Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And spiritually? i mean intellectually?. Evolutionists have the impossible task to figure how our intellect was made.

Intellectually, we're significantly better in a number of important ways.

There are various evolutionary hypotheses for the evolution of the human intellect. I suspect it's likely to be some combination of them. Whether we can ever do more than make plausible guesses, I couldn't say. Wikipedia has a brief overview of some of the ideas.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That a person can learn etc fine, and with more years we know more about lots of stuff, but the brain would need parts to make it function, so each one of people abilities, intelligence perception, feelings, had to have 'functions' in the brain that enables them, and so if the hardware does not allow it, it will not be possible to increase the intellect. Like in computer better hardware requires a better design, that just my opinion though and actually i don't believe the brain does all that, because i believe in spiritual soul mind spriit.

The brain isn't a simple computer, it's a general-purpose learning system, i.e. it can learn to perform new tasks and functions and modify existing ones.

 

[Kylie]

Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?. There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies. But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?

You know that argument from incredulity doesn't work, right?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes i have a God that would like to say some things about evolution too, like how people on earth is thinking they were created by it while not giving credit to the real creator, you assume i have a belief and nothing else, no its not just that, God can manifest to us. And everyone should start seeking him fast.

I think we can separate the question of a creator from the question of evolution by natural selection. A creator notion can survive the reality of evolution. Lots of honest Christians believe so.

As for God manifest to us... I haven't experienced it as far as I know. But I'm not at all closed to the idea.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you followed the conversation it should have been easy to assume..
Also i don't like to see humans as apes, since we have nothing in common with them, at least the ones on earth.

Reality doesnt care about what you ”like”.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In order to have a discussion you need to communicate clearly, make coherent statements or ask coherent questions that people can understand and respond to.

Some of those posts are unintelligible to me - you may know what you mean, but I can't make out what you're trying to say.

Maybe it's just me, but I can usually make sense of what people post here.

OK thanks Ill try harder.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ah. I thought you meant a measurable force pulling organisms with specific traits to a certain geographical location.

The forces of nature. Wind, rain, nutrients.... 'drawing' the organism into a habitat over the millenia. Not intentionally. Just on the merely physical plane.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think it's best to read what deep thinkers have said and make up your own mind - or keep an open mind if you feel the arguments are not decisive. Hume was the seminal contributor to this field of thought, so his arguments are worth serious consideration.

I never heard of anyone who said you cant go from is to ought a) giving their life savings away b) sawing their legs off c) stuff like that.

It seems whatever their mouths say, in general people do have a way of going from is to ought.

You tell me - as I understand it, that's how moral positions are usually justified.

My point is with Hume, if you say you ought to believe him then he is wrong - as you've gone from reading his Treatise (an 'is'), to a conclusion you believe you 'ought' to hold.

So believing you ought to believe him undermines that belief. It seems like its an absurd thesis, of the kind: "I ought to believe oughts are underivable"...

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "... (good) health being good for the person whose health it is" is tautological.

But why are the terms "good" and "health" so commonly conjoined when a person is not sufferening from gross illness. Is it a random coincidence we make an ontological state (health) something approved of (i.e. we call it good) or preferred?

What is 'better' is the question. But sure - we inevitably derive ought from is because we only have our predispositions and a lifetime of experience of what is (or at least what appears to be) from which to derive them.

The question is whether it can be justified without begging the question. I have sympathy for anyone in intolerable pain. My view is that in some circumstances assisted dying is a Good Thing. Some people disagree to the point that they would take a life to stop it... This is where ethics ought to come in

IMO these scenarios and disagreements occur because culture is soooo complicated. If you re a Catholic than that will influence your position on these things. If youre an atheist another view is more likely. And that difference was partially down to some guy named Paul having a vision of Christ 2000 years ago etc.

That's what we like to tell ourselves - but that may just be the way the lizard brain makes us feel we're in control. If we didn't have a conscious sense of agency, we'd feel like helpless passengers...
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice" Isaac Bashevis Singer

I'm kind of "neuro-Thomist" with regards to free will. When we act in accord with our nature or higher ideals, and do so with less social resistance, we feel free easy and self expressive. Probably this is accompanied by endorphins and oxytocin release.

If we are forced against our ideals, we then have resistance to our 'nature' and it seems likely (I'm no PhD student) release stress horemones like cortisol.

I look to the etymology of "free" ("priya" which means beloved) for inspiration in this.

Imagine in primitive society how the term 'free' may have been used. Its original causes. Free marriage, not rape. Free trade where one is not robbed etc. Free life rather than slavery.

I think this approach might be related to "cognitive archaeology". The deeper history of our concepts.

Then, we can also look at the neurochemistry that is associated with these social facts. So freedom is not a 'a priori' state (ever there, or ever absent), its more of a contextual thing, with degrees of presence or absence in certain situations.

Only later did the metaphysical baggage of "Are we n the hands of the Gods....?" or "is it all predetermined, an atom cascade from the Big Bang?" etc. cloud the issue. But that's over 2000 years later than the onset of "freedom-talk", or even more.

I'm not sayin' its the only valid analysis, just a way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This is more free:

Am not going to post "fail" videos, but they were likely done less freely!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This guy teaches art (I think) and says before puberty kids are more self expressive and less self conscious.

Note (and this is quite an oblique point) puberty coincides with some of the later stages of moral development.(Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia see image below) Where kids have their "mitzvah" rites etc. or reach the "age of reason" where they're held responsible for social rules and norms...

