|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2005 : 16:09:39 [Permalink]
|
Well, first off, I think you should drop the terms "science" and "philosophy" from your argument. They don't really represent the concepts you are trying to present and so they are misleading and confusing.
I suggest using "binary logic" in place of "science," and "abstract thought" in place of philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
The thought is that evolution which is law dependent, could not develop shades of grey, since there is no law governing that problem.
Evolution is a mechanism. I'm not sure we can even say all the laws which govern that mechanism, but we have a handle on quite a few, such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc.
There isn't any law in evolution which states how organisms must evolve, though. While it is fascinating that humans evolved sentience, I'm not sure why you believe that sentience should necessarily be devoid of the ability to process abstract concepts.
Computers are not a good example to compare with humans since they are not sentient. However, if we look at organisms that evolved with us, we see parallels to our own thinking processes. Ants may not exhibit much in common with us, but what about chimpanzees or dolphins? Both of those animals express some degree of cognition, though less than our own, and these animals are both highly emotional and capable of abstract thought. Indeed, in order to become self-aware, some abstract thinking is necessary. I'm not sure a purely binary logic thinking process could ever develop self-awareness. That's what we have with computers and we can see that they are not conscious, nor can we make them so by merely increasing their processing power.
Consciousness is indeed a mystery, but because we see a gradual progression of it throughout the animal kingdom (culminating in ourselves), there simply is no basis right now to state that abstract, shades-of-gray thinking cannot evolve naturally. We just don't see any evidence to support that.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/12/2005 16:14:47 |
 |
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 16:38:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Well, first off, I think you should drop the terms "science" and "philosophy" from your argument. They don't really represent the concepts you are trying to present and so they are misleading and confusing.
I suggest using "binary logic" in place of "science," and "abstract thought" in place of philosophy.
My argument is that science in truth is nothing BUT binary logic. Abstract thought could replace philosophy however. But science stays for the aforemetioned reason.
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
The thought is that evolution which is law dependent, could not develop shades of grey, since there is no law governing that problem.
Evolution is a mechanism. I'm not sure we can even say all the laws which govern that mechanism, but we have a handle on quite a few, such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc.
There isn't any law in evolution which states how organisms must evolve, though. While it is fascinating that humans evolved sentience, I'm not sure why you believe that sentience should necessarily be devoid of the ability to process abstract concepts.
Evolution isa mechanism, and like all mechanisms is bound by laws. Those laws can pre-exist or be created as they are required, but new laws which must have happened, must adhere to the definition of a law. Creating abstract thought is without a law, how did evolution create a law to govern lawlessness?
quote:
Computers are not a good example to compare with humans since they are not sentient. However, if we look at organisms that evolved with us, we see parallels to our own thinking processes. Ants may not exhibit much in common with us, but what about chimpanzees or dolphins? Both of those animals express some degree of cognition, though less than our own, and these animals are both highly emotional and capable of abstract thought. Indeed, in order to become self-aware, some abstract thinking is necessary. I'm not sure a purely binary logic thinking process could ever develop self-awareness. That's what we have with computers and we can see that they are not conscious, nor can we make them so by merely increasing their processing power.
The reason why I keep mentioning computers is because I believe binary logic is how the science brain functions. It is that concept that leads me to believe evolution could only ever conceive binary logic.
quote:
Consciousness is indeed a mystery, but because we see a gradual progression of it throughout the animal kingdom (culminating in ourselves), there simply is no basis right now to state that abstract, shades-of-gray thinking cannot evolve naturally. We just don't see any evidence to support that.
If one cannot answer yes and no to the same question simutaneously, this proves that the human brain functions upon absolutes, the calling card of evolution. Developing shades of grey is contrary to the call of evolution, evolution allows for consciousness (Do I exist? Yes) it is the further addition of "How do I know I exist?" that puzzles me, it doesn't fit into the scheme of evolution, since evolution in binary. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 16:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR...quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
ASR's argument, as far as I can make out, is that humans should not be capable of abstract thought if they evolved through strictly material processes.
