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

[Tassman]

You agree that true altruism doesn’t exist in natural species. You agree that human culture is above natural impulses. You agree that morality doesn’t exist in natural species. You even point to human intelligence as the cause of all this.
But you continue claiming that human behaviour — morality and the UDHR included— is determined by nature. I don’t understand you.

While primates may not possess morality in the human sense, they do exhibit traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of morality. These include relatively high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realisation of "self", and a concept of continuity. What I’m claiming is that “human behaviour — morality and the UDHR included”, is grounded in nature. We can never arise beyond this; it will always be part of our animal nature. We are, after all, animals...albeit intelligent animals.

There is a unanimous consensus in psychology and anthropology that the forces that are above or opposite to nature are called culture. In general, they are not attributed only to the superior intelligence of humans —although this is a major factor— but a complex of capacities that also included higher learning, creativity or abstract language.

Culture is the shared pattern of behaviours and interactions, cognitive constructs and understanding that are learned by socialisation. Thus, it can be seen as the growth of a group identity fostered by social patterns unique to the group. But they are all a part of nature.

It seems that you maintain that human culture is a “different order” to animal “culture” but is "the same order". You contradict yourself. If human culture produce things that doesn’t exist in nature it is a “different order”, not the same. What is at stake in the controversy between anthropologists and biologicists is whether some features of human behaviour can be product of the evolution of similar animal abilities or not. But nobody can seriously believe in the identity of “order” between cultural and natural. Except you, perhaps.

I’m not as eager as you in trying to separate humans from the other primates. I’m maintaining that human abilities and culture are a logical progression from our primate predecessors. Just as our universal values and culture today are a logical progression from the more primitive values and culture of the tribal era.

About free will: when determinists are able to identify the whole series of causes of human acts, when determinists are be able to explain human behaviour as an outcome of deterministic laws and produce exact predictions, freedom would be excluded of social explanations. For the moment, we cannot foresee this situation and I will continue to speak of free acts when I make up my mind in a conscious way to answer you comments.

Well you will believe whatever you want to believe, as is your right. But, although we have 'will', i.e. a desire or impulse to act, “will” can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function to thought and action. The sense we have of ‘free-will’ can only be largely an illusion for humans and our simian cousins alike.

 

[LarryS]

Y’all realize you’re arguing over the details of a dream? (Trying to get this thread back on track, haha)

 

[Myriad]

Y’all realize you’re arguing over the details of a dream?

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.

And yet... if life is but a dream, why bother to row row row your boat at all? Why not dream your way gently down the stream?

 

[LarryS]

We can’t stop ourselves from rowing it seems, even against the current, whether they be private or shared dreams

 

[Myriad]

Well, in that case, it makes perfect sense to argue over the details, does it not? If we can't stop ourselves from rowing, figuring out how to row comfortably and effectively would seem rather important.

 

[LarryS]

That we can’t seem to stop rowing alone doesn’t make it important, it could just be fun

 

[David Mo]

I’m not as eager as you in trying to separate humans from the other primates. I’m maintaining that human abilities and culture are a logical progression from our primate predecessors. Just as our universal values and culture today are a logical progression from the more primitive values and culture of the tribal era.

Well you will believe whatever you want to believe, as is your right. But, although we have 'will', i.e. a desire or impulse to act, “will” can't be described as 'free will' because it directs nothing, itself being shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs, memory function to thought and action. The sense we have of ‘free-will’ can only be largely an illusion for humans and our simian cousins alike.

I am not “eager” in doing anything. If you want to believe that the Empire State Building is a product of nature, go on. It is a strange way of speak.

About free will: A scientific statement ought to present evidence and be able to be inserted in a chain of predictive sentences. If you have any evidence about the causes of common human acts show it. I don’t know any scientific enquiry that presents evidence that human behaviour is causally determined and susceptible to be predicted, except in some simple cases of conditioned reflexes.
I adjust to what science says. If you want enter in philosophical considerations we might do it.

 

[David Mo]

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.

And yet... if life is but a dream, why bother to row row row your boat at all? Why not dream your way gently down the stream?

Because our mind hates us. In reality, solipsism remains a dualism in a different order of things. Our thoughts become independent of our consciousness and can be aggressive against it. A battle between thoughts and Ego. It is a kind of schizophrenia that no one can really live without going crazy.

Therefore, once we know that solipsism is a logically unsolvable problem, we can let the solipsist make out with himself and we can continue our business. Call the shrink only if he becomes dangerous.

 

[Cheetah]

Behaviour which is destructive to social cohesion is deemed bad and vice versa

I can agree with this, but have to add:
Whether a behaviour is good or bad cannot be judged by the behaviour itself, or even by it's context. The exact same behavior could be good in some contexts, bad in others or both good and bad depending on the point of view.
IOW it will be impossible to make a list of good and bad behaviors.

What I’m claiming is that "human behaviour — morality and the UDHR included", is grounded in nature. We can never arise beyond this; it will always be part of our animal nature. We are, after all, animals...albeit intelligent animals.

It might be grounded in nature but it is not determined by nature.

I’m maintaining that human abilities and culture are a logical progression from our primate predecessors. Just as our universal values and culture today are a logical progression from the more primitive values and culture of the tribal era.

I don't think there is a logical progression though, different human cultures differ substantially from each other. If there was a logical progression won't they all, over time, independently converge on the same ideas of culture?

There are some apparently universal cultural ideas all human cultures share. Some of these universals are undoubtedly the products of natural human instincts, but some might be purely cultural and the result of independently invented solutions to common practical problems.

I think that culture that differs between different groups must surely be invented and not a direct result of instincts and evolution, although instincts and evolution gave us the capability, means and will to invent them.

Free will?
I could convincingly argue, using science, that I have none but I still won't convince myself.
I feel like I have it, that's good enough for me.

 

[Cheetah]

Gee, from the top of the list of human cultural universals:

• Language employed to manipulate others
• Language employed to misinform or mislead

These two are not invented, but part of instinctual human nature.
We really need some help.

 

[Tassman]

I am not “eager” in doing anything. If you want to believe that the Empire State Building is a product of nature, go on. It is a strange way of speak.

Well the Empire State Building would not exist if it were not for natural evolution. It is also an example of the highly cooperative, social nature of Homo sapiens given the coordination, planning and labour it would have required to erect such an edifice.

About free will: A scientific statement ought to present evidence and be able to be inserted in a chain of predictive sentences. If you have any evidence about the causes of common human acts show it. I don’t know any scientific enquiry that presents evidence that human behaviour is causally determined and susceptible to be predicted, except in some simple cases of conditioned reflexes.
I adjust to what science says. If you want enter in philosophical considerations we might do it.

At what point in the evolution of our species did this free-will develop? Did the ancient algae, common ancestor of all life, have free-will? Did the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Chimpanzees have it? One hundred thousand years ago, at least six human species inhabited the earth. Today there is just one. Did they all posses free-will, or is it just us?

 

[David Mo]

I can agree with this, but have to add:
Whether a behaviour is good or bad cannot be judged by the behaviour itself, or even by it's context.

Moreover, you cannot show that X is good showing that X exists.
Two different persons can perfectly know that X exists and how X exists and have different views about whether X is good or bad.

We cannot deduce "Human cooperation is good" from "human cooperation exists", This a logical non sequitur. "Good" is not "it exists".
"X exists" and "X is a necessary condition of human species existence" don't logically conclude that "X is good" because you have put in the conclusion a term that is not in the premises: "good".
Only if you add a new premise: "All that is good for human species is good for any individual of human species" you can conclude "X is good". But this premise is easily refuted without logical contradiction.

 

[Tassman]

I can agree with this, but have to add:
Whether a behaviour is good or bad cannot be judged by the behaviour itself, or even by it's context. The exact same behavior could be good in some contexts, bad in others or both good and bad depending on the point of view.
IOW it will be impossible to make a list of good and bad behaviors.

I agree with all of this.

It might be grounded in nature but it is not determined by nature.

I don’t see how it isn’t determined by nature given that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Although I take the Compatibilist view of limited free-will...”wiggle-room” as Daniel Dennett calls it.

I don't think there is a logical progression though, different human cultures differ substantially from each other. If there was a logical progression won't they all, over time, independently converge on the same ideas of culture?

I think it is a natural and logical extension from tribalism, which dominated the planet for so long, to the more universal view of morality and human rights of today. It’s just tribalism on a world-wide scale as necessitated by our world-wide, multicultural society.

There are some apparently universal cultural ideas all human cultures share. Some of these universals are undoubtedly the products of natural human instincts, but some might be purely cultural and the result of independently invented solutions to common practical problems.

I think that culture that differs between different groups must surely be invented and not a direct result of instincts and evolution, although instincts and evolution gave us the capability, means and will to invent them.

Yes, so they have not in fact developed separated from our instincts and evolution...although we tend to think of them as separate.

Free will?
I could convincingly argue, using science, that I have none but I still won't convince myself.
I feel like I have it, that's good enough for me.

And it’s good enough for me too.

 

[Cheetah]

Well put David.

 

[Cheetah]

I don’t see how it isn’t determined by nature given that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Although I take the Compatibilist view of limited free-will...”wiggle-room” as Daniel Dennett calls it.

I don't think it is an inevitable consequence. Some purely random differences and happenings in history could have led to a very different world today.

Yes, so they have not in fact developed separated from our instincts and evolution...although we tend to think of them as separate.

But they are inventions and therefore not an inevitable consequence of evolution and instincts.

 

[David Mo]

Well put David.

Thank you.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Yes, so they have not in fact developed separated from our instincts and evolution...although we tend to think of them as separate.

But they are inventions and therefore not an inevitable consequence of evolution and instincts.

Old interesting thread with the theme suggesting natural selection and technological development are indistinguishable...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94834

 

[Tassman]

Old interesting thread with the theme suggesting natural selection and technological development are indistinguishable...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94834

Interesting thread, thanks. Even better, it supports my position.

 

[Tassman]

Moreover, you cannot show that X is good showing that X exists.
Two different persons can perfectly know that X exists and how X exists and have different views about whether X is good or bad.

We cannot deduce "Human cooperation is good" from "human cooperation exists", This a logical non sequitur. "Good" is not "it exists".
"X exists" and "X is a necessary condition of human species existence" don't logically conclude that "X is good" because you have put in the conclusion a term that is not in the premises: "good".
Only if you add a new premise: "All that is good for human species is good for any individual of human species" you can conclude "X is good". But this premise is easily refuted without logical contradiction.

We do not deduce "Human cooperation is good" from "human cooperation exists". As an evolved social species, we deduce “good” from what behaviours better facilitate social cohesion, i.e. our survival. The basic instinct of all living creatures is survival and for an evolved social species such as Homo sapiens, survival of the species is grounded in cooperation.

 

[David Mo]

We do not deduce "Human cooperation is good" from "human cooperation exists". As an evolved social species, we deduce “good” from what behaviours better facilitate social cohesion, i.e. our survival. The basic instinct of all living creatures is survival and for an evolved social species such as Homo sapiens, survival of the species is grounded in cooperation.

I am afraid you have not read attentively my comment. Try again, please.

Moreover, you cannot show that X is good showing that X exists.
Two different persons can perfectly know that X exists and how X exists and have different views about whether X is good or bad.

We cannot deduce "Human cooperation is good" from "human cooperation exists", This a logical non sequitur. "Good" is not "it exists".
"X exists" and "X is a necessary condition of human species existence" don't logically conclude that "X is good" because you have put in the conclusion a term that is not in the premises: "good".
Only if you add a new premise: "All that is good for human species is good for any individual of human species" you can conclude "X is good". But this premise is easily refuted without logical contradiction.

In effect, to deduce “good” from what behaviours better facilitate social cohesion, i.e. our survival is the same than X is a necessary condition of human species existence when X= “social cohesion”.
Therefore, in my argument , you cannot deduce that social cohesion is good from “social cohesion is a necessary condition for the survival of human species” because a lot of alternative propositions need to be commented. Some examples:

(a) Apocalyptic: Human species hopelessly marches toward its end. Sacrifice your own interests to a business without future is stupid.
(b) Ultra-ecologism: Humanity is the true danger to nature. Other species will survive only if humans disappear.
(c) Individual cynicism: the Humanity as a whole I don’t give a darn. Only myself imports to myself.
(d) Nazi-Darwinism: The Humanity as a whole is a false goal. My Nation only is important. My Nation would be great by exterminating the rest of Humanity.
…………………………….
Etc., etc.

These theories are not merely speculative. They have been maintained by more or less broad social groups and individuals such as terrorists, tyrants, exploitative employers, social climbers, ultra-nationalists, ultra-ecologists and other less radical alternatives.

As you can understand, you cannot fight these theories by saying that there is a natural law that imposes cooperation. Assuming they admit this, they already know about it, and it don't affect them at all. You should invent new ways of dialogue or action against them.