Darwinian Dissonance?

Internet Infidels ^ | Timeless | Paul A. Dernavich

[Heartlander]

Let’s see, you have accused me of being; scared, reluctant to respond because I am wrong, and now the problem is I answer in a Zen-like fashion.

Why don’t I just tell you what I am… A 'little' frustrated. LOL!

We have been through this before. (maybe you can thank me for reminding you again…)

You are stating:
The universe is mindless. Our conscious emerged from this mindless universe. Therefore consciousness is a subset of mindlessness.

Now beyond the fact that every statement is a major assumption, is this a fallacy of composition? If it is not, then please inform science because ‘human consciousness’ has been a riddle for quite some time. Your examples with oxygen, hydrogen, and water prove what?… Consciousness comes from mindlessness?

Again, let me get this straight:
Two elements can form a more complex element due to mindless happenstance therefore our consciousness is the result of mindless happenstance.
Is this a fallacy of composition? Again, if not, please inform science. And again, I believe you are comparing elements and oranges.

Is this truly what science is telling us now? When did it become a fact that we are the result of a mindless universe? I thought science was agnostic and not atheistic…

Now I state that "Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness."

Subsume:
: to include or place within something larger or more comprehensive : encompass as a subordinate or component element (red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color")

Is this a fallacy of composition?
A theist/deist would agree with the statement. An agnostic would say maybe/maybe not. An atheist would disagree, but is this based on the fallacy of composition or belief?

Furthermore, is this fallacy of composition allowed to be applied to the tree of life or genetic relationships within evolution? Obviously you would say “no” because this bone structure is similar to this so it must come from this (as more data comes in adopt it accordingly) … and since you have determined ‘this truth’, genetic relationships will always fit somehow.

Fallacy of composition? Of course you don’t ‘believe’ so because you have already stated (as an atheist) that all came from mindlessness. I really do not want to argue this ‘tree of life thing’ or ‘genetic relationship thing’ on this thread. (Again, out of frustration)

But if you insist on following me around and crying foul via ‘fallacy of composition’ each time I post:

Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness.

Why don’t you just prove it and declare to science, “Problem solved!”

[Held_to_Ransom]

I can't imagine what you would be like if you tried to be boring.

[js1138]

I detect a lot of silence regarding Jethro.

[general_re]

I'm sure there are a lot of things you can't imagine. But why vent your frustrations about your shortcomings on me?

[Held_to_Ransom]

Oh, yawwwwnnnnn dude. Really.

[general_re]

Oh, please - you're so bored that you just can't help composing another reply. Right. Is this "boredom" a usual affectation for you, or did I get selected by the mothership for special treatment from their advance party?

So why are you really here? You're obviously not here to say anything worthwhile, and you're equally obviously not all that happy about it. Is this penance for something or what?

[Held_to_Ransom]

That's for me to know and you to worry about.

[general_re]

Yeah, well, we all have our crosses to bear, right?

Whatever. If this helps you work through whatever it is, and gets your bona-fides straight with the mothership crew to boot, so be it. Tell 'em I said hi.

[jennyp]

p>Thanks for the <ahem> clear reply. :-)

Ah, so I see we have been thru this before! Why doesn't that surprise me?

You are stating:

The universe is mindless. Our conscious emerged from this mindless universe. Therefore consciousness is a subset of mindlessness.

Yes, yes, and no. I'm not saying consciousness is a subset of mindlessness!

Now I state that "Consciousness is not subsumed by mindlessness."

Subsume:
: to include or place within something larger or more comprehensive : encompass as a subordinate or component element (red, green, and yellow are subsumed under the term "color")

IOW, A is "subsumed under" B if A is a member of set B.

But you can't say that conscious entities are subsumed under the set of unconscious entities. Just like you can't say that the set "all the H₂O molecules" are subsumed under the set "all the O and H atoms." They're mutually exclusive sets! (They're orthogonal. They refer to two different classes of things entirely.)

Similarly, consciousness and mindlessness are mutually exclusive sets.

Now, I am a conscious being. I am composed of mindless parts, which interact in such a way that the total item (me) is conscious. But you cannot say that a complex object is "subsumed" by its/her component parts. Like the water vs. the free hydrogen & oxygen example. It makes no sense at all to think of water as being "subsumed" by the set of all oxygen & hydrogen atoms. It's composed of members of that set, yes. But it makes no sense to say that water itself is a member of that set: Water is not an atom. How can a molecule be a member of a set of free atoms?

See? Water is a higher-order entity than mere atoms. A molecule of water is made up of precisely three atoms. Its weight is equal to that of three atoms taken separately. And there's no extra, magical entity added to the atoms to produce this higher-order organization called a "molecule of water". There's no mystical or Ideal "wetness" quality that's injected into it to make it wetter than the tree atoms taken alone are. But because of the relationship of the atoms to each other, this higher-order entity behaves radically differently than the three atoms taken alone.

You seem to think this can't be possible without some supernatural person removing the Ideal Forms called "flammability" and "explosiveness" from the individual atoms injecting some kind of Ideal Form called "wetness" into the resulting molecule. That is what you're saying when you assert that conscious beings cannot arise naturally out of mindless parts.

