Lost or Liberated?

Zillah

I suppose this is primarily directed at the Atheists amongst us.

When you finally saw through the patterns, past the presumptions and illusions, and saw the world and people for the complex accidents they are, did it it make you feel lost and alone, or liberated and empowered?

I constantly veer between the two. I love science, I adore it, what it means for humanity, what its done and what it will allow us to do, I can't express how proud I am of the things we've accomplished as a species. And I feel liberated by it, with a rational approach I feel I can attack any problem and understand it to the best of my ability.

But in a way, its also made me see life as being a little hollow, like a poet decided to simply explain in a couple lines exactly what he's thinking, rather than actually using poetry to explain it. Years ago, when I was younger I had evolution explained to me and I got the gist. The more I thought about it, the more I grasped the meaning, and these days I see it everywhere. Every single animal or human trait or behaviour I can uncovered a perfectly feasible hypothesis for how it evolved. And that sounds cool at first, but when you start applying it to things like family, friends, cities, jobs, money, love and hate it makes all those things seems a bit like an element in an equation. So many things in life begin to seem absurd.

Dirk Gently

I know what you mean. I don’t feel lost, but I do feel a sense of frustration. It’s hard for me sometimes to deal with people who are illogical and irrational. I find myself not engaging people in debate when a topic is raised concerning religion and the people involved have religious beliefs. It’s easier online to do such things but in real life I can't help but feeling sorry for "believers". I get frustrated with their lack of willingness to embrace logic and question their unquestioning belief.

It’s a bit like putting 4 cakes on a table and asking the believer how many cakes you see. They say I see 3 cakes when there are clearly 4. You ask them why they think there is only 3 cakes and they say they cant explain it but somebody told them there was only 3 cakes and everyone else believes there’s only 3 cakes, so despite the fact that they see 4 cakes on the table they insist there is only 3. Needless to say I tend to just take my cake away and eat it. Anything for a quiet life.

The above little analogy fits with how I see the world and all the primitive religious themes that run through it. It is very frustrating.

hairyheretic

What if they tell you they see 5 cakes? You both see the 4 on the table, but they seem to see another one that you can't.

Might that be a better ananlogy?

Dirk Gently

Agreed, that would be a better way of putting it but their still wrong either way. There are only 4 cakes. I can prove the existence of the 4 cakes. The fifth cake is just wishful thinking. I also dispute that the fifth cake is as good as they think it is. If they really study their teachings on the 5th cake they will discover that if indeed it existed it is rotten to the core and like at burger king, the product they're buying doesn’t match the picture on the poster.

I really hope there’s some swiss roll or sumin in the kitchen. I really want a cake right now. (Not an analogy)

Asiaprod

clown bag wrote:

The fifth cake is just wishful thinking. I also dispute that the fifth cake is as good as they think it is. If they really study their teachings on the 5th cake they will discover that if indeed it existed it is rotten to the core and like at burger king, the product they're buying doesn’t match the picture on the poster.(Not an analogy)

I think their might be a lot more substance to this 5th cake than you think. Just because you cant see it does not mean it is not there. Can you see the wind, no, but you can feel its presence.

Dirk Gently

yeah but I know the wind exists. I can feel it and see the effect it has on the enviornment. I can see the clouds move and the direction of the rain falling, i can feel it in my hair. I myself can create wind by waving a piece of paper infront of my face and disturbing the air around me. (in advance I know air exists as i breathe it and i can inhale and exhale it)

The fifth cake simply does not exist. Thers no evidence of a fifth cake, only faith and unquestioning belief in a fifth cake.

hairyheretic

That is your belief. Others have different ones. To each their own.

passive

That's a very good non confrontational stance there mr heretic... But i think the point was to discuss said opinion, an atheist one, on the atheist forum. No need to dismiss it as everybody having a different belief...

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

So many things in life begin to seem absurd.

A fitting statement on Beckets 100 anniversary

As I posted on the thread about the meaning of life, to me the universe is a lot more beautiful and wonderous knowing that no "higher intelligence" designed it.

