Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Darat]

You claimed to be able to predict "which people will default on a loan".

I asked how. Now you're infallible. Are you a bot, Darat?

No I didn't. That was given as an example of how research is progressing in regards to modeling human behaviour.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Damn, I was hoping you could help me with my unpredictable wife. Maybe someday, science... sigh

 

[Tassman]

Evidence for that ALL. Otherwise it might be that you are biased against religion and your absolutism is that religion is BAD and not just that but the BADDEST of all BAD.

Religion has the longest continuous history of social divisiveness and it has the potential to be the “baddest of the bad” because it claims its authority from an all powerful deity whose demands cannot be questioned.

So what do you what to replace religion with? Communism, laissez faire capitalism, Objectivism and so on. BTW Objectivism is an example of a non-religious claim to an objective absolute morality.

Religion is essentially a totalitarian system as per other ideologies like Communism and best avoided. Religion has successfully been replaced in many post religious secular countries such as in Scandinavia. E.g. Norway has jumped to top spot in this year's World Happiness Report, knocking its neighbour Denmark off the top spot, into second place.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/20/norway-tops-un-list-of-happiest-countries-on-earth

Second BTW The evidence need to be based on science, otherwise you are not living up to your own demand for evidence; i.e. it must be based on science.

Evidence needs to be based upon substantive, verifiable facts. That’s all. Scientific methodology is an example of this.

 

[David Mo]

Not at all, the values of human societies are determined by the interaction between individual inputs and cultural traditions...each influences the other.

We are not discussing whether morality is the outcome of social or individual causes. Our problem is if morality is reducible to biology/evolutionary principles.

The first millenniums of human history were tribal, which means “us” verses “them” was the norm. Yes inter-tribal warfare was brutal (see Moses and the slaughter of the Midianites) but the multicultural societies of today with their recognition of the concepts of “universal rights” and “crimes against humanity” are demonstrably less so..

Here an incomplete list of contemporary conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#Deaths_by_country
This list doesn’t include conflicts of ethnic, national or political low intensity that put face to face diverse groups.

Absolutely not! Religion and its demand for conformity is the most divisive of ALL social systems. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

You are thinking in universal conformity. This is not a biological concept but ethical. Biological cohesion is inner to the group and defined in function of a rival. In this sense, religion is the most fitting glue that exists. If you want to say something as loving the enemy you have to abandon biological determinism and enter in the field of autonomy of morality.

I do NOT accept “majority as the only value”, I went on to say that individual members of that “majority” can and do disagree with many of the cultural traditions and practices of said 'majority'...but that there is a feedback loop. Individuals interact with the community and vice versa each impacting upon the other.
No, my concept of morality is NOT sheer social Darwinism, quite the reverse.

Well, you have said that “Justice is based upon community values, i.e. morals” and “what a community finds to be moral or immoral is an expression of what the majority of its members find to be moral or immoral” and you have said that moral is only the expression of the group cohesion. And you have spoke of cooperative genes in a characteristic Darwinist way. If your words don’t say what they mean we need ulterior explanations. I think your theory has more holes than a gruyère cheese.

 

[David Mo]

I don't know.
I don't know. What is a cheater index?
I don't know.
Yes.
My post was about a fictitious species that does not exist.

Ah, not humans? Perhaps penguins?

I am afraid I don't grasp the suitability of these hypothetical "cheater genes" in the hypothetical species.

 

[Cheetah]

I was trying to demonstrate how natural selection and evolution can give rise to diametrically opposing moral values within the same species and even the same social group within a species.

In essence natural selection can and will give rise to multiple different "moral strategies" which are all successful and stable within the population.

Therefore attempting to use only the science of evolution and natural selection to define a single morality will be unworkable since there will be many.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Religion has the longest continuous history of social divisiveness and it has the potential to be the “baddest of the bad” because it claims its authority from an all powerful deity whose demands cannot be questioned.

...

It has nothing to do with an all powerful deity, it has to do with the ideas of Objective Morality and Objective Authority, that are human concepts and not restricted to religion.
Yes, religion is major on that, but not all genocides have been made in the name of religion.