[qam1]

I support God’s judgment and I believe He is the basis for morality.

Thank you for your answer, Though let me get this straight it's OK/Acceptable to murder, rape, steal if your God tells you it's OK but only if your God is the Christian/Jewish God?

So someone like Atilla the Hun was evil because he justified his rape and pilliage because his God(Aries)gave him his blessing to conquer the Western Roman Empire when he found his sword but for Moses who does the same is good because it was his/your God who gave him the blessing to conquer the "Strangers" in Isreal. Call me ignorant but I just don't see the difference.

I agree but it seems others do not… social Darwinism, etc…it's what the article is about.

Social Darwinism isn't science, It maybe social science but that's not a real science, it's not physical science. Actually it wasn't like after Darwin came all of a sudden people said let's build a economic system on the theory of evolution, If Darwin and the Theory of Evolution never exsisted social Darwinism would have still gone on just under a different name.

[Heartlander]

It appears that this conversation has become mindless…

Let’s see, you believe everything is a subset of a mindless universe with the exception of our consciousness which is now a ‘higher-order entity’. You give examples of mindless chemical processes to prove how consciousness can emerge from mindlessness because water is no longer an atom but is now mindless molecules.

You are saying; galaxies are a subset of a mindless universe, stars, planets, rocks, and ‘water’ – but not the ‘higher-order entity’ that is human consciousness.

Thanks for the clear reply. :-)

[Heartlander]

Thank you for your answer, Though let me get this straight it's OK/Acceptable to murder, rape, steal if your God tells you it's OK but only if your God is the Christian/Jewish God?

Justice vs. murder, there is a difference isn’t there? A locked up inmate is put to death… atom bombs were dropped on Japan… we are at war on foreign soil against people who believe their cause to be ‘just’…

I’m not going to dance around this or sugarcoat this; I don’t think justice is relative. Again, I support God’s judgment and I believe He is the basis for morality (and this includes justice). The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanites, I see as justice and not murder. As to the rape claim, God did/does not sanction rape. He condemns rape. As awful as this might sound to you, ‘all’ the Midianites were to be killed. Moses allowed the girls who had not “known man by lying with him” to live due to ‘his’ compassion. But if you knew the Canaanite culture, since these girls had not yet ‘known a man’ they would have been extremely young. Beyond this, Jewish law forbids rape.

The Canaanites were guilty of terrible crimes for 400 years. Among these crimes/sins were extremely immoral sexual behavior and child sacrifice. There must be a difference between justice and murder. Men are currently punished for their sins/crimes by societies now.

So this really boils down to, ‘what is justice and where does it come from?’
God? Religion? Social darwinism? Science? Relative society? Self?…

But the real miracle is the fact that I did not quote the President in this post ; )

[jennyp]

Let’s see, you believe everything is a subset of a mindless universe with the exception of our consciousness which is now a ‘higher-order entity’. You give examples of mindless chemical processes to prove how consciousness can emerge from mindlessness because water is no longer an atom but is now mindless molecules.

Good, I think you do understand, somewhat.

Being conscious is an activity. Consciousness is an ability of certain beings. It's a quality of those beings. In the same way that wetness & the ability to put out a fire is a quality of water. So, where did this "wetness" quality come from? Do oxygen & hydrogen atoms have a certain amount of "wetness" inside them waiting to be released when they're joined up to make water? How are dry, flammable parts able to produce a wet, flame retardant product in result?

[bondserv]

I realize that's a fairly common assessment, but the reality is that, like all scientific theories, evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is entirely silent on the matter of how we should live our lives, or should behave towards others, or should function as a society. It simply doesn't involve such constructs, any more than the theory of gravity does. And anyone who claims that the theory of evolution, in and of itself, either justifies or proscribes some behavior is committing a category error of the first degree, just the same as they would be if they used the theory of gravity to justify some action. The theory of gravity tells you what will happen if you throw a baby out a window, but that does not mean that it is therefore okay to throw babies out of windows.

Does the Theory of Evolution claim that humans descended from less intelligent mammals? If this is a foundational truth does it change views on all other areas of science, philosophy, family, laws, animal rights, situational ethics, racial judgments (Which race is genetically superior), cloning, mining clones for body parts....

Common sense seems to be "tossed out the window" by your need to adhere to a rigid set of definitions. All watershed issues pivot on the whether we are evolved animals, or if we were specially created and imbued with intelligent souls by an entity that gives us authority over nature.

Take a moment to think it through and you will see your error.

[jennyp]

You are saying; galaxies are a subset of a mindless universe, stars, planets, rocks, and ‘water’ – but not the ‘higher-order entity’ that is human consciousness.

How about this analogy: We're all composed of atoms. Therefore you and I are "subsumed", in your application of the word, under the set of all objects that are smaller than 1 micron. And yet, you and I are both bigger than 1 micron. How can that be? We're bigger than 1 micron and yet we're subsumed under the set of all objects that are smaller than 1 micron?

[general_re]

Does the Theory of Evolution claim that humans descended from less intelligent mammals?

They did.