I mean when you think about it look at us. Look at the way we live, in building with car and planes and concret and computers. Look at what are we, and then think we evolved from a couple of carbon atoms trying to bond. That is pretty amazing. We might understand the process that we did it by, we might be able to trace back to where we came from, but it is still amazing and beautiful that we did it, much more amazing than if you said something else made us do it.

It might be the software programmer in me, but to me there is infiniate beauty in the arrangement of someone so complex like a life form that yet still works. We have billions of cells and each cell has billions of atoms and you would think that none of it would ever work, that we should just disintergrate and fall apart, but it does work it works amazingly. We are like the most complex mathematical model you can ever think off, yet one of the most simple at the same time (just a bunch of carbon atoms trying to bond)

Beruthiel

Zillah wrote:

So many things in life begin to seem absurd.

but would you not agree that so many things in this life are absurd?

I do not feel lost, I feel liberated. I have made my own reality and am happy in it. I decide what's important for me and what is not.
I very often take the time to remind myself that today I am happy, healthy and lucky with all that I have. Those are the most important things imo, and each day you have those things is as good a day as you are going to get.
Reminding yourself of this grouds you and reminds you that all else means very little if you don't have them.

hairyheretic

passive wrote:

That's a very good non confrontational stance there mr heretic... But i think the point was to discuss said opinion, an atheist one, on the atheist forum. No need to dismiss it as everybody having a different belief...

I wasn't really trying to dismiss it. I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, be it in no god, one god, or many gods / goddesses.

I don't know (in terms of a provable fact) what deity(s) exist. I know what I believe in (I'm asatruar) and thats enough for me.

Dades

passive wrote:

That's a very good non confrontational stance there mr heretic... But i think the point was to discuss said opinion, an atheist one, on the atheist forum. No need to dismiss it as everybody having a different belief...

I think the "to each their own" sentiment stands no matter what forum we're in.

I think clown bag is over-simplifying things a tad. Given the terrible lives that many people lead is isn't always "illogical and irrational" to want to believe in a higher power.

To answer Zillahs question - I would say "liberated" is a good description.
Not from conscience or responsibility, but from the umbrella that had stopped me from seeing what was above my head.

Some people even think that there are 10 cakes

Tar.Aldarion

...And eleven dimensions in which those cakes exist.
As for the cake scenario, I am like captain picard and the lights.

The Atheist wrote:

I think the "to each their own" sentiment stands no matter what forum we're in.

H'es just saying that there is no point arguing that case on this thread, in this forum, because Zillah is taking his point of view to be fact and would not care about such answers as they are irrielevant.

Anywho, I feel liberated Mr. Zillah, if I feel anything at all.
I have no need for things to have a purpose. The only purpose I have is to lead a good, full, fun and life and what happens after that is not important right now.
If and when nothing happens it's not like I will care as such.
There is beauty in thought, consciousness and in randomisation. I would use your poet example for religion, things are a lot more simple if we were just made at the click of some metaphorical fingers. I like the extremely huge odds of us not existing and thank the stars that I was given a chance at consciousness and also, for creating me, as we came originally from a star. That, to me, is beautiful.
I feel like going around hugging the people I love now.

Dirk Gently

ah good aul jean luc, the cardies nearly had him though.
I take on board the atheists point made in post number 12.

Tar.Aldarion

clown bag wrote:

ah good aul jean luc, the cardies nearly had him though.

Bah, not for a second!
There are four lights!

Dirk Gently

Seriously though I think he might have been / being (whatever) acting the hard man a bit with his little defiant display at the end. He new the game was up and he'd soon be reading Shakespeare (or shex'pir the original klingon playwright) in his ready room again with his fish and his earl grey hot.

Apologies for going off topic, just felt a little nostalgic.
4 cakes!

clown bag

clown bag wrote:

Seriously though I think he might have been / being (whatever)

I like you.
And yes, it's "been" in that context since it's past tense.

