Philosophy Discussion Forums

This is an interesting article on the misconceptions about evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... herfaq.php

Species can sometimes evolve to extinction. So evolution is not only about progress. Evolution is not completely random or by accident either. Nor is evolution a theory about the origin of life. Nor have humans stopped evolving. In short, it addresses a lot of issues on evolution that are argued so pointlessly on this forum.

Vijaydevani wrote:This is an interesting article on the misconceptions about evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... herfaq.php

Species can sometimes evolve to extinction. So evolution is not only about progress. Evolution is not completely random or by accident either. Nor is evolution a theory about the origin of life. Nor have humans stopped evolving. In short, it addresses a lot of issues on evolution that are argued so pointlessly on this forum.

Nice resource, VJ. I wonder if anyone who disagrees with it will actually refer to it though. Sadly enough, a few of them will just trot off merrily to their favourite crank website, something like creation.org or evolutionnews.org (actually an ID site, linked to intelligentdesign.org) or goddamnscience.org (Reich Deem's site).

I recall a discussion between Richard Dawkins and some evolution denier (Wendy Wright - 2/7 parts or about 12 minutes into the full interview) in which she was denying the existence of any intermediate fossils and he was repeatedly imploring her to visit a natural history museum. She just blanks him and goes on with her agenda.

-- Updated October 5th, 2014, 1:12 am to add the following --

Vijaydevani wrote:This is an interesting article on the misconceptions about evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... herfaq.php

Species can sometimes evolve to extinction. So evolution is not only about progress. Evolution is not completely random or by accident either. Nor is evolution a theory about the origin of life. Nor have humans stopped evolving. In short, it addresses a lot of issues on evolution that are argued so pointlessly on this forum.

Nice resource, VJ. I wonder if anyone who disagrees with it will actually refer to it though. Sadly enough, a few of them will just trot off merrily to their favourite crank website, something like creation.org or evolutionnews.org (actually an ID site, linked to intelligentdesign.org) or goddamnscience.org (Reich Deem's site).

I recall a discussion between Richard Dawkins and some evolution denier (Wendy Wright - 2/7 parts or about 12 minutes into the full interview) in which she was denying the existence of any intermediate fossils and he was repeatedly imploring her to visit a natural history museum. She just blanks him and goes on with her agenda.

Neopolitan wrote:

Neznac wrote:... I think my point was that evolution is as much about preserving structure/function (s/f) as it is about changing them ...

I'm going to look past the implied question "What is evolution for?" on the assumption that you didn't mean to imply it.

I didn't, but now that you mention "the apparent purpose of evolution" it almost appears to be hidden in my remarks. Crazy implications!

Neopolitan wrote: Are you trying to get at the idea that resides in the "space elevator" description of evolution that seems to be inherent to "punctuated equilibrium" models?

I guess what my angle was was to challenge those who see evolution as having a purpose, namely, to create creatures that resemble human beings. But I think I got off track early on. I should have said something like "replication/reproduction is about preserving the existing s/f" but even that implies a purpose. Actually, evolution explains the changes in a context of what remains the same versus what has been altered, but that's just common knowledge/sense.

I thought I had some insightful scheme that showed how the theory of evolution is a synthesis of Parmenidean and Heraclitian positions, but the sense i thought I had captured has conveniently evaporated.

Fooloso4 wrote:ut if I am right then the laws of nature have no more ontological status than my description what my dog does when it’s time for dinner. I am not talking about what my dog does, but about the description of what she does. When you say that the law of acceleration of matter is real, I do not think that means anything more than that we can quantify and predict the acceleration of matter. What is real is not the law but what it describes. It is not subject to a 'a domain of law'. The laws are epistemological not ontological.

Well, I think you suffer from 'wonder deficiency syndrome'. Don't worry, it is very common nowadays, you will probably get along fine, if you don't realize what you're missing. But one of the cardinal features of human intelligence is the ability to envisage things things that don't exist, and bring them into existence, or to predict things that have never been imagined, and then find them. I find that pretty wonderful, but if you think it is just like 'feeding your dog', then go right ahead.

