Philosophy Discussion Forums

MetaP, please keep your DARVO to yourself. You have been trolling me and, given your many personal attacks, I have probably been one of the most patient moderators on the internet. All I am doing is answering the topic, but you clearly resent the fact that I disagree with you.

Your above premise is wrong, anyway. Curiosity has many survival advantages. However, that does not mean curiosity will always be applied to practical matters. Likewise, there's a lot of non-procreative sex going on in the world.

It's not a matter of "Darwinism" being involved in religion. It's just a fact that humans, throughout most of their history, believed that agency lay behind mindless natural phenomena. Knowing what we know about epigenetics, these beliefs - over many generations - must have had a significant impact on the structure of brains. So we are "wired" to believe.

Yet there's no reason to believe that the first cause was sentient. There's certainly no evidence for that. Rather, it appears that sentience is an emergent property of nature. Personally, I find it fascinating that states of matter can complexified to the point of being self aware, and one can only wonder what further complexification will bring. Will more complexity always bring greater lucidity, or is there a "sweet spot", a balance point of optimal complexity?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:40 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:24 pm Metaphysician, your constant flow of ad hominem attacks are noted. That's your style, I guess.

I am not proposing anything. I have no intentions. No, there is no witch hunt. There is no agenda. However, when my harmless observations are run through the filter of your hyper-political American mindset, it becomes "wild speculation".

Do you agree that the structure of our ancestors brains would have been influenced by their belief in deities?

Oh that's what I thought. I would suggest then not to troll threads just because it 'feels good' to you. However, emotions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They cause stuff to happen!

With respect to your question, sure, our metaphysical Will influences our behavior (with the exception of the a priori things including instinct, etc.). Speaking of which, we have this innate sense of curiosity, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages but confers quality of life stuff called the synthetic a priori. And putting that in propositional form, 'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics. Remember aside from imaginative leaps (which are worked backwards into an established axiom like writing music) all physical theories start with synthetic propositions, then they're tested.

In any of the above (cause and effect), I don't see Darwinism having any primary effects or any effects at all in those human motivational things, do you?

Emotions do as you say "cause stuff to happen". Emotions are not the sole causes of events ; they are constituents of the biosphere. In sapiens, emotional chemistry strongly affects central nervous systems and becomes feelings and motivations. Central nervous systems are a comparatively recent evolution of the biosphere. Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 4:04 pm I find it fascinating that states of matter can complexified to the point of being self aware, and one can only wonder what further complexification will bring.

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spaceraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:38 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:40 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:24 pm Metaphysician, your constant flow of ad hominem attacks are noted. That's your style, I guess.

I am not proposing anything. I have no intentions. No, there is no witch hunt. There is no agenda. However, when my harmless observations are run through the filter of your hyper-political American mindset, it becomes "wild speculation".

Do you agree that the structure of our ancestors brains would have been influenced by their belief in deities?

Oh that's what I thought. I would suggest then not to troll threads just because it 'feels good' to you. However, emotions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They cause stuff to happen!

With respect to your question, sure, our metaphysical Will influences our behavior (with the exception of the a priori things including instinct, etc.). Speaking of which, we have this innate sense of curiosity, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages but confers quality of life stuff called the synthetic a priori. And putting that in propositional form, 'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics. Remember aside from imaginative leaps (which are worked backwards into an established axiom like writing music) all physical theories start with synthetic propositions, then they're tested.

In any of the above (cause and effect), I don't see Darwinism having any primary effects or any effects at all in those human motivational things, do you?

Emotions do as you say "cause stuff to happen". Emotions are not the sole causes of events ; they are constituents of the biosphere. In sapiens, emotional chemistry strongly affects central nervous systems and becomes feelings and motivations. Central nervous systems are a comparatively recent evolution of the biosphere. Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution.

Agreed. Emotions drive people to get upset in philosophy forums, type stuff, commit suicide, have babies, and experience many other sentient things which all reside in the meta-physical Will. You know, purposeful stuff! Materialism is simply a means to an end. Needing purpose has causal power. And as such, our Will causes us to effect purpose. Basic humanistic cause and effect. Remember, Teleology, Anthropic principles, and other existential human phenomena correspond to that need for meaning.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 9:55 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:38 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:40 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:24 pm Metaphysician, your constant flow of ad hominem attacks are noted. That's your style, I guess.