Tar.Aldarion

Been indeed...
How can you claim he knew it was up, he thought he was going to be killed!
Anyway at the risk of this turning into another
star trek argument...to rura penthe with anybody who disagrees with me. :P
Love the Klingon comment.

lostexpectation

clown bag wrote:

yeah but I know the wind exists. I can feel it and see the effect it has on the enviornment. I can see the clouds move and the direction of the rain falling, i can feel it in my hair. I myself can create wind by waving a piece of paper infront of my face and disturbing the air around me. (in advance I know air exists as i breathe it and i can inhale and exhale it)

The fifth cake simply does not exist. Thers no evidence of a fifth cake, only faith and unquestioning belief in a fifth cake.

I think we should rename the spirituality forum "The Fifth Cake"

hairyheretic

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Love the Klingon comment.

You'll probably appreciate this one then ..

Kira
I suppose your gods are less vague?
Worf
Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millenium ago.

*Knocks back a glass of warnog and starts with the Klingon drinking songs*

lostexpectation

Zillah wrote:

And I feel liberated by it, with a rational approach I feel I can attack any problem and understand it to the best of my ability.

But in a way, its also made me see life as being a little hollow, like a poet decided to simply explain in a couple lines exactly what he's thinking, rather than actually using poetry to explain it. The more I thought about it, the more I grasped the meaning, and these days I see it everywhere. Every single animal or human trait or behaviour I can uncovered a perfectly feasible hypothesis for how it evolved. And that sounds cool at first, but when you start applying it to things like family, friends, cities, jobs, money, love and hate it makes all those things seems a bit like an element in an equation. So many things in life begin to seem absurd.

Do you wonder why we should get so involved emotionally at times, science can explain emotions and alot of other things, but there still alot of confusion that doesn't need to filled by religion.

Thats why have fun while your here is the Ultimate Theory of Everything and the hardest thing to do.

Tar.Aldarion

hairyheretic wrote:

You'll probably appreciate this one then ..

Haha, nice one.
I also love when they said 'The weak enslave themselves'. (:

Also,
Sir, I protest - I am NOT a merry man!!

*Knocks back a glass of warnog and starts with the Klingon drinking songs*

Less talk! More synthohol.

Asiaprod

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I feel like going around hugging the people I love now.

Its Easter, here's a big hug from me.

<hug>

Asiaprod

lostexpectation wrote:

I think we should rename the spirituality forum "The Fifth Cake"

Ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa, that just made my day. Good one.

Tar.Aldarion

Asiaprod wrote:

Its Easter, here's a big hug from me.

<hug>

Virtual hugs all round. \o/
Also, I love the fifth cake idea, it would be brilliant.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Virtual hugs all round. \o/
Also, I love the fifth cake idea, it would be brilliant.

Clearly there are 10, and I'll eat the cakes of anyone who disagrees! :mad:

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Virtual hugs all round. \o/

See! This is what im talking about! You're not being "nice", your brain has detected the potential for a social alliance of sorts and is seeking to form emotional bonds with potential like-minded beings, thereby increasing your survival potential.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

See! This is what im talking about! You're not being "nice", your brain has detected the potential for a social alliance of sorts and is seeking to form emotional bonds with potential like-minded beings, thereby increasing your survival potential.

Haha, I don't love my friends as part of a survival instinct. I have the intense instinct to do anything to protect them(particularily girls), anything, and I would without question.
Surely this hinders my survival chances,as I would give up my life for them, so I am being 'nice'.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Haha, I don't love my friends as part of a survival instinct. I have the intense instinct to do anything to protect them(particularily girls), anything, and I would without question.
Surely this hinders my survival chances,as I would give up my life for them, so I am being 'nice'.

No, unfortunately. Everything you do is part of a grand survival plan, whether you realise it or not. (Well, it could be part of an experiment on you're gene's part).

If you give you life to save your friends (ie, your Tribe), your siblings(who share an almost identical gene code to you), your allies (who keep your family alive), your parents and your children (both of whom also share your gene code) then they will survive and pass on your genes, including your "give life to save tribe" behaviour.