I had a debate on this forum a while back - and it does remind me how sisyphean this experience is - wherein I found an interview with Dawkins in which he actually claims that such abilities are something like the unintended consequence of chasing wildebeest.

Here is my view of the role of human beings - that they are very much the universe becoming aware of itself and discovering realms of possibility, that could not be discovered, were it not through a form like this.

So rather than falling over yourselves trying to prove that it's all really meaningless, I think that would be a more creative attitude.

But as for now, this particular Sisyphus is going to stop rolling this particular rock.

Bye for now.

Quotidian wrote: So rather than falling over yourselves trying to prove that it's all really meaningless, I think that would be a more creative attitude.

Why would you assume that meaningfulness brings with it a more creative attitude and meaninglessness does not? Why would you assume that meaninglessness is a negative and meaningfulness is a positive? Why can you not be open to the idea that meaningful COULD be meaningless and meaningless COULD be meaningful?

I know very little about Buddhism, but the concept of the middle way fascinated me a long time back. It is this concept that led me to the conclusion that meaningless and meaningful are the two extremes. Neither is completely right and neither is completely wrong and both are inclusive of the other.

Kettle wrote:But as for now, this particular Sisyphus is going to stop rolling this particular rock.

As I recall, in terms of the myth, the rock that Sisyphus was pushing up the hill was real. That makes the allusion somewhat less than satisfactory.

Perhaps Kettle is referring to Sisyphys the fashion consult associated with the tailors who sewed the Emperor's new clothes. Every now and then, he turns up in the village of the clear-eyed child and tries to get the inhabitants to accept the newest fashions from those tailors. When the villagers decline, he comes back with modifications, a different cut, higher hem-lines, more robust sewing, a different range of colours. But the villagers keep on declining, because it's not the quality or style of the attire that is the problem, it is the fact that they don't exist. No matter how engagingly Sisyphus/Kettle describes the product, or how enthusiastically, they aren't going to buy because they want what Sisyphus/Kettle can't provide - material (evidence) that they will get something for their investment.

If Sisyphus/Kettle want to wander around in such outfits, with his intellectual tackle hanging in the wind, then more power to him - but he's not going to get a sale in our village, thank you very much. Perhaps he should try down the road in Gullible Gulch, or maybe, even better, Credulous City.

(/me wanders off to raise the new sign: "Welcome to Skepticville: Please Think Carefully".)

Fooloso4 wrote: “ You will have to come down out of the clouds if you wish to make you meaning clear to me. Even Socrates, perched high above the earth in a basket, descended. From our terrestrial perspective we might well wonder whether those suspended above are basket cases.”

It is free. If a representation of Platonic love is to be made then I will come down from the clouds to Earth and we will have a group hug with the neophytes of the biological materialism... free. A good Platonic love and biological materialism... neo densities same as...neo Christian or another Neo with densities correlating to QM? Or if I fell from the sky then I will feel the hug and forget platonic love. Platonic love is a concept with no biological requirements.

Q:

I think you suffer from 'wonder deficiency syndrome'.

I think the idea the consciousness explains consciousness does not explain anything. In addition, it creates a sense of wonder in something beyond our natural world, but does so at the expense of a sense of wonder in the mystery of the natural world.

So rather than falling over yourselves trying to prove that it's all really meaningless, I think that would be a more creative attitude.

The creative work has been done, the circle completed. The real creative work being done is being done by the scientists working to uncover the secrets of nature. Imagining the secret lies beyond our world is a symptom of a lack of imagination.

I am not trying to prove it is all meaningless. Such accusations typically assume that there must be a meaning to it all and then blame those who do not seek such meaning as if they are either working to prove there is no meaning or ignoring the problem of meaning. Yes, I know you can dig up evidence of those who do want to prove there is no meaning, but that says nothing about my attitude.

Quotidian wrote: Here is my view of the role of human beings - that they are very much the universe becoming aware of itself and discovering realms of possibility, that could not be discovered, were it not through a form like this.