The highlighted part is speculative, because there could e.g. be other reasons for an all out nuclear world war 3. Further religion is not wrong as a world-view (cognitive relativism) and not bad (moral/ethical anti-realism) if you want to play justified reasoning and evidence.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I was trying to demonstrate how natural selection and evolution can give rise to diametrically opposing moral values within the same species and even the same social group within a species.

In essence natural selection can and will give rise to multiple different "moral strategies" which are all successful and stable within the population.

Therefore attempting to use only the science of evolution and natural selection to define a single morality will be unworkable since there will be many.

About cheating, there are observed examples of "cheating" in nature. The following behavior has been observed, a group of animals who live in alpha-male dominance; a lower ranking member gives out a fake predator warning call to have time to eat some good food without it being taken by a more dominant member.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

In the context of the thread all the way from the OP and the forum in general - it is the point of contention.

"Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore ...."

So here is one of the argument made on this forum: Reality is physical and science can explain everything.
Since you claim there is something science can't do, it means that you are religious. You are an apologist, you are delusional since you are religious and you don't understand how reality works.
Further if you won't admit that you are religious, you are lying.
snip...

I've not see anyone making that claim. Perhaps you have misunderstood what people have been saying?

You might have a point?!! Or you might have missed it. So now I am supposed to find it, right? Well, if I have not misunderstood and I find it, it doesn't follow that you would accept it.

So before I use time and try to figure out if I am mistaken or got it right, I will ask something of you.
Ask yourself if it is possible and what it would mean?
So here it is as possible and plausible:

#1: All atheist only share that they are atheists. How we came to become atheists differ and one difference is the claim to knowledge. Whether is know that there is no God or not know; i.e. gnostic or agnostic.
But that points to a general aspect, which is used by some atheists against theism. It is a logical argument and it goes like this: God can't be both X and non-X. But that is variant of general logic and also applies to atheism: It can't both be known and not known that there is no God.

#2: This use of logic is not limited to atheism/theism, it also applies to metaphysics and epistemology. E.g. it can't be both known and not known that the world is physical or knowledge can't both be justified and not justified.

#3: This leads to something about beliefs and the word "wrong". Not wrong in the moral sense, but wrong in cognitive sense; i.e mistaken and in error. If I claimed I could fly by flapping my arms, I would be wrong. Further it is not possible to fly by flapping one's arms. But that is not the case for a certain category of beliefs. Fundamental beliefs about what reality, knowledge and so on are different. E.g. strong gnostic believers in God can do so and operate as a part of reality. But that is the same for atheists as both gnostics and agnostics. Or a different beliefs about metaphysics, logic and epistemology.

#4: There is a category of beliefs while wrong, they still lead in practice to results as human behavior. E.g if I were a communist, I could attack capitalists and hurt/harm them, despite communism being wrong. It is not limited to religion, woo-woo, CT and so on. It also applies to political ideologies and science.
There are overall 3 schools of thought on science. Science is wrong, science is the only human methodology which provides knowledge and it works on all aspects of the world; and science is a limited methodology, because because knowledge is limited human behavior. Just as I can't fly by flapping my arms, I can't know everything about the world with evidence.

#5: It is not possible in practice to explain all of the world only with science, so here is what is possible, when I claim that:
Someone could believe that I am religious. I deny philosophical materialism, I deny that science as a methodology used by humans can explain all of the world. I deny that it is possible to only hold beliefs, which is with evidence. I deny that it is possible to be rational in the strong sense. I deny that religion is wrong, because religion works as belief-systems and so do all belief-systems in the general sense.

So understand this: I believe that I can't explain the world without beliefs for which I have no evidence. I don't believe in reason and logic in the strong sense, so my claim is this:
It is possible and probable that at least one poster, who will claim an attack to his/her world-view, is religious, because as world-views go only religious humans claim beliefs without evidence.
Remember it is with evidence, reason and logic possible and without unfounded beliefs to know that the world is psychical, science can explain all of the world and knowledge is not limited. I.e. you will find if you look on this forum at least one poster, who fits this general description and who will claim, that means that any attack on this is religious.

I am doing this as a trick. I want you to embrace religious faith, because knowledge and science doesn't work. You need religious faith and I am lying about being an atheist and a global skeptic, because it serves a higher purpose. Remember I am religious, because it is not the case that I am an atheist and a global skeptic.