Tar.Aldarion

I disagree, I think reason and intelligence overcome it somewhat.
The again, what are reason and intelligence etc...
As for my 'tribe', that would not pass on my genes as they are not of my genes!
Are you holding that people with similar genetic make ups are drawn together?
I would my life trying to save a stranger, is this just to pass on the genes of anything?

Zillah

Never forget that when you analyse human behaviour from an evolutionary basis that the vast amount of it evolved from small tribal units over the last few hundred thousand years.

So, when you risk your life to save a stranger, what are you actually doing? Well, you're either saving a person from another tribe (Wow, you guys are great, lets trade from now on, and here, have my second daughter as your wife), or you're saving an unfamilar member of your own tribe (Wow, you're my hero, lets have sex and make babies. "In recognition for your efforts, have ten cows" etc etc).

You don't have the exact same gene code as your siblings or your parents or children, but they're 99.9% percent the same, and alot of your distinctive traits are shared by them, so it can be an evolutionary advantage to give your life for loved ones, oddly enough.

Are you holding that people with similar genetic make ups are drawn together?

By convention, not by some ability to sense similar genes or anything. Why do you think people "love" their family so much?

EDIT: Stupid typos.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Never forget that when you analyse human behaviour from an evolutionary basis that the vast amount of it evolved from small tribal units over the last few hundred thousand years.

So, when you risk your life to save a stranger, what are you actually doing? Well, you're either saving a person from another tribe (Wow, you guys are great, lets trade from now on, and here, have my second daughter as your wife), or you're saving an unfamilar member of your own tribe (Wow, you're my hero, lets have sex and make babies. "In recognition for your efforts, have ten cows" etc etc).

You are ignoring the fact that you do not know this is in our genes whatsoeve, nobody does. It's quite a debate as to whether we are born with any previous knowledge like this, or not and just have the very basics or nothing.
Also, since we have evolved, we have become more intelligent and rely less on instinct, some of us anyway...
Most people would save no such person or animal. You forget my views on other animals being exactly equal to us.

You don't have the exact same gene code as your siblings or your parents or children, but they're 99.9% percent the same, and alot of your distinctive traits are shared by them, so it can be an evolutionary advantage to give your life for loved ones, oddly enough.

Instinct to live would over ride that if we were jsut going on instinct.

By convention, not by some ability to sense similar genes or anything. Why do you think people "love" their family so much?

Because they took care of them and/or created them.
If they weren't nice, I wouldn't love them, no matter what the genes say.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You are ignoring the fact that you do not know this is in our genes whatsoeve, nobody does. It's quite a debate as to whether we are born with any previous knowledge like this, or not and just have the very basics or nothing.

Humans beings are not some mystical pure intelligence born into a fleshy body. Theres no such thing. What you think of as human intelligence is just a massive compliation of instructions and behaviours. You learn a lot in your life, but its potential is dictated by your genes. Even now, we're not two intelligences exchanging thoughts, we're members of a society who are doing something have humans have been doing for thousands of years. Its just a social exercise, 'designed' to keep the members aware of each others thougths and increase social bonds.

Also, since we have evolved, we have become more intelligent and rely less on instinct, some of us anyway...

There's no difference between intelligence and instinct, they're just more or less refined types of behaviour.

Most people would save no such person or animal. You forget my views on other animals being exactly equal to us.

If you would seriously give your life for an animal's then I'd say thats a minor error on your brain's part (no offence ), its an exaggeration of the "feel affection for animals, they're good for the tribe" behaviour.

Because they took care of them and/or created them.

Not so, if some tall, blue alien, as cold as steel arrived and said "I created you, and secretly supported your existence, here is all the proof", would you suddenly love him like a father?

If they weren't nice, I wouldn't love them, no matter what the genes say.

Exaclty, its not a magic sense, so if people don't do all the right social rituals then the system breaks.

Its not a faultless system, but it works stretched over tens of thousands of years, like any aspect of evolution.

Zillah

I don't expect anyone to read all of this, but even a look will explain what im getting at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Humans beings are not some mystical pure intelligence born into a fleshy body. Theres no such thing. What you think of as human intelligence is just a massive compliation of instructions and behaviours. You learn a lot in your life, but its potential is dictated by your genes. Even now, we're not two intelligences exchanging thoughts, we're members of a society who are doing something have humans have been doing for thousands of years. Its just a social exercise, 'designed' to keep the members aware of each others thougths and increase social bonds.