And such changes are related to hormonal and developmental changes where freedom comes also with more accountability.

The point being, our sense of freedom changes with age....

But "childlike freedom" (uninhibited, joyful self expression) has nothing (or, little) to do with debates about atoms and the laws of nature. Yet its freedom all the same.

So, metaphysics derails the debate. And covers over the discourses about orginal freedom, with ultra sophisticated overly intellectual **************-****-*-***<=/=>****^2.

Maybe?

 

[NBB]

Reality doesnt care about what you ”like”.

The same can be said about you saying God doesn't exists.

 

[VirOptimus]

The same can be said about you saying God doesn't exists.

No, it really cant.

Men are apes, thats a fact.

God(s) are based on faith.

 

[NBB]

No, it really cant.

Men are apes, thats a fact.

God(s) are based on faith.

No its not based on faith only, God manifests to people, also there is evidence. Not like a scientific theory maybe but there is.

 

[SLP]

Evolutionists say man appeared from apes how long ago? but in that short time the most complicated and marvelous and the top thing of the creation was developed?: our minds and feelings?.

So you are one of the under-informed that thinks ONLY humans have 'minds' and 'feelings.


Amazing.

There is nothing like it in nature and i say its more complicated to make than our bodies.

More argument from awe.

But they would like to suggest that it developed in a lot shorter time. Scientists can't even comprehend it, smart people cannot figure out how the mind works, but an unguided simple proccess made it?

Strawman fallacies are so awesome for creationists to use - they simultaneously reveal the level of knowledge the creationist has AND their willingness to engage in simplistic/fallacious reasoning.

 

[SLP]

Are you a scientific realist? (scientific realism is a position in the philosophy of science, and posits an external reality for which there is no literal evidence. Such realists generally use abductive reasoning to support realism).

Try again, but this time try to use an actual, relevant definition.

But I take it that you are a supernaturalist anti-realist?

 

[SLP]

No its not based on faith only, God manifests to people, also there is evidence. Not like a scientific theory maybe but there is.

So, no actual evidence then.

 

[VirOptimus]

No its not based on faith only, God manifests to people, also there is evidence. Not like a scientific theory maybe but there is.

If there was evidence faith wouldnt be necessary. So you are in error again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I never heard of anyone who said you cant go from is to ought a) giving their life savings away b) sawing their legs off c) stuff like that.

It seems whatever their mouths say, in general people do have a way of going from is to ought.

As I said, in practice we have little choice, but an issue arises when people think that the 'oughts' they come up with are (ought to be) universal. If you can get different oughts from the same is, there's clearly a problem; i.e. something else is involved.

My point is with Hume, if you say you ought to believe him then he is wrong - as you've gone from reading his Treatise (an 'is'), to a conclusion you believe you 'ought' to hold.

So believing you ought to believe him undermines that belief. It seems like its an absurd thesis, of the kind: "I ought to believe oughts are underivable"...

Yes, beliefs are often problematic, especially paradoxical ones. I recommend trying to avoid them.

But why are the terms "good" and "health" so commonly conjoined when a person is not sufferening from gross illness. Is it a random coincidence we make an ontological state (health) something approved of (i.e. we call it good) or preferred?

I'm not sure what you're getting at - it's commonly understood that health can be good or bad, as in healthy or unhealthy, which implies that the common meaning of 'health' is 'general physical condition'.

I'm kind of "neuro-Thomist" with regards to free will. When we act in accord with our nature or higher ideals, and do so with less social resistance, we feel free easy and self expressive. Probably this is accompanied by endorphins and oxytocin release.

If we are forced against our ideals, we then have resistance to our 'nature' and it seems likely (I'm no PhD student) release stress horemones like cortisol.

I look to the etymology of "free" ("priya" which means beloved) for inspiration in this.

Imagine in primitive society how the term 'free' may have been used. Its original causes. Free marriage, not rape. Free trade where one is not robbed etc. Free life rather than slavery.

I think this approach might be related to "cognitive archaeology". The deeper history of our concepts.

Then, we can also look at the neurochemistry that is associated with these social facts. So freedom is not a 'a priori' state (ever there, or ever absent), its more of a contextual thing, with degrees of presence or absence in certain situations.

Only later did the metaphysical baggage of "Are we n the hands of the Gods....?" or "is it all predetermined, an atom cascade from the Big Bang?" etc. cloud the issue. But that's over 2000 years later than the onset of "freedom-talk", or even more.

I'm not sayin' its the only valid analysis, just a way.

I don't really know what is meant by 'grace' in the Thomist canon.

If you take freedom to mean unconstrained and uncoerced, i.e. free to act according to one's personal preferences, etc., that sounds rather like compatibilist interpretations, which I am more sympathetic to than the incoherence of most libertarian dualist positions, but it raises the question of exactly what unconstrained and uncoerced means. Can you be constrained or coerced by your own belief system? For example, if you have been indoctrinated, can you really make free choices? If you can, are you morally responsible for those choices?

 

[NBB]

If there was evidence faith wouldnt be necessary. So you are in error again.

Ah yes, in the bible the example for christianity, it talks about faith, also talks how those people received things from God because they had faith.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah yes, in the bible the example for christianity, it talks about faith, also talks how those people received things from God because they had faith.

Anyone can make claims, that doesnt make them true.