Correct. Science could develop "Is my time worth something? (Yes/No)" but cannot comprehend "What is it worth?" The thought is that evolution which is law dependent, could not develop shades of grey, since there is no law governing that problem. It would have to develop an entirely new and foreign system for dealing with that situation, trying to use law to create not law. Is that clearer?
It looks like there are three fundamental problems here...
(1) ASR is a very poor communicator. He seems to use common words and phrases, but in ways that are not commonly understood. It looks like he is under the mistaken impression that other people should understand him, when in fact he is not making himself especially clear. That can possibly be resolved if he takes some remedial English courses. ASR, the type of courses that might help you most would be ones with emphasis on reading and writing. These are usually available at high schools and community colleges in most communities.
(2) ASR doesn't understand the scientific process, or scientific method. ASR, there is a fairly cut-and-dried series of steps that you must follow in order to formulate a theory. The scientific process also has fairly specific methods of falsifying existing theories. You haven't followed any of the prescribed steps when attempting to present your own "theory" or in discrediting the theory of evolution. There are remedial science classes offered at most community colleges, and taking one or two of these classes could prove beneficial to your effort. Meantime, a very simple description of the scientific method can be found by clicking here.
(3) ASR doesn't have a rudimentary grasp on the contemporary theory of evolution. A fairly thorough description of the current theory, including simplified definitions of terms and explanations of the science that supports the theory, can be found at The Talk Origins Archive. ASR, a good thorough reading of the information presented there might help bring you up to speed on the issue so you can actually discuss it intelligently.quote:
Originally posted by ASR...
You all cannot comprehend the difference between a scientific thought and a philosophical thought because it goes against the logic that you have been taught. This is a new way of thinking, don't be sheep, think about it before dismissing it, (right galileo?)
No, it's not a new way of thinking at all. Guessing, jumping to conclusions, and believing you have formulated valid scientific theories without following the scientific method is a very very old way of thinking. The scientific community, intelligent thinking people, and the skeptics of the world have moved far ahead of that rather archaic way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
My argument is that science in truth is nothing BUT binary logic. Abstract thought could replace philosophy however. But science stays for the aforemetioned reason.
Science is just a system of classifying knowledge. I think what you mean is science can only answer empirical questions, like "How fast was that car moving?" But science can't tell you why that car was moving.
Still, I wouldn't say science is strictly limited to "binary logic." We should work toward finding a better term.
quote:
The reason why I keep mentioning computers is because I believe binary logic is how the science brain functions. It is that concept that leads me to believe evolution could only ever conceive binary logic.
What leads you to believe the binary logic is how nature operates? Evolution is a natural process. There is no law that states evolution must produce conscious orgamisms at all, let alone one that states if it did, those consciousnesses must operate on binary logic.
quote:
If one cannot answer yes and no to the same question simutaneously, this proves that the human brain functions upon absolutes, the calling card of evolution.
But you haven't proven that absolutes are the calling card of evolution. That is your assertion, remember? And people can answer yes and no to the same question. For example, do you like people? For me the answer is yes and no.
quote:
Developing shades of grey is contrary to the call of evolution, evolution allows for consciousness (Do I exist? Yes) it is the further addition of "How do I know I exist?" that puzzles me, it doesn't fit into the scheme of evolution, since evolution in binary.
Well, while consciousness is indeed puzzling, I think you should work on proving that evolution is binary. Right now you haven't provided any evidence to back up that statement, and it seems your entire argument rests upon that premise.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/12/2005 17:12:26 |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:16:10 [Permalink]
|
I have established my proofs (as far as renaming the two sides to the human brain) as
1) Not being able to answer yes and no to the same question simultaneously
2) That we cannot comprehend anything that does not relate to science or philosophy.
My primary objective is not to end evolution but credit the science and philosophy theory as fact. Ending evolution is a side task, which in this forum has certainly been discussed, overshadowing my true intentions with a three day old line of thought. Unfortunately this is not the proper forum for discussing the theory without the evolution aspect, though if it pleases the thread members, we can discuss that instead while I regroup my thoughts and educate myself on the subject...