Depends if one believes in a soul or or consciousness or not.

What is your definition of intelligences then?

There's no difference between intelligence and instinct, they're just more or less refined types of behaviour.

Reason and instinct dictate what we do, they are intwined. They are not the same.

If you would seriously give your life for an animal's then I'd say thats a minor error on your brain's part (no offence ), its an exaggeration of the "feel affection for animals, they're good for the tribe" behaviour.

No offence taken, it's true but I value things more than I value me. Maybe I am from one of those vegan tribes still around today that have been like that for over 5000 years at least and you are telling lies!.

Not so, if some tall, blue alien, as cold as steel arrived and said "I created you, and secretly supported your existence, here is all the proof", would you suddenly love him like a father?

You ignored the taking care part. the essential part.
And I would love a long lost lien father the same as a human that abandoned me at bith and came back saying created you, no difference apart from I'd be an alien in one which would be cool.

Exaclty, its not a magic sense, so if people don't do all the right social rituals then the system breaks.

Why would it evolve like this and people evolve not to follow it?

Its not a faultless system, but it works stretched over tens of thousands of years, like any aspect of evolution.

Imo, this 'system' is having less affect with evey generation. Now I'm off to bash in the heads of the tribe that pissed in my territory.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

I don't expect anyone to read all of this, but even a look will explain what im getting at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

I agree with it to some extent but have problems with it. I would see a lot of the debate against it to be true.

"Natural", even when speaking of biological organisms, is not limited to "genetic" as you say Zillah, and my argument with EP has to do precisely with that implied limitation. Like social constructionism, of course (which we might as well abbreviate as SC), EP comes in a range of varieties, from "weak" to "strong", and, just as with SC, the weak versions are largely unexceptionable: there's no doubt that mental and cultural phenomena are products of biological -- meaning genetic -- evolution, and as such exhibit features that derive directly from such evolution. But, also as with SC, there's a "strong" version of the school as well, which implies that the most adaptive and significant features of mind and culture are genetically derived, and that what is not so derived is merely conventional, or more or less arbitrary and random. And this is to make a profound mistake -- it misses or ignores the fact that culture is itself a natural phenomenon that has broad influence on human psychology and society, and that responds to the same kinds of environmental selection pressures that biological evolution does, only more rapidly. A little more specifically, the school of EP exhibits three main sources of error, as I see it:


* It fails to understand culture itself as a wholly natural phenomenon, as physical in its basis in neural structure as genetics is in its basis in DNA.
* It therefore fails to appreciate that culture itself is susceptible to a general Darwinian process of natural selection (though different, obviously, in its mechanisms) -- and that, in adapting to environmental challenges and opportunities far more rapidly than biology, culture can not only come into conflict with biology but can be a source of biological selection pressure itself.
* And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede psychological and social ground to culture, precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.



It's instructive to put social constructionism and evolutionary psychology side by side, actually, and then to see them both as twin expressions of an undercurrent of ideological/political struggle that's been a feature of the culture for a while now. The former is aptly characterized as a type of anti-essentialism, and the latter, more recent school (in its contemporary versions), as perhaps an anti-anti-essentialism -- with each, depending on its degree of politicization, repelling the other toward increasingly untenable extremes. But even in their weaker, less political versions, both these schools simply miss the most salient fact about culture: that it too, just like DNA, is embedded in the natural, physical world. So, contrary to social constructionism, cultural concepts are driven by the real, natural environment; and contrary to evolutionary psychology, cultural concepts are themselves the primary evolutionary response to that environment.


<quote>

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Depends if one believes in a soul or or consciousness or not.

Atheists forum dear Science rules here. Show me an experiment demonstrating the soul and I'll consider it, otherwise...

What is your definition of intelligences then?

