Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Still waiting for your science-backed definition of "new" protein, and why you believe "new proteins" are a requirement for speciation.(Note that little tweaks of a couple amino acids might be called "new", but it's not a new protein.)
OK; So?Objectively, for science, that's true. There is no "guiding hand"..
But subjectively for the organism, that often false. Humans for instance are rational creatures, and this capacity is an adaptation.
If you like, but I already explained why this isn't particularly useful.Lets use the example of nutrients in a sea vent situation.
Then, aren't certain classes of microbes going to be attracted to it? And if early life developed there, then isn't "replicator-environment attraction" terminology just another way of viewing "replicator-natural selection"?
They're not conscious.If an extremophile could be asked, which type of habitat do you like, wouldn't it like (be consciously attracted to) e.g. a deep sea vent?
That's too confused to comment on.If you had a choice of habitat, which would you be attracted to - heaven or hell? See next paragraph, but if an extreme thermophile ( Thermophile - Wikipedia ) could "choose a heaven" it would probably not be Islamic. What good are so many too cool rivers to a such microbe?
I agree with this, but for more plausible reasons, e.g. Origins of Religious Beliefs, Evolution of Religion, etc.... some basic insights into religion may come from evolutionary theory.
Study of what, exactly? That argument doesn't make a useful hypothesis, it has vague and untested untested assumptions. If you did find subjective habitat preferences, it could be for entirely unrelated reasons (e.g. familiarity).Can't we use the argument "Mind is an adaptation, adaptations function to attract to certain habitats, therefore we ought to expect some habitat preferences (subjective liking, attraction etc.) to be expressed in mind?" as a valid basis for study???
Creatures have been selected for behaviours that aid reproductive success... That's just evolution.Is seems too much of a coincidence to me that e.g. taxis (movement towards a stimulus) in animals thought to be aware e.g. a cockroach looking for dark and damp places, IIRC. has developed through a process of natural selection (or attraction.) And the insect selects it (or is attracted to it, i.e. the roach to a dark and damp place) because of natural forces.
Is it really surprising that you will prefer an environment that you're well-adapted to?Its like a symmetry. There is selective pressure on the organism (emanating from a certain habitat) which leads to the selection of that habitat by the organism. Given a evolving choice, its attracted to the conditions which keep it alive.
In microbial language:
"If you select me, then I select you...
If you attract me, then I'm attracted to you...."
Strictly speaking, neither verification nor falsification of a theory is possible in isolation, because theories don't exist in isolation, they depend on a network of related assumptions. In practice, we take a pragmatic approach and specify confidence levels.Is actual verification actually not impossible, a priori? I'm not sure.
Still waiting for your science-backed definition of "new" protein, and why you believe "new proteins" are a requirement for speciation.
I know about the theory of mind idea, and from a scientific angle its well argued.I agree with this, but for more plausible reasons, e.g. Origins of Religious Beliefs, Evolution of Religion, etc.
Well, human ethics systems for example. My idea is they're all examples of rational attraction to being, or related to it in some way if you include suicide ethics.Growingsmaller Can't we use the argument "Mind is an adaptation, adaptations function to attract to certain habitats, therefore we ought to expect some habitat preferences (subjective liking, attraction etc.) to be expressed in mind?" as a valid basis for study???
FrumiousBandersnatch
OK; So?
Study of what, exactly? That argument doesn't make a useful hypothesis, it has vague and untested untested assumptions. If you did find subjective habitat preferences, it could be for entirely unrelated reasons (e.g. familiarity).
It seems I can argue like nature is forcing a move on us ethically. We ought to choose what's better, and what is better gets there through the process of evolution generally having a funcition of making survival, flourishing, and a good environment preferable to us....Is it really surprising that you will prefer an environment that you're well-adapted to?
You can describe almost any tendency in terms of attraction - even repulsion (attraction to the absence of the repellant).Well, human ethics systems for example. My idea is they're all examples of rational attraction to being, or related to it in some way if you include suicide ethics.
At least the ethical systems which promote survival.... and therefore attract us to (or, link us up to) continued existence. Attract us to being in some way.
There's a good argument that the foundations of ethics & morals are evolutionary, but it's a controversial step to go from what is to what ought to be. The problems for ethics, now that it's no longer a matter of mere survival, are to do with matters like, precisely what do we mean by a 'good environment', who decides what is 'preferable', what happens to those who disagree, and so-on. The evolutionary fundamentals can develop in many different directions - as you can see from the varying ethics and morals in human cultures.And in an at least proto-raitonal manner. By proto rational I mean... attraction to being or selection of the forces which lead to survival of a person or a group is basically the function of ethical systems (just as arms and legs have a similar function in life too, i.e. continued existence, although in a different way e.g. locomotion rather than via axiological reasoning (see book link below)) .