With regards

PS If you insist that I look through the forum, I insist that you make a poll about this: Whether there are posters, who believe as I claim. As time spend goes, it would be faster to make a poll and you have to consider that you might have overlooked what you are asking for. Further you are asking me to prove a negative in practice. It requires that I go through all posts on this forum to check. I don't have that time nor the ability to use the search function in efficient manner.

 

[David Mo]

I was trying to demonstrate how natural selection and evolution can give rise to diametrically opposing moral values within the same species and even the same social group within a species.

In essence natural selection can and will give rise to multiple different "moral strategies" which are all successful and stable within the population.

Therefore attempting to use only the science of evolution and natural selection to define a single morality will be unworkable since there will be many.

I see. I agree.

 

[Tassman]

We are not discussing whether morality is the outcome of social or individual causes. Our problem is if morality is reducible to biology/evolutionary principles.

Morals are derivatives of biological and evolutionary principles the basis of which is the survival of the species.

Here an incomplete list of contemporary conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#Deaths_by_country
This list doesn’t include conflicts of ethnic, national or political low intensity that put face to face diverse groups.

My point is that the developed world now recognises these conflicts as bad on the basis of universal human rights...a relatively new concept in human history.

You are thinking in universal conformity. This is not a biological concept but ethical. Biological cohesion is inner to the group and defined in function of a rival. In this sense, religion is the most fitting glue that exists. If you want to say something as loving the enemy you have to abandon biological determinism and enter in the field of autonomy of morality.

Once again, due to the nature of religion which demands conformity to the absolute ‘word of God’, religion is the worst possible “glue” there is. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

Well, you have said that “Justice is based upon community values, i.e. morals” and “what a community finds to be moral or immoral is an expression of what the majority of its members find to be moral or immoral” and you have said that moral is only the expression of the group cohesion.

What I said was that justice is based upon community values AND the interaction of individuals with the community values...together bringing about change or reinforcing existing values.

And you have spoke of cooperative genes in a characteristic Darwinist way. If your words don’t say what they mean we need ulterior explanations. I think your theory has more holes than a gruyère cheese.

You made reference previously to “Social Darwinism” which is NOT “Darwinistic”. This is the pernicious doctrine of Herbert Spencer, i.e. “survival of the fittest”, which is the direct opposite of social cooperation.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Morals are derivatives of biological and evolutionary principles the basis of which is the survival of the species.
...

No, evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution takes places on the level of not just the species, but also within the species as competition among different individual organisms otherwise a species could not change over time or divert into to 2 different species.

You are doing pseudo-science!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

Now Tassman, give evidence for the fact that evolution only takes place on the level of a species. No, you can't, because you are peddling pseudo-science.

 

[David Mo]

Morals are derivatives of biological and evolutionary principles the basis of which is the survival of the species.



My point is that the developed world now recognises these conflicts as bad on the basis of universal human rights...a relatively new concept in human history.



Once again, due to the nature of religion which demands conformity to the absolute ‘word of God’, religion is the worst possible “glue” there is. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.



What I said was that justice is based upon community values AND the interaction of individuals with the community values...together bringing about change or reinforcing existing values.



You made reference previously to “Social Darwinism” which is NOT “Darwinistic”. This is the pernicious doctrine of Herbert Spencer, i.e. “survival of the fittest”, which is the direct opposite of social cooperation.

Now Tassman, give evidence for the fact that evolution only takes place on the level of a species. No, you can't, because you are peddling pseudo-science.

I absolutely agree.
Tassman is using Darwinian words with distorted meanings.

He pretends to give an account of morality as an evolutionary-adaptive recourse, but ignoring that collaboration is a subset of a more basic Darwinian concept: struggle for survive that entails competitive aggression at every level of life.


“Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.” (Darwin: On the Origin of Species Chapter III, “Struggle for Existence”, quoted by https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.struggle

He envisages the resort of collaboration as the only evolutionary driving force, forgetting that collaboration among members of a group is a way to excel in the struggle against rivals.
He considers natural collaboration as egalitarian, when natural collaboration is hierarchical, cruel and violent.
Furthermore, he confounds moral declarations of rights (ideas) with (effective) norms of behaviour.