My writing skills have taken a considerable blow since developing schizophrenia, I apologize for incoherency, but I'm in a recovery stage. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:42:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Science is just a system of classifying knowledge. I think what you mean is science can only answer empirical questions, like "How fast was that car moving?" But science can't tell you why that car was moving.
You still think of science as answering science type questions. ANY question that begins with "who, what, when, where, why, and how" is a philosophical question, noted by: "I say 50 mph, you say 55mph" the answer is debatable. The SCIENCE question is "Is it moving at 55 mph?" the answer must be Yes or No. If you answer maybe, what you have really stated is "Is it moving at 55 mph? Yes AND No"
quote:
Still, I wouldn't say science is strictly limited to "binary logic." We should work toward finding a better term.
But it is. A protien interacting with its environment is subject to law, it either does or it doesn't. Is this cell in a state of mitosis? Yes or No. Did my brain tell my fingers to type, Yes or No. etc.
quote:
What leads you to believe the binary logic is how nature operates? Evolution is a natural process. There is no law that states evolution must produce conscious orgamisms at all, let alone one that states if it did, those consciousnesses must operate on binary logic.
Grass and trees evolved, yet never developed emotions. They are a binary process. Humans too, before we had a brain, just a cell dividing and changing were a binary process. Our roots are in binary logic, which is why I believe that evolution, though it can create more complex things than trees and grass, cannot break free of its original design, binary logic.
quote:
But you haven't proven that absolutes are the calling card of evolution. That is your assertion, remember? And people can answer yes and no to the same question. For example, do you like people? For me the answer is yes and no.
You say "Yes and No" in succession not instantly together...think the question again and pay attention to how you say it, you do not say "yNeOs" you say "yes and no" one after the other, whichever you place first in your mind is up to you.
[quote]Well, while consciousness is indeed puzzling, I think you should work on proving that evolution is binary. Right now you haven't provided any evidence to back up that statement, and it seems your entire argument rests upon that premise.
Let me think about binary logic and evolution some more. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:45:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You still think of science as answering science type questions. ANY question that begins with "who, what, when, where, why, and how" is a philosophical question, noted by: "I say 50 mph, you say 55mph" the answer is debatable. The SCIENCE question is "Is it moving at 55 mph?" the answer must be Yes or No. If you answer maybe, what you have really stated is "Is it moving at 55 mph? Yes AND No"
But the real question your logic brain asks is "Do I know what speed it is going? No" Maybe (or yes AND no) simplifies the question above to one word. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 17:54:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
My primary objective is not to end evolution but credit the science and philosophy theory as fact.
Damn. Seven pages of this stuff already.
The main problem, which H. and GeeMack almost nailed, is a simple confusion of terms. A philosophy is a way of thinking about something. Science is a way of thinking about the natural world. Science is a philosophy. The false dichotomy is the idea that there's science over here, and philosophy over there, and some mix of the two in between. ASR is using both words incorrectly, which is what allows him to come to such bizarre conclusions.
So, to end the confusion, I suggest that ASR should replace the word "science" in his essay and his posts here with the word "geeblewizzit," and he should replace the word "philosophy" with "spoofungeon." That way he can define the words however he pleases without creating all this sort of fuss. So, what I've quoted above should be rewritten as:quote:
My primary objective is not to end evolution but credit the geeblewizzit and spoofungeon theory as fact.
Of course, the whole confusing mess doesn't stop there (otherwise we could all ignore it - who gives a damn about the geeblewizzit and spoofungeon theory?). No, ASR drags evolution into the mix as well, with little apparent understanding of it, and its implications to philosophy (I have no idea what its implications are to spoofungeon, and have no motivation to find out).
It's clear that we have evolved brains which are capable of comprehending certain philosophies (all of the ones we know about, in fact). We even understand the philosophy of science well enough to have an understanding of evolutionary processes. And this is marvellous! I feel very lucky to have been born a human, and not some non-understanding ant (though were I born an ant, I probably wouldn't understand what I was missing, and so wouldn't miss it).
Of course, evolution didn't create philosophy. Concepts don't require human beings to think them (unless you're a solipsist), and from what we've discovered using the philosophy of science as a basis (from what I can tell, geeblewizzit is useless as a tool of discovery), we know that rocks and water and organic molecules (etc) have existed far longer than any human brain.
