not a characterisation of your position, merely an attempt to establish a baseline, which is something we don't have at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Is that a show by Setpehn Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Weber?

Weber, of course.

I went crass when my comment about actual homosexual reproduction was ignored.
Here's another kicker: With modern technology, homosexuals can reproduce without ever having non-gay sex. This part of the weird argument hasn't been mentioned. Its even possible that being gay will become an advantage, as per passing on one's genes.

This is not to diminish the altruistic aspects of non-reproduction...but homosexuals don't have that uniquely. Lots of straights choose non-reproduction.

It won't be long before two virgins will be able to reproduce and pass on their dna to their children. In fact, it could be done today.
 
Weber, of course.

I went crass when my comment about actual homosexual reproduction was ignored.
Here's another kicker: With modern technology, homosexuals can reproduce without ever having non-gay sex. This part of the weird argument hasn't been mentioned. Its even possible that being gay will become an advantage, as per passing on one's genes.

This is not to diminish the altruistic aspects of non-reproduction...but homosexuals don't have that uniquely. Lots of straights choose non-reproduction.

It won't be long before two virgins will be able to reproduce and pass on their dna to their children. In fact, it could be done today.

It could, use the egg of one and the nucleus of the other.

Then name the girl Jesusa.
 
Let me give you my understanding of the debate. You are defending two claims:

1. Homosexuality does not contribute positively to group selection and,
2. Reproduction is not accidental​

With respect to the second, your defense suggests you have confused the term accidental with incidental. Nobody has claimed, as far as I am aware that reproduction is incidental.

If reproduction were accidental, then as far as I can see this would entail that life began as a result of either:

a) Purpose
b) Necessity​

I have been asking you to clarify which you meant or if neither then what else non-accidental could mean.

Robin, reproduction cannot be accidental or incidental. It is absolutely necessary.

No reproduction -> no evolution -> no life on Earth.

Life began, presumably on Earth, when the first elements in a "chemical soup" began to reproduce. If at any point thereafter reproduction ceased then evolution would also have ceased and life would have died out as soon as the conditions started changing.

This argument is still ridiculous. It appears that several people just want to go on claiming that UE is hopelessly wrong, even when what he is saying is obviously true. In order to claim he is wrong, those people are either persistently misquoting me (Randfan) or making blatantly absurd statements about biology and the nature of life (Belz).

With respect to the first claim I was asking as a preliminary:

In a group who's population had reached the limit of what it's environment could sustain, would a fertile member of that group worsen the group's survival chances by failing to reproduce?​

Now that is not a characterisation of your position, merely an attempt to establish a baseline, which is something we don't have at the moment.

The situation of reaching the limit of what the environment can sustain is a special case in the natural world. It is even more special in the specific case of the modern human race, because this time it is global and industrialised. Every time this situation occurs the same result follows: a population crash. What I am trying to say is that when we reach this special case situation, the normal rules of the game are suspended for a while. What are normally beneficial selections of genes suddenly becomes useless, or worse. If there's no fish in the sea and you are a fish-eating seabird then you are probably going to die regardless of which genes you carry. Your question isn't really relevant to this debate because for the vast majority of the history of any species, they are not in the situation of massive overpopulation, mass-destruction of resources and ecological instability. The reason for this is that life is very rarely that easy for any species. It has only become that easy for us in the last two hundred years. Population booms like we are currently seeing in Homo sapiens only occur when there is no predation, no effective competition and a temporarily limitless food supply (caused in our case by cheap oil). In the natural world, this is very unusual. Most of the non-human cases where this has been known to happen it is the result of some sort of human intervention, e.g. the removal of predators allowing prey species to get out of control (e.g. red deer in Scotland) and the introduction of new species into ecosystems which have no defence against them (e.g. stoats in New Zealand, rabbits in Australia).

Specific individuals failing to reproduce in these circumstances will not have a significant effect on the survival chances of the group to which they belong, because by this point it is too late to make any difference. In the example of our own species, a few less offspring from a society with a slightly larger population of homosexuals isn't going to offset the fact that there are already four times as many humans on the Earth than it can sustainably support. Homo sapiens will keep on increasing in numbers until starvation, disease and wars over the remaining resources cause the death rate to exceed the birth rate. Slight deviations in the birth rate are irrelevant compared to the speed at which the death rate will increase when TS really HTF.
 
Last edited:
The situation of reaching the limit of what the environment can sustain is a special case in the natural world.

No it isn't. You seem to take it to mean "what the environment could sustain if it was transformed".

Modern humans and ancient humans have different environmental limits for this reason. It is technology that has changed this. The concept is perfectly applicable to organisms that have not engaged in such wholesale environmental transformation.
 
I spy with my little eye yet another strawman.

STOP MISQUOTING ME.
It's called paraphrasing.

taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.
(bolding mine)

UCE: To be alive a thing must [by definition] reproduce [itself].

Most ants don't reproduce themselves and are therefore, by your definition, not alive.