"Intelligence" is an extremely vague concept to define. Like I said in the hunting thread, intelligence is a scale of how completely one is aware of the universe and one's place within it, and how to achieve what one wants within it.

Reason and instinct dictate what we do, they are intwined. They are not the same.

No, they are fundamentaly the same thing. Both use "input/process/output". With instinct it might be "Tiger/terror/run away", while reason could be "offer to sell/financial consideration/deal made". One is simply more refined than the other.

No offence taken, it's true but I value things more than I value me. Maybe I am from one of those vegan tribes still around today that have been like that for over 5000 years at least and you are telling lies!.

That tribe use a unique social construct that binds them together. Apparently the bad aspects of not being able to hurt animals have been offset by other benefits, otherwise they wouldn't have survived.

You ignored the taking care part. the essential part.

Thats the rituals I mentioned later.

And I would love a long lost lien father the same as a human that abandoned me at bith and came back saying created you, no difference apart from I'd be an alien in one which would be cool.

Eventually you'd love the new father, after lots of social rituals, not immediately.

Why would it evolve like this and people evolve not to follow it?

Like I said, its not perfect, but as a whole it works, as shown by its continued existence.

Imo, this 'system' is having less affect with evey generation. Now I'm off to bash in the heads of the tribe that pissed in my territory.

The system is still there, but the environment is changing. Who the "other tribe" is has changed. It used to be across the river, now its across that ocean, and its started to stretch further for a lot of people. Although it still exists on a smaller scale. People still have family fueds, neighbouring nations still rattle sabers and battle away. Look at Israel ffs.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

Atheists forum dear Science rules here. Show me an experiment demonstrating the soul and I'll consider it, otherwise...

God's don't have to exist for a soul to exist, show me a scientific experiment that proves you exist...
It depends on whether you think that we are just instructions or not.

"Intelligence" is an extremely vague concept to define. Like I said in the hunting thread, intelligence is a scale of how completely one is aware of the universe and one's place within it, and how to achieve what one wants within it.

With this EP, surely we are not aware at all?

No, they are fundamentaly the same thing. Both use "input/process/output". With instinct it might be "Tiger/terror/run away", while reason could be "offer to sell/financial consideration/deal made". One is simply more refined than the other.

There is reason and instinct imo, seperate. Instinct does not reason.

That tribe use a unique social construct that binds them together. Apparently the bad aspects of not being able to hurt animals have been offset by other benefits, otherwise they wouldn't have survived.

No benefits really? Lik what. they just don't eat an available food source, why?
Instinct tells people to eat meat and kill etc.

Eventually you'd love the new father, after lots of social rituals, not immediately.

That depends, you don't just love somebody because they are nice or because they are your father or because of EP, maybe a bit of several things...

Like I said, its not perfect, but as a whole it works, as shown by its continued existence.

The system is still there, but the environment is changing. Who the "other tribe" is has changed. It used to be across the river, now its across that ocean, and its started to stretch further for a lot of people. Although it still exists on a smaller scale. People still have family fueds, neighbouring nations still rattle sabers and battle away. Look at Israel ffs.

It exists on a smaller scale?
I think the whole thing is fading.

Zillah

I shall preface this by saying that I don't want to turn this into a debate on Evolutionary Psychology, I just thought it would help elucidate my point.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

"Natural", even when speaking of biological organisms, is not limited to "genetic" as you say Zillah

Actually, in a round about way, it is. Genetics dictates potential. But "Natural" is something of a none-term, it doesn't really define anything.

A little more specifically, the school of EP exhibits three main sources of error, as I see it:


* It fails to understand culture itself as a wholly natural phenomenon, as physical in its basis in neural structure as genetics is in its basis in DNA.

Society is not an independent system in and off itself. It would be best described as an emergent phenomenon. If you take each person to be a daemon* of sorts, society emerges from the collective inputs and outputs, which is all ultimately dictated its primary qualities by genetics.

*as in, an independtly fuctioning program of a larger whole.

* It therefore fails to appreciate that culture itself is susceptible to a general Darwinian process of natural selection (though different, obviously, in its mechanisms) -- and that, in adapting to environmental challenges and opportunities far more rapidly than biology, culture can not only come into conflict with biology but can be a source of biological selection pressure itself.

In a way everything is subject to Darwinian natural selection. That which is able to continue continues, that which isn't, doesn't. However, the crucial difference between EP and societal natural selection is that with EP the results are "recorded" genetically (as in, the sucessful experiments continue, the others die) on a massive scale of years, while more immediate cultural natural selection is mostly irrelevant as it fails to have impact over time. I think your failing in this is that you're thinking on too small a scale. The lifespan of a society is miniscule compared to the legacy the genecode carries. It has the lessons learned over ten thousand societies.

* And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede psychological and social ground to culture, precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.

Im not sure what you're getting at here, could you rephrase.

It's instructive to put social constructionism and evolutionary psychology side by side, actually, and then to see them both as twin expressions of an undercurrent of ideological/political struggle that's been a feature of the culture for a while now. The former is aptly characterized as a type of anti-essentialism, and the latter, more recent school (in its contemporary versions), as perhaps an anti-anti-essentialism -- with each, depending on its degree of politicization, repelling the other toward increasingly untenable extremes. But even in their weaker, less political versions, both these schools simply miss the most salient fact about culture: that it too, just like DNA, is embedded in the natural, physical world. So, contrary to social constructionism, cultural concepts are driven by the real, natural environment; and contrary to evolutionary psychology, cultural concepts are themselves the primary evolutionary response to that environment.

I'd argue that SC is subservient to the dictates of EP. In the same way that complex mathematical formulae are bound by numbers.

Zillah

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

God's don't have to exist for a soul to exist, show me a scientific experiment that proves you exist...

Thats just silly.

With this EP, surely we are not aware at all?

The nature of sentience is primarily a matter for philosophy, and can only harm the current debate. For now I suggest we deal in pragmatic terms.

There is reason and instinct imo, seperate. Instinct does not reason.

Instinct has a reasoning older than history. Its a decision made for you tens of thousands of years before you were born. If every human who sees a tiger running at them runs away, then the most humans possible will survive. Its absolutely logical.

No benefits really? Lik what. they just don't eat an available food source, why?
Instinct tells people to eat meat and kill etc.

Its social glue. Its a part of their culture, its kept them together. They'd probably be better off if they ate animals, but what they have works. Remember, evolution will always accept the bare minimum, its doesn't insist on best-case-scenarios.

That depends, you don't just love somebody because they are nice or because they are your father or because of EP, maybe a bit of several things...

All those things fall under EP.

It exists on a smaller scale?
I think the whole thing is fading.

You misunderstand. I said it "still" exists on a smaller scale, as in, you don't have to look to Israel or Iran to see tribal clashing, you can look to your neighbours and family fueds.

Tar.Aldarion

Zillah wrote:

I shall preface this by saying that I don't want to turn this into a debate on Evolutionary Psychology, I just thought it would help elucidate my point.

Ok, I'll just put up a few little points then skipping over things want to debate which is everything.

In a way everything is subject to Darwinian natural selection. That which is able to continue continues, that which isn't, doesn't. However, the crucial difference between EP and societal natural selection is that with EP the results are "recorded" genetically (as in, the sucessful experiments continue, the others die) on a massive scale of years, while more immediate cultural natural selection is mostly irrelevant as it fails to have impact over time. I think your failing in this is that you're thinking on too small a scale. The lifespan of a society is miniscule compared to the legacy the genecode carries. It has the lessons learned over ten thousand societies.

You see, this EP fails to apprecate darwinian natural selection which leads to more faults in the theory being an absolute.
Read, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609605135/002-1044712-0079203?v=glance&n=283155

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

* And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede , precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.

Im not sure what you're getting at here, could you rephrase.

It just basically means that well, the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness, ie, ability to survive and adapt etc,
is the fact that we are ceding psychological and social ground to culture (like EP). Basically our most important biological advancement is our lessening need to act on instinct which actuall aides our survival most of all.
EP should be destroying itself logically.