And emotions... well, you've already conceded, ASR, that emotions aren't uniquely human. So, because emotions have evolutionary utility, we can just strike that part of your argument.
Oh, philosophy has evolutionary utility, too. I know of some people who support their families through pure philosophy (thinking about thinking). Thus, being able to philosophize provides for some non-zero amount of reproductive success. Heck, knowing a few bits of really obscure philosophy can get almost anyone laid, and that is what "survival of the fittest" is all about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 18:21:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The main problem, which H. and GeeMack almost nailed, is a simple confusion of terms. A philosophy is a way of thinking about something. Science is a way of thinking about the natural world. Science is a philosophy. The false dichotomy is the idea that there's science over here, and philosophy over there, and some mix of the two in between. ASR is using both words incorrectly, which is what allows him to come to such bizarre conclusions.
I am not using the words incorrectly, I am attempting to redefine them. Of course you see it as a mistake, because you have looked at my definition of them through the spectacles of the old way of thinking.
quote:
It's clear that we have evolved brains which are capable of comprehending certain philosophies (all of the ones we know about, in fact). We even understand the philosophy of science well enough to have an understanding of evolutionary processes. And this is marvellous! I feel very lucky to have been born a human, and not some non-understanding ant (though were I born an ant, I probably wouldn't understand what I was missing, and so wouldn't miss it).
Evolution is considered a philosophy because it is not yet known to be absolute fact. Gravity is a fact, you claim it is a philosophy, but now that we know it definitely does exist, it is no longer philosophy but now science, a seperatation from philosophy because it cannot be debated, which is where your confusion lies.
quote:
Of course, evolution didn't create philosophy. Concepts don't require human beings to think them (unless you're a solipsist), and from what we've discovered using the philosophy of science as a basis (from what I can tell, geeblewizzit is useless as a tool of discovery), we know that rocks and water and organic molecules (etc) have existed far longer than any human brain.
Again you confuse facts, (rocks, water, and organic molecules) as a philosophical concept (if I'm following you right) Those things, without a shadow of a doubt, exist...this is what science does and is what seperates it from philosophy. Those things would exist if humans were here or not, thus it is not a philosophical thought of science since if we did not exist to ponder them, they would still be here.
quote:
And emotions... well, you've already conceded, ASR, that emotions aren't uniquely human. So, because emotions have evolutionary utility, we can just strike that part of your argument.
That emotions are common to more than just human is a compliment to both evolution and God, we're dead even here.
quote:
Oh, philosophy has evolutionary utility, too. I know of some people who support their families through pure philosophy (thinking about thinking). Thus, being able to philosophize provides for some non-zero amount of reproductive success. Heck, knowing a few bits of really obscure philosophy can get almost anyone laid, and that is what "survival of the fittest" is all about.
To credit evolution with the need to create philosophy so that one could support a family based upon their thoughts, but only aided humans, not every other species with emotions and philosophy, (I've seen an elephant paint but it didnt get it laid) strikes down the theory that philosophy helps the success of a species...and lmao |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 18:45:13 [Permalink]
|
ASR:
Welcome to SFN.
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that philosophy, or abstract thought, serves no evolutionary purpose, therefore since humans have the ability for philosophy, humans cannot be the result of evolution. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the ability to philosophize has no evolutionary value, although one might argue otherwise.
Consider:
Throwing a football with speed, distance, and accuracy, or dancing ballet do not serve any evolutionary purpose, yet humans have this ability. Why? Because the same neural / muscular / skeletal construction which allows us to do things that do have evolutionary value, such as hunt and avoid predators, can also be used for other actions which may not necessarily contribute to survival. It is a side affect, if you will, of the evolution of the human body.
Similarly, the evolution of the human brain has contributed to the continued survival of the species, but as it turns out, a side affect of that is the ability to philosophize simply due to the way the construction of the brain has evolved.
Therefore I find your premise that possession of an ability which is not necessarily evolutionarily advantageous somehow negates the fact of evolution to be without merit.
I am also bound to point out, that in order to show creationism true, merely proving evolution false is insufficient (and your assertion doesn't even begin to address the mountains of evidence supporting evolution). You must also provide positive evidence of creation. So far, I'm afraid you have done neither.
(edited to complete a sentence!) |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
| Edited by - R.Wreck on 10/12/2005 18:48:37 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 18:57:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ASR:
And kil who said I was a hit and run was dead wrong.
quote:
Me:
I'm betting on a hit and run. I hope that I am wrong about that...
I lost my bet, but I was not dead wrong. As you can see, I was hoping that you were not a hit and run. I could not have hoped for that if I was sure that you were... Sheesh!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 19:10:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
I am not using the words incorrectly, I am attempting to redefine them. Of course you see it as a mistake, because you have looked at my definition of them through the spectacles of the old way of thinking.
I see it as a mistake because it needlessly creates confusion. If that is your intent, I can safely dismiss you as doing nothing more than purposefully obfuscating 'science', 'philosophy' and 'evolution' in order to push some brand of creationism politically. In other words, I need not address any points you might try to make, and instead focus my efforts upon your equivocation of terms to show your dishonesty.
Second, both science and philosophy have a long history of not redefining terms unless the new meaning has some resemblance to the old meaning. For example, Shannon's information entropy has some relation to the entropy of thermodynamics, so it's okay that he used the same term (especially when people keep the contexts separate). So, since your use of the word 'science' has no relation whatsoever to the historical meaning, and your use of the word 'philosophy' would insult philosophers, I'll stick with geeblewizzits and spoofungeon, thanks.quote:
Evolution is considered a philosophy because it is not yet known to be absolute fact. Gravity is a fact, you claim it is a philosophy, but now that we know it definitely does exist, it is no longer philosophy but now science, a seperatation from philosophy because it cannot be debated, which is where your confusion lies.
No, this is an old (not new, but very old) creationist tactic of equivocating the scientific term 'theory' with the layperson's term. The scientific term means "an explanation of what we observe." The layperson's meaning is "a guess." The two are not the same. Scientific theories never become facts. Evolution is a theory, in that it's an explanation for the biodiversity we see today. Evolution is also a fact, in that we can see things evolving. Same goes for gravity. The theory of gravity explains why planets go 'round the Sun. The fact of gravity we feel each and every second. In geeblewizzit, theories may become facts, but I don't care about geeblewizzit.quote:
Again you confuse facts, (rocks, water, and organic molecules) as a philosophical concept (if I'm following you right) Those things, without a shadow of a doubt, exist...this is what science does and is what seperates it from philosophy. Those things would exist if humans were here or not, thus it is not a philosophical thought of science since if we did not exist to ponder them, they would still be here.
You're ignoring the philosophy of solipsism, in which rocks only exist within the solipsist's mind. The solipsist can still do science, he just doesn't agree that rocks "exist" in any fundamental way. Your knowledge of philosophy and science is poor. I must assume, since you're inventing them, that your knowledge of spoofungeon and geeblewizzit is high, however. I defer to you on those subjects.quote:
That emotions are common to more than just human is a compliment to both evolution and God, we're dead even here.
When did this become a contest?quote:
To credit evolution with the need to create philosophy so that one could support a family based upon their thoughts, but only aided humans, not every other species with emotions and philosophy, (I've seen an elephant paint but it didnt get it laid) strikes down the theory that philosophy helps the success of a species...and lmao
Evolution doesn't need to do anything. The idea that evolution is driven towards some goal is also a very old creationist canard. (For someone who claims to be doing some new thinking, you seem to be over 30 years behind.) But, that aside, the idea that evolutionary theory states that traits which make one species successful (like the ability to philosophize) should make all species successful is simply absurd. A fish with eagle's wings would be at a severe disadvantage. A bird with an elephant's bulk wouldn't need wings. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that if one species finds philosophy to be advantageous, all species will. Your knowledge of evolutionary theory appears to be derived from Kent Hovind placemats. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 19:16:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Similarly, the evolution of the human brain has contributed to the continued survival of the species, but as it turns out, a side affect of that is the ability to philosophize simply due to the way the construction of the brain has evolved.