I am not proposing anything. I have no intentions. No, there is no witch hunt. There is no agenda. However, when my harmless observations are run through the filter of your hyper-political American mindset, it becomes "wild speculation".

Do you agree that the structure of our ancestors brains would have been influenced by their belief in deities?

Oh that's what I thought. I would suggest then not to troll threads just because it 'feels good' to you. However, emotions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They cause stuff to happen!

With respect to your question, sure, our metaphysical Will influences our behavior (with the exception of the a priori things including instinct, etc.). Speaking of which, we have this innate sense of curiosity, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages but confers quality of life stuff called the synthetic a priori. And putting that in propositional form, 'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics. Remember aside from imaginative leaps (which are worked backwards into an established axiom like writing music) all physical theories start with synthetic propositions, then they're tested.

In any of the above (cause and effect), I don't see Darwinism having any primary effects or any effects at all in those human motivational things, do you?

Emotions do as you say "cause stuff to happen". Emotions are not the sole causes of events ; they are constituents of the biosphere. In sapiens, emotional chemistry strongly affects central nervous systems and becomes feelings and motivations. Central nervous systems are a comparatively recent evolution of the biosphere. Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution.

Agreed. Emotions drive people to get upset in philosophy forums, type stuff, commit suicide, have babies, and experience many other sentient things which all reside in the meta-physical Will. You know, purposeful stuff! Materialism is simply a means to an end. Needing purpose has causal power. And as such, our Will causes us to effect purpose. Basic humanistic cause and effect. Remember, Teleology, Anthropic principles, and other existential human phenomena correspond to that need for meaning.

You say "agreed". But you continue with opinions I disagree with, so you don't agree after all.

Some of your discussion begins to make sense and soon becomes less than explicit. You need to write in a more disciplined style if you want to be taken seriously.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 1:52 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 9:55 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:38 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 3:40 pm

Oh that's what I thought. I would suggest then not to troll threads just because it 'feels good' to you. However, emotions are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They cause stuff to happen!

With respect to your question, sure, our metaphysical Will influences our behavior (with the exception of the a priori things including instinct, etc.). Speaking of which, we have this innate sense of curiosity, that confers no Darwinian survival advantages but confers quality of life stuff called the synthetic a priori. And putting that in propositional form, 'all events must have a cause' is something we humans think about quite a bit, don't we? For instance, it has no survival value but is the basis of most physical theories in physics. Remember aside from imaginative leaps (which are worked backwards into an established axiom like writing music) all physical theories start with synthetic propositions, then they're tested.

In any of the above (cause and effect), I don't see Darwinism having any primary effects or any effects at all in those human motivational things, do you?

Emotions do as you say "cause stuff to happen". Emotions are not the sole causes of events ; they are constituents of the biosphere. In sapiens, emotional chemistry strongly affects central nervous systems and becomes feelings and motivations. Central nervous systems are a comparatively recent evolution of the biosphere. Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution.

Agreed. Emotions drive people to get upset in philosophy forums, type stuff, commit suicide, have babies, and experience many other sentient things which all reside in the meta-physical Will. You know, purposeful stuff! Materialism is simply a means to an end. Needing purpose has causal power. And as such, our Will causes us to effect purpose. Basic humanistic cause and effect. Remember, Teleology, Anthropic principles, and other existential human phenomena correspond to that need for meaning.

You say "agreed". But you continue with opinions I disagree with, so you don't agree after all.

Some of your discussion begins to make sense and soon becomes less than explicit. You need to write in a more disciplined style if you want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 2:51 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 1:52 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 9:55 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:38 am

Emotions do as you say "cause stuff to happen". Emotions are not the sole causes of events ; they are constituents of the biosphere. In sapiens, emotional chemistry strongly affects central nervous systems and becomes feelings and motivations. Central nervous systems are a comparatively recent evolution of the biosphere. Natural selection is the driver of biological evolution.

Agreed. Emotions drive people to get upset in philosophy forums, type stuff, commit suicide, have babies, and experience many other sentient things which all reside in the meta-physical Will. You know, purposeful stuff! Materialism is simply a means to an end. Needing purpose has causal power. And as such, our Will causes us to effect purpose. Basic humanistic cause and effect. Remember, Teleology, Anthropic principles, and other existential human phenomena correspond to that need for meaning.

You say "agreed". But you continue with opinions I disagree with, so you don't agree after all.

Some of your discussion begins to make sense and soon becomes less than explicit. You need to write in a more disciplined style if you want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

It would seem that we must not omit the reflections of two great scientists as evidence for intelligent design.

Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize Physics

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Charles Darwin, Biologist

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from Autobiography of Charles Darwin

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 3:08 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 2:51 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 1:52 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 9:55 am

Agreed. Emotions drive people to get upset in philosophy forums, type stuff, commit suicide, have babies, and experience many other sentient things which all reside in the meta-physical Will. You know, purposeful stuff! Materialism is simply a means to an end. Needing purpose has causal power. And as such, our Will causes us to effect purpose. Basic humanistic cause and effect. Remember, Teleology, Anthropic principles, and other existential human phenomena correspond to that need for meaning.

You say "agreed". But you continue with opinions I disagree with, so you don't agree after all.

Some of your discussion begins to make sense and soon becomes less than explicit. You need to write in a more disciplined style if you want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

Charlemagne wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 4:05 pm It would seem that we must not omit the reflections of two great scientists as evidence for intelligent design.

Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize Physics

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” And again, on a later occasion, Einstein said “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Charles Darwin, Biologist

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from Autobiography of Charles Darwin

Good stuff! I'm familiar with the Einstein quote but not the Darwin one. Nice! Similarly, Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. So that might correspond to the quote as well....

EricPH wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:49 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 4:04 pm I find it fascinating that states of matter can complexified to the point of being self aware, and one can only wonder what further complexification will bring.

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spaceraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

Do you want to end up like Meta, freely misrepresenting and patronising others to give the (false) impression of winning?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 4:33 pm

EricPH wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:49 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 4:04 pm I find it fascinating that states of matter can complexified to the point of being self aware, and one can only wonder what further complexification will bring.

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spaceraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

Do you want to end up like Meta, freely misrepresenting and patronising others to give the (false) impression of winning?

Again, please do not spread misinformation. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. Has nothing to do with winning, just facts. You know, non-emotional kinds of thingies!

If it makes you feel better, that quote infers that...

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 4:40 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 4:33 pm

EricPH wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 7:49 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 7th, 2022, 4:04 pm I find it fascinating that states of matter can complexified to the point of being self aware, and one can only wonder what further complexification will bring.

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spaceraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

Do you want to end up like Meta, freely misrepresenting and patronising others to give the (false) impression of winning?

Again, please do not spread misinformation. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. Has nothing to do with winning, just facts. You know, non-emotional kinds of thingies!

If it makes you feel better, that quote infers that...

To my favorite metaphysician.

The first living creature did not evolve. There was nothing alive to evolve from. Darwin's theory fails there.

Strange that ancient Scripture should so often be proof of events conjured by God to prepare the way for human life.
Without water, and plenty of it, there would be no human life anywhere.

Niels Bohr, Physicist Nobel Prize, said:

“Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not, Scripture relates. That there was a watery fluid, however, at a time when animals and plants were not yet to be found, and that the fluid covered all things, is proved by the strata of the higher mountains, free from all heterogeneous material. And the form of these strata bears witness to the presence of a fluid, while the substance bears witness to the absence of heterogeneous bodies. But the similarity of matter and form in the strata of mountains which are different and distant from each other, proves that the fluid was universal.”

Genesis 1: 9: “Then God said: Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear. And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.”

Charlemagne wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 6:49 pm Strange that ancient Scripture should so often be proof of events conjured by God to prepare the way for human life.
Without water, and plenty of it, there would be no human life anywhere.

Niels Bohr, Physicist Nobel Prize, said:

“Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water;

false