....Although no classical system really has had the more developed scientific insight we can have in this age.
Rational meaning actions, or beliefs (or even desires) in accord with proper reasoning (I got the definition form an epistemology a to z), and proper reasoning in ethics having the form "better options ought to be chosen".
Now if, as we seem to agree:
It seems I can argue like nature is forcing a move on us ethically. We ought to choose what's better, and what is better gets there through the process of evolution generally having a funcition of making survival, flourishing, and a good environment preferable to us....
Environments are typically in flux; for most there is no choice - and in the long term, it's 'adapt or die'.The value differentials (e.g. between habitats) we face are determined in part by evolution. Evolution forces the move "Habitat A is better than habitat B".
Is there an 'angle' from which it isn't well-argued?I know about the theory of mind idea, and from a scientific angle its well argued.
Yes; as it happens, I'm reading Thomas Nagel's 'Mind and Cosmos'. where he argues (not very well) that materialist reductionism can't explain it, theism kicks a larger ontological can down the road, and he'd like something that makes mind or consciousness somehow fundamental. He seems to be asking for a teleological universe along the lines of a version of the Strong Anthropic Principle (e.g. the universe inevitably produces consciousness) without going the whole hog into panpsychism...Does "the explanatory gap" or the "mind body problem" have relevance to physical theories of evolution then. Yes, or no, or maybe sometimes?
You can describe almost any tendency in terms of attraction - even repulsion (attraction to the absence of the repellant).
There's a good argument that the foundations of ethics & morals are evolutionary, but it's a controversial step to go from what is to what ought to be.
Yes I agree there are so many potential instances of A and B its mind boggling.The problems for ethics, now that it's no longer a matter of mere survival, are to do with matters like, precisely what do we mean by a 'good environment', who decides what is 'preferable', what happens to those who disagree, and so-on. The evolutionary fundamentals can develop in many different directions - as you can see from the varying ethics and morals in human cultures.
I hope not!There have been many attempts to devise ethical philosophies, but all seem to have problems, and should all depend on common consent on the goals? for example, even if we agree that society should be fair and equitable, do we all agree what that should mean in all circumstances? If not, what? Does my freedom to swing my fist always end at your nose?
Well I was raised an environmentalist, so I have biases. *smiles*Environments are typically in flux; for most there is no choice - and in the long term, it's 'adapt or die'.
Its not a supernatural position. Its entirely natural.Ok, that works for me.
But you have to actually have evidence to work with.
So, what is your evidence?
Evidence?
I would need more data/evidence from which to abduct.
Where is it?
My take is that you are arguing from feelings, not evidence.
Because you present no data or evidence.
Me?
I don't really have an opinion because I do not know enough about the topic. I am just curious as to the foundations of the certainty of supernaturalists for their largely evidence-free positions.
But that begs the question. Your premise, "A is better then B" contains a value judgement, an implied 'ought'; i.e. "you ought to think that A is better than B".I think from is to ought - its ok "formally" like A is better then B, we ought to choose that which is better, therefore we ought to choose A.
That's just a tautology - good health is good, by definition. Nothing to do with evolved traits.The way I look at things, trying to de-complexify the issue, is that health being good for the person whose health it is, is some kind of evolved trait.
Oughts imply goals and goals imply opinions and value judgements. It's easy to find trivial examples where it all seems to work, but, for example, if we ought to choose health, we ought not to risk ill-health... but what about adventure, exploration, dangerous sports, medical experiments, etc.? These kinds of things make us the species we are, so we ought to do them too, right?So, we ought to choose health, but also respect community as insofar as it is part of the "bringing forth" of health..
They're all goals, which depend on value judgements. You're just saying the goals you want to achieve are good so you ought to pursue them - and why are they good? because they're the goals you want to achieve...So, we can be aware of types of thing (health personally, solicitude socially, sustainability economically) which are good, or ought to be pursued.
Not a very high bar...I know its no great news, but I think its more insightful than lets say Social Darwinism, or the idea we have a duty to have as many children as possible - which ideas still float around. Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia
Have you considered that the higher functions may instead be a means for the lizard brain to achieve its goals in more sophisticated and indirect ways, i.e. in complex environments that require flexible responses?With that lizard brain coming before the higher functions which function (to a degree) to keep it in check.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?