So what has your open affirmation "that we are very much the Universe" really discovered? And if that were true to any extent you would have to include ALL life forms throughout the Universe even those less intelligent.

The belief that the Universe would be a revelation to itself through the likes of us wouldn't exactly do it much honor. It's a very old idea meaning mostly a religious one and the hot air balloons of philosophy which proclaim that man is the measure of all things. If only the Universe could laugh!

Lklint:

and the hot air balloons of philosophy which proclaim that man is the measure of all things.

The irony is that those who hold up the universe, the universal, consciousness itself, God, by whatever name they name it, fool themselves into thinking their affirmation of the universal refutes the claim that man is the measure, while all the time they are only measuring with a devise of their own making.

Not to derail the thread but since Q seems to have picked up his ball and gone home, I will expel some hot air to float the balloon: man is the measure of all things. I think I should start a new thread. I will put it on the General Philosophy board.

Jklint wrote:

Quotidian wrote: Here is my view of the role of human beings - that they are very much the universe becoming aware of itself and discovering realms of possibility, that could not be discovered, were it not through a form like this.

So what has your open affirmation "that we are very much the Universe" really discovered? And if that were true to any extent you would have to include ALL life forms throughout the Universe even those less intelligent.

The belief that the Universe would be a revelation to itself through the likes of us wouldn't exactly do it much honor. It's a very old idea meaning mostly a religious one and the hot air balloons of philosophy which proclaim that man is the measure of all things. If only the Universe could laugh!

Brilliant… and now to the Iron law of Oligarchy. “This ksatria wearing white clothes will tell the truth” However, only humans reap the prowess of the intellect. Can you teach any other life form to read? I hear that certain chimps can read. Is it true? Frontline Evolution: An alchemical process to produce the philosopher’s stone. The Lapis is the best medicine to cure the mixed products of the three kingdoms of Nature… so it said in my x-libris. Division could be accomplished by the supernatural power of fire. It must be in the heart that the fire is applied… “I am dressed in white said the one applying the fire” The same fire could be used in the alchemical process of fusion. Division or fusion is the intellectual question.

Fooloso4 wrote:

Lklint:

and the hot air balloons of philosophy which proclaim that man is the measure of all things.

The irony is that those who hold up the universe, the universal, consciousness itself, God, by whatever name they name it, fool themselves into thinking their affirmation of the universal refutes the claim that man is the measure, while all the time they are only measuring with a devise of their own making.

Not to derail the thread but since Q seems to have picked up his ball and gone home, I will expel some hot air to float the balloon: man is the measure of all things. I think I should start a new thread. I will put it on the General Philosophy board.

In the claim that "human beings ... are very much the universe becoming aware of itself" he does in fact denote himself as the measure of all things, as I see it. The two meanings are congruent, aligned and conjoined. Remove one and the other also no longer exists.

Jklint:

In the claim that "human beings ... are very much the universe becoming aware of itself" he does in fact denote himself as the measure of all things, as I see it.

And as I see it as well. That is what I find ironic.

Fooloso4 wrote:

Jklint:

In the claim that "human beings ... are very much the universe becoming aware of itself" he does in fact denote himself as the measure of all things, as I see it.

And as I see it as well. That is what I find ironic.

What I find ironic is how philosophy is all about how one sees it in which truth is often the exemption if not an utter inconvenience. Philosophers are usually as bureaucratic on ideas as lawyers and judges are on Justice, Law being the measure of it.

Jklint:

What I find ironic is how philosophy is all about how one sees it in which truth is often the exemption if not an utter inconvenience. Philosophers are usually as bureaucratic on ideas as lawyers and judges are on Justice, Law being the measure of it.

What is philosophical inquiry about if the truth is exempted and treated as an inconvenience?

Please, tell us how you see it, or rather, tell us the truth so that how we see it will be as it is. I don’t think we will be all that inconvenienced. I, for one, will be grateful.

In what way are philosophers bureaucratic on ideas? Who are the officials who govern the system? I would really need some specific examples before writing this off as an uniformed opinion. Who knows, maybe we will have to make you a high ranking official so that you can exempt all those who exempt the truth.