I'll tell you again, the words you use and the things you say have consequeses.
 
Last edited:
It's called paraphrasing.

Nope, paraphrasing required that you don't change the meaning in order to make the position you are challenging easier to attack. Your "paraphrase" was a strawman.

UCE: To be alive a thing must [by definition] reproduce [itself].

Nope, still misquoting me. GO BACK AND READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.
 
It is absolutely necessary that reproductive systems exist?

Yes, cyborg. Without reproduction there can be no evolution. Without evolution, there can be no life - not life as it is known to us, anyway. I guess there's no evolution or reproduction in the Q continuum, but that's fiction.

Reproduction and Death are the nuts and bolts of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Nope, paraphrasing required that you don't change the meaning in order to make the position you are challenging easier to attack. Your "paraphrase" was a strawman.
No.

Nope, still misquoting me. GO BACK AND READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE.
Ok.... no, IT'S RIGHT!

If you mean that reproduction is necassary for every living thing then that IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.
 
Last edited:
Specific individuals failing to reproduce in these circumstances will not have a significant effect on the survival chances of the group to which they belong, because by this point it is too late to make any difference.
Most ants don't reproduce.

It doesn't matter that they are haploid. You are special pleading. Either the failure of specific individuals to reproduce is important or it is not.
 
Yes, cyborg. Without reproduction there can be no evolution.

Right - but is it necessary that such systems would exist? That was the question.

Clearly it is not. Hence reproduction is still accidental. When it occurs evolution can occur. But, as has been amply exemplified, it is certainly possible for reproduction not to occur for a variety of reasons even if the potential for it exists.

Reproduction and Death are the nuts and bolts of evolution.

Yes - but you're still missing the fundamental point here. And I would argue that the nuts and bolts of evolution are inhertiance and mutation - you can have reproduction and death without change.
 
Last edited:
No.

Ok.... no, IT'S RIGHT!

If you mean that reproduction is necassary for every living thing then that IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

I said the following: "The ability to reproduce is one of the key defining characteristics of living things." This statement is TRUE.

I did NOT say this: "Any individual organism which cannot itself reproduce is not alive." This statement is FALSE.

Stop misquoting me and erecting strawmen. You have so far done it at least five times in this thread, probably more like ten times.

Trying to use the counter-argument "eunuchs and worker bees can't reproduce, therefore your argument fails" is the worst sort of sophistry. Looked at very superficially it seems like you may have a point. Take a step back and think about the argument I am actually making and the counter-argument is revealed as worthless sophistry. I did not say that every single living thing must reproduce in order to qualify as being alive. That would be a STUPID thing to say. The fact that certain individuals do not or cannot reproduce does not change the fact that the ability to reproduce is a defining characteristic of living things. If you still can't understand this then you are either really dumb or being a pain in the butt for the sheer hell of it.

Now will you please stop wasting my time and filling this thread up with pointless ****. :(
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why UCE can claim that worker bees and ants are fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset, but homosexuals are not fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset.

It seems like if an organism helps pass on it's geneset, it fullfilling whatever "purpose" one can attribute to evolution.

So why are homosexuals different?
 
I said the following: "The ability to reproduce is one of the key defining characteristics of living things." This statement is TRUE.

I did NOT say this: "Any individual organism which cannot itself reproduce is not alive." This statement is FALSE.

Stop misquoting me and erecting strawmen. You have so far done it at least five times in this thread, probably more like ten times.

Trying to use the counter-argument "eunuchs and worker bees can't reproduce, therefore your argument fails" is the worst sort of sophistry. Looked at very superficially it seems like you may have a point. Take a step back and think about the argument I am actually making and the counter-argument is revealed as worthless sophistry. I did not say that every single living thing must reproduce in order to qualify as being alive. That would be a STUPID thing to say. The fact that certain individuals do not or cannot reproduce does not change the fact that the ability to reproduce is a defining characteristic of living things. If you still can't understand this then you are either really dumb or being a pain in the butt for the sheer hell of it.

Now will you please stop wasting my time and filling this thread up with pointless ****. :(

Yeah but... how does this help your argument that homosexual individuals are not fullfilling their evolutionary purpose because they themselves are not reproducing?
 
Dude,

I'm NOT MAKING THIS UP.

You did post the following. Are you saying that you didn't?

They taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

"Thing". "Thing" and "something".

The definition of a living thing is something which reproduces itself.

Enf of story.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why UCE can claim that worker bees and ants are fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset, but homosexuals are not fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset.

Because Homosexuality is WRONG and ants aren't wrong. Sorry, WRONG. Or maybe WRONG. Depending upon how hard he wants to pretend that this is anything but a theological position.
 
I don't understand why UCE can claim that worker bees and ants are fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset, but homosexuals are not fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset.

It seems like if an organism helps pass on it's geneset, it fullfilling whatever "purpose" one can attribute to evolution.

So why are homosexuals different?
I'd like to know that too.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom