Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11244608 -

Charos said:
This however is simply the result of natural selection...


Depends how broadly you define "natural selection."  There is more and more evidence of the different ways that species evolve other than just the brute competition that Darwin hypothesized.  Symbiogenesis, for example.

Quote:
Since these are natural forces, and effort requires some form of feeling, a push (for most of us emotionally based)...nature doesn't have that, it simply IS...it would have to have an intent by which to desire that end.  This would sort of be like arguing that Vesuvius erupted because it had the goal of destroying Pompeii.


How do you know that nature does not have some sort of feeling?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245193 -

That is just it... we don't know for sure as has been explained time and time again in this thread... why continue down this useless trail? Absolutely no evidence what so ever for nature, the process, having feelings. Anything that gets attributed to nature's "feelings" is either wrong or metaphorical.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245310 -

mozhual said:
That is just it... we don't know for sure as has been explained time and time again in this thread... why continue down this useless trail? Absolutely no evidence what so ever for nature, the process, having feelings. Anything that gets attributed to nature's "feelings" is either wrong or metaphorical.


But here we get into what in philosophy of mind is known as the "problem of other people."  We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.

To take everything as mechanistic and then abstract from there is to commit what Whitehead calls the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" -- you mistake your abstractions from reality.  The proper beginning point of induction is our own awareness, since it is the thing that is always already presupposed in any observation or abstraction you make.  Going from there, what reason do we have to suppose that something else doesn't have phenomenological experience?  The projection unconsciousness onto other objects is therefore a greater assumption than the reverse.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Charos]
    #11245320 -

Charos said:
Quote:
Evolution is not a growth, it is a common misconception that evolution's goal is increased complexity, in fact complexity is just a random byproduct of evolution.


It's a common misconception that evolution HAS some goal, there's no evidence to suggest it's "led" by anything.


That's my understanding of evolution.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245438 -

That stems from the fallacious, self defeating argument that conscious has or is some ethereal aspect that can't be observed. But you are getting really off topic.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245462 -

mozhual said:
That stems from the fallacious, self defeating argument that conscious has or is some ethereal aspect that can't be observed.


Nothing ethereal about it.  I'm saying that consciousness is itself a property of the physical world.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245514 -

Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness. If it corporeal then we, or at the very least others, can observe it...


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245559 -

Let me put it another way, evolution can (for the sake of argument pretend it is 1900) no be observed directly. Yet we can still heavily support and compound the theory with indirect evidence. The same can be and is done with consciousness.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245561 -

mozhual said:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.


Well, in that sense, I would say it's obvious.  Consciousness is what is known in "Der Unhintergeben" -- "The un-go-behind-able."  Any account you give of reality presupposes your own awareness.  I fail to see how you could argue otherwise.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245572 -

mozhual said:
Let me put it another way, evolution can (for the sake of argument pretend it is 1900) no be observed directly. Yet we can still heavily support and compound the theory with indirect evidence. The same can be and is done with consciousness.


But I'm not the one denying consciousness.  You're the one denying it to other objects, and I'm saying that distinction is rather arbitrary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245582 -

Quote:
We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.

That is what you said and that is what I responded to.

No one is denying consciousness, you are denying its observability, which I just refuted.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245605 -

mozhual said:
No one is denying consciousness, you are denying its observability, which I just refuted.


What?  No you didn't.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245630 -

Let me correct:
Quote:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.



--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11245639 -

mozhual said:
Let me correct:
Quote:
Your entire post implies ethereality, and that one can't observe ones own consciousness.



We can infer consciousness in others from the fact of our own consciousness.  We can't directly observe the consciousness of others.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Silversoul]
    #11245670 -

I just explained to you how you infer evolution is a correct theory, the exact same thing is done with consciousness. In its simplest form you find actions that generally reflect consciousness and observe them in other things, some of which you think likely have no consciousness (atoms) and some which you think likely have consciousness (humans). Sure its based on inferring and speculating but there is still indirect evidence to support it. Just like evolution in the 1900s.


--------------------
"Nature is like a sculptor constantly improving upon her work, but to do so she chisels away at living flesh." H.K. Bloom

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent...
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent...
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god." Epicurus c. 300 BCE

"When I brought up the fact that 'No drug is good or bad, they're all just A drug, what someone does with them determines the postive or negative outcome. Look at medicine, those are drugs' Reponse was that 'well medicine solves problems' well so does LSD." -Learningtofly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: mozhual]
    #11253649 -

like molecules and complex proteins abiding to entropy.  could you say that humans or larger, more complex organisms abide by something comparable to entropy.


--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao        ~Daodejing

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evolution [Re: Cracka_X]
    #11283306 -

Quote:
How do you know that nature does not have some sort of feeling?


We don't, but logicizing backwards doesn't get us anywhere either.  Since there's nothing to suggest either, it would be fallacious to fall back on either absolute.  This is also a core aspect of the soft atheists approach to God...I'll try to use an analogy, let's say I approach you and tell you there's an invisible man who lives in my shed, he's intangible but omnipresent and can commune with someone only if he wishes to.

The automatic assumption at a claim like that (well, some may respond with "nut" but that's neither here nor there) would be to ask for some form of evidence to back the claim.  This becomes especially important when questions such as eternal damnation and such come into the picture if an error is made.  When there's no evidence to suggest it, it becomes a non-issue...a purgatorial quagmire.

So from that perspective I'm not saying "nature does not have feeling", I'm saying "I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that natural occurrences have basis in any elemental emotion"...one can't back such a negative position until the positive proffers something with which to debate.

Quote:
But here we get into what in philosophy of mind is known as the "problem of other people."  We can't know for sure that anyone outside of ourselves is conscious(though each subject knows unequivocally that they themselves are conscious).  Thus, to assume anything outside of ourselves is conscious requires a projection on our part.  We assume that people are conscious because they behave like us, but for the same reason, animals were considered unconscious for many years.  Now, people generally agree that animals with nervous systems are conscious, but they don't want to take it down any further than that.  Yet plants have been shown to react differently to different types of music, slime molds have navigated mazes to get to food, and even bacteria seem to react to their environment.  Ok, so now we're down to all life.  But surely "inorganic" matter can't be conscious, right?  Well, we know that subatomic particles behave differently according the observer, so clearly they react to their environment.  Now, does this prove that electrons are conscious?  No, but nothing can prove something is conscious except one's own direct experience of consciousness.


Those other things are life forms...what I think we're having here is an issue of communication, here's what my dictionary says of Conscious:

–adjective
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society.
9. Obsolete. inwardly sensible of wrongdoing.
–noun
10. the conscious, Psychoanalysis. the part of the mind comprising psychic material of which the individual is aware.

Where I think you're using more the first Adjective there as a basis, I'm closer to using it in the Noun sense.  This also ignores that having "consciousness" in various incarnations doesn't mean automatically "feeling", "sentient" or "emotional".  There's reason to believe life forms are, to some extent or another, aware...jellyfish have no nervous system but react to stimuli.  They wouldn't "feel" in the way we understand it...it's another thing entirely to anthropomorphize natural occurrences like typhoons or volcanoes.

Quote:
The proper beginning point of induction is our own awareness, since it is the thing that is always already presupposed in any observation or abstraction you make.


Big Heidegger fan? :laugh:


--------------------
*+_Charos_+*

"Be me, for a little while"
--Eli

My Deviantart Page
My Youtube Page


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolutionary changes
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 niteowl 11,568 133 12/28/10 03:53 PM
by falcon
* The History of Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 rizingfire 4,565 26 12/19/09 09:30 PM
by Icelander
* The Idea of Evolution is BS
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,539 165 07/21/02 09:44 AM
by whiterastahippie
* Lamarck was MOSTLY right...
( 1 2 all )		 Cracka_X 1,737 20 04/06/08 07:45 PM
by Cracka_X
* Deconstructing evolution.
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 daytripper23 4,736 72 01/13/10 04:22 PM
by andrewss
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Evolution and intelligence?
( 1 2 3 all )		 OrgoneConclusion 5,093 50 12/23/08 01:37 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* The telescopic nature of the evolutionary paradigm
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 5,224 26 02/16/06 04:39 PM
by Annom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,519 topic views. 0 members, 156 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.