With this amalgamate he misunderstands the UDHR as a product of Darwinian evolution. What a mess! If you could explain the UDHR as egalitarian ideal to a chimpanzee he would die laughing.

His proposal is a soft social Darwinism without any advantage over the true social Darwinism, except the magic use of scientific words and a strong dose of (nice) idealism. I like this latter, but this doesn’t make it scientific.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

His proposal is a soft social Darwinism without any advantage over the true social Darwinism, except the magic use of scientific words and a strong dose of (nice) idealism. I like this latter, but this doesn’t make it scientific.

Yeah, I believe in humanity, I am a humanist, so I get it. But to prop up humanism with pseudo-science is to do disservice to both, humanism and science.

 

[Tassman]

No, evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Evolution takes places on the level of not just the species, but also within the species as competition among different individual organisms otherwise a species could not change over time or divert into to 2 different species.

That’s simply wrong. Evolution occurs at the biological level NOT at the level of competition within the species. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong; it is a derivative of our evolution as social creatures fuelled by the instinctive need for survival.

 

[Tassman]

I absolutely agree.
Tassman is using Darwinian words with distorted meanings.

He pretends to give an account of morality as an evolutionary-adaptive recourse, but ignoring that collaboration is a subset of a more basic Darwinian concept: struggle for survive that entails competitive aggression at every level of life.

Correct, but primarily at the social level not at the biological level.

He envisages the resort of collaboration as the only evolutionary driving force, forgetting that collaboration among members of a group is a way to excel in the struggle against rivals.

It’s collaboration at the socio-biology level NOT at the level of the species’ biological evolution. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that social behaviour has resulted from the existing evolutionary organism; it attempts to explain social behaviour within that existing context.

He considers natural collaboration as egalitarian, when natural collaboration is hierarchical, cruel and violent.
Furthermore, he confounds moral declarations of rights (ideas) with (effective) norms of behaviour.

I’ve never said that...this is your straw man. My emphasis is on the enforcement of human rights over and above the primitive notion of tribalism. This is a modern concept which nonetheless requires enforcing, which is a long way from your attribution of egalitarian collaboration to me.

With this amalgamate he misunderstands the UDHR as a product of Darwinian evolution. What a mess! If you could explain the UDHR as egalitarian ideal to a chimpanzee he would die laughing.

Moses and most of tribal humanity would also “die laughing” at the notion of equal human rights. But, unlike chimpanzees, humans have the natural intelligence to move beyond the instinctive tribal rivalries that beset humanity for so long. Hence the UDHR, which was an enlightened product of the development of this natural intelligence.

His proposal is a soft social Darwinism without any advantage over the true social Darwinism, except the magic use of scientific words and a strong dose of (nice) idealism. I like this latter, but this doesn’t make it scientific.

Nope! I just corrected your mistaken equating of Evolutionary Darwinism with the "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer, which is a perversion of Charles Darwin’s theory.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism

BTW: It would be polite to address me directly, NOT via another person.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That’s simply wrong. Evolution occurs at the biological level NOT at the level of competition within the species. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong; it is a derivative of our evolution as social creatures fuelled by the instinctive need for survival.

Okay, we disagree. So how do we solve that?
A suggestion, one of us starts a new thread in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology.

 

[Cheetah]

Morals are derivatives of biological and evolutionary principles the basis of which is the survival of the species.

Absolutely not true.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.

Evolution occurs at the biological level NOT at the level of competition within the species.

Competition (and therefore natural selection) within a species tends to be much higher than between species, since they will be directly competing for all resources as well as mates.

Morals are derivatives of biological and evolutionary principles

This is true, but realize that those "morals", will not be a single set of morals, but a whole collection of different morals, many of which will be diametrically opposed to each other.

...it is a derivative of our evolution as social creatures fuelled by the instinctive need for survival.

That is the survival of the individual and its descendants, not the survival species though.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Absolutely not true.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.

...

Yeah. That is it. It is a misconception.

And a standard one at that. Since individual organisms are a part of a species, evolution takes place only at the level of a species and between species. It is like treating a species as a thing/category in itself and not a set of individual organisms, which can interbreed, but also as individual organisms compete for resources and mates within the species.

It is a good link.