I'd argue that SC is subservient to the dictates of EP. In the same way that complex mathematical formulae are bound by numbers.

I would argue that you should swap EP and SC there.


EDIT:I will wait to see if The Atheist wants us to continue this off topic talk before I reply to your next post but you should know
it is not a silly idea to think a soul can exist without a God existing. They are not mutual. And the experiment reference was of solipsism.

Zillah

Gods. Ok, I enjoyed that but I really don't have the energy to continue. To conclude; people are complicated

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

See! This is what im talking about! You're not being "nice", your brain has detected the potential for a social alliance of sorts and is seeking to form emotional bonds with potential like-minded beings, thereby increasing your survival potential.

That is being "nice" ...

Just because something is done from an evolutionary stand point it doesn't mean it is not worthy action.

For example there are very few people in this world I would probably die for. My sister and brother are two people I would. That is probably more down to instinct, evolution and biology than to do with my high brain functions and logic.

But if (heaven forbid) I ever did put myself in serious harms way for my siblings would that be less "brave" or "heroic" because instinct was part of my decision to do that.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

EDIT:I will wait to see if The Atheist wants us to continue this off topic talk before I reply to your next post...

Don't mind me.

Zillah was the OP and doesn't seem to mind the discussion drifting of course. (Z - If you want it moved though, let me know - or just start a new thread.)

Beruthiel

Wicknight wrote:

For example there are very few people in this world I would probably die for. My sister and brother are two people I would. That is probably more down to instinct, evolution and biology than to do with my high brain functions and logic..

did you read the Selfish Gene? it explains why you would only die for your siblings, the chance is that they will carry on your genes to the next generation, thus ensuring the survival of said genes.
It has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with your genes making sure they survive under any circumstances

Zombrex

Beruthiel wrote:

It has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with your genes making sure they survive under any circumstances

But what is "nice" ... why are we assuming that concepts like "nice", "friendship", "love" etc are independent of our biological instincts? To me they are just another word for them, terms coined when we didn't understand or have any concept of our biological/evolutionary origins.

Beruthiel

Wicknight wrote:

But what is "nice" ... why are we assuming that concepts like "nice", "friendship", "love" etc are independent of our biological instincts?

I agree.
we are programmed to have those feelings in order to survive, as a group that is easier to do.

Son Goku

Beruthiel wrote:

did you read the Selfish Gene? it explains why you would only die for your siblings, the chance is that they will carry on your genes to the next generation, thus ensuring the survival of said genes.
It has nothing to do with being nice, it has to do with your genes making sure they survive under any circumstances

You don't die for your siblings because they have a chance of passing on your genes. That makes evolution sound too intelligent.
Rather an altruistic brain is more likely to survive because as a bi-product of being altruistic a animal will preserve those who have similar genes (as these are usually siblings, parents, children, e.g.)
Evolution just accidentally produced an altruistic animal, which because of being altruistic carried on its genes.

Even though evolution honed the response, your brain still chooses to do things for its own internal reasons rather than you having an evolutionary instinct to do so. The reason this kind of brain survived is that its choices were better than other brains' choices.

Asiaprod

Son Goku wrote:

Even though evolution honed the response, your brain still chooses to do things for its own internal reasons rather than you having an evolutionary instinct to do so. The reason this kind of brain survived is that its choices were better than other brains' choices.

I would agree with this idea. I would feel that it is I that made the decision based on my desire to want to see them survive......maybe I am just a sentimental softy:)

robindch

> Even though evolution honed the response, your brain still chooses to
> do things for its own internal reasons rather than you having an
> evolutionary instinct to do so.

Yes, but most EP/HBE people will point out that your own "internal reasons" are frequently honed by evolutionary instinct, so you're in a catch-22 situation here. And while we might think that sentimental softiness -- warm + cuddly and all as it is -- is at the base of it all, Hamilton's Rule unfortunately suggests that there's a simple mathematical reason why we should feel this way:

http://www.brembs.net/hamilton/
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch8/chap8.htm

Not that I think it's a very good idea to bring this up with one's brothers, sisters, partners, parents and kids though