An unintentional side effect of human evolution also led to the development of emotions? Thus far no one has refuted that "Science + Philosophy = Emotion" The chemicals involved were mentioned, but something has to trigger that. The argument of creationism lies in the fat chance that emotions were an accident (even if philosophy was created by evolution, emotions are a BIG deal and that's some hardcore design going on). Pointed out to me was the need to prove evolution as a binary function. Everything evolution does seems to have a binary process (mutations, adaptation, you know more about it than I do, but I'm willing to bet that everything evolution has done is governed by natural laws, which must be true because if it weren't a law it could not exist) So we know for fact that evolution works in binary functions now, the question is can it develop philosophical functions? It would be necessary for people to have philosophy in order to love God, which is what he wanted from his children. How would evolution know that emotions, (which we will claim are necessary for survival, even though there is plenty of evidence that it is not) could be created by philosophy? Why aren't there other variations of thinking in the animal kingdom if it had to go through trial and error? All these species were wiped out? Wouldn't a race have an advantage if it could think in terms that are outside the bounds of science and philosophy? There is science based life on earth, scienctific and philosophical based life on earth, but nothing else? For all the accidental phenomina of evolution, it certainly fell short in variety.
Now I'm a little tired, I've been a lone wolf up against the pack, I'll think about things and comment more tomorrow. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 19:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Thus far no one has refuted that "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"
Nobody has to refute "geeblewizzit + spoofugeon = emotion," since it is clearly meaning-free. Even using your "new" definitions, "hard facts + abstract thought = emotion" is devoid of anything refutable.
Beyond which, if animals have emotions, but cannot philosophize (regardless the definition), then your equation is wrong on its face and you've refuted yourself.quote:
The argument of creationism lies in the fat chance that emotions were an accident (even if philosophy was created by evolution, emotions are a BIG deal and that's some hardcore design going on).
Ah, the old argument of "it seems unlikely to me, therefore it is false." That's been done to death already.quote:
...Everything evolution does seems to have a binary process (mutations, adaptation, you know more about it than I do, but I'm willing to bet that everything evolution has done is governed by natural laws, which must be true because if it weren't a law it could not exist) So we know for fact that evolution works in binary functions now, the question is can it develop philosophical functions?
If your definition of 'existence' is "that which is governed by natural laws" then philosophy (and the act of philosophizing) must also be governed by natural laws, since philosophy (and the act) assuredly exist. So, why do you have a problem with something governed by natural laws creating something else governed by natural laws?quote:
It would be necessary for people to have philosophy in order to love God, which is what he wanted from his children.
This assumes that God exists. If He is not governed by natural laws (which seems to be what His proponents claim), then He doesn't exist, by your "logic."quote:
How would evolution know that emotions, (which we will claim are necessary for survival, even though there is plenty of evidence that it is not)...
Well, there's the problem right there: evolutionary theory doesn't claim any given trait is necessary for survival, only that a trait which increases survival will itself tend to survive and be passed to future generations.quote:
...could be created by philosophy? Why aren't there other variations of thinking in the animal kingdom if it had to go through trial and error? All these species were wiped out?
Have you examined all of the planets in the universe and discovered that no such variations exist, anywhere?quote:
Wouldn't a race have an advantage if it could think in terms that are outside the bounds of science and philosophy?
Yes, which is why actual science and actual philosophy are much more robust and widespread than your geeblewizzit and spoofungeon. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 19:40:37 [Permalink]
|
ASR, do you classify horniness as an emotion? What is that thing that motivates animals to want to engage in sexual congress? Is hunger an emotion? What motivates organisms to eat? How would you classify these primal "drives?" What about thirst?
And, after all is said and done, how is the drive to "love" anything all that different from these other drives? Your brain releases chemicals to tell you when you need to put water into your body. This is experienced as thirst. Your brain releases chemicals that emotionally bond you to your offspring, since animals which protect their young confer an advantage in survival. This is experienced as love. Your emotions are just chemical instructions that motivate you to engage in evolutionarily successful behaviors. Emotions are just your body's way of getting you to do certain things.
Science and Philosophy don't have anything to do with it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/12/2005 19:47:25 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