If this is a foundational truth does it change views on all other areas of science, philosophy, family, laws, animal rights, situational ethics, racial judgments (Which race is genetically superior), cloning, mining clones for body parts....

Why should it change those things? The theory of evolution does not, for example, deny the existence of morality, or of God, or of morality derived from God.

[Heartlander]

The universe, atoms, molecules, and water all still have the same attribute - mindlessness. You claim that the advent of consciousness came from a mindless universe and mindless subsets in this universe void of reason and purpose. Consciousness itself contains none of the attributes of this intrinsically mindlessness universe but everything that created it does.

Beyond these bold assertions, you have offered no proof other than 'we are conscious and atoms make molecules'. (Are you trying to prove a positive?) Again, you are mixing elements and oranges. Though maybe you should offer your proof to those researching AI and maybe they will stop and just become really patient.

Human consciousness contains intrinsic attributes of; reason, purpose, value, intellect, and morality from a universe intrisically void of these attributes. According to your 'belief' consciousness was formed from this mindlessness and in turn created reason, purpose, value, intellect, and morality. These items exist only in our conscious, nowhere else in the universe, and are only ‘real’ to us to do with as we see fit. So the question is, are they really 'real'?

Again, from the article:

A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into its component elements.

B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K. Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports, Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.

What is the difference? Is this mixing elements and oranges? 'Orange-ness' is something only our consciousness sees as an intrinsic attribute of oranges.

Since you have already accused me of Zen-like postings ; )
If a universe forms and no one is around to see it, does it really exist?
Is it consciousness that creates the universe or the universe that creates the advent of consciousness so both might exist.

Look, let's just be honest here (or we could let this go on mindlessly). I am a Christian and obviously I do not believe consciousness arose from mindlessness. You are an atheist and obviously you do believe consciousness arose from mindlessness. I do not believe that it is possible for me to change your mind...

Just my two microns... FWIW…

[Doctor Stochastic]

... If Darwin and the Theory of Evolution never exsisted social Darwinism would have still gone on just under a different name.

It would probably have been called "Spencerism" by the Conservatives and "Capitalism" by the Liberals.

[bondserv]

Why should it change those things? The theory of evolution does not, for example, deny the existence of morality, or of God, or of morality derived from God.

It removes the conviction that one can espouse the rightness of absolute truth. Enter relativism and the end to unalienable rights. Witness Europe and the U.N.'s relativistic humanism. A plurality of people who have every conceivable justification to claim they know what is best, because evolution has been scientifically proven in their minds. Interpretation issues regarding the Holy Book's of the world, give open season to claiming no one can enforce their view of right and wrong in a sovereign way.

They believe the Judeo-Christian principles under girding American culture can be assailed on the point that science trumps the truth of our Bible. Determinism leads to stoic fatalism, removing the passion for truth and justice to prevail. Witness our Judicial System.

Eliminate our God of Judeo-Christian origins and immorality is rationalized on the basis of the IDOL called science. Science should be fun and helpful, but shouldn't politically be used to relativise the need for prayer in the lives of our children in the public square.

All things pivot on the justification Evolution theory places in the minds of it's adherents.

[general_re]

It removes the conviction that one can espouse the rightness of absolute truth. Enter relativism and the end to unalienable rights. Witness Europe and the U.N.'s relativistic humanism. A plurality of people who have every conceivable justification to claim they know what is best, because evolution has been scientifically proven in their minds.

I disagree. But in a way, it really doesn't matter. The truth is not contingent on how we feel about it, and even if you're absolutely right - which you aren't ;) - the truth is also not contingent on the consequences. Essentially, the left will claim that scientific truth and the concept of universal moral precepts are incompatible and irreconcilable, and thus we must dispense with one or the other. You would seem to agree with them, although you would disagree about which one to toss out. But that's a losing proposition - for as much as we argue and debate and discuss evolution here on FR, the reality is, that debate is over, long over, in the scientific community, which is the only place that discussions of scientific truth really matter. The theory of evolution is a true and accurate, if not complete, explanation of the rise and diversity of life on earth. This is indisputably true. I realize you dispute it, but it really doesn't matter - in the forums where it does matter, the debate is over and the evolution-deniers have been shown to be wrong. And so you're forced into the untenable position of claiming that your belief in some abstract construct or another must trump verified scientific truth - you would force them to choose between morality and the truth, because they can't have both, according to you and the left. And I have a sneaky suspicion a great many of them will not embrace the falsehood of denying evolution as you wish them to.

But it's really a false dichotomy, in the end. There is no need to choose between the two, no matter how much the anti-authoritarian left wishes it to be so. Evolution and morality are entirely reconcilable, as witnessed by the vast number of people in this country, and on this forum, who believe that evolution can be a mechanism used by God in the process of His creation, and that accepting the truth of the theory of evolution does not mean that you must abandon all notions of morality. They understand that truth can always be reconciled with truth, and that denying one truth in the name of another serves no one but those who have something to gain by that denial. And they understand that people who have something to gain by denying the truth are people who are to be regarded with suspicion and distrust. Don't join those ranks in their minds, if you can help it, is my suggestion.