Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by 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.
Well, everything has many attributes. Oxygen, hydrogen, and water all have an attribute of mass. And in that instance, the mass of water is a simple addition of the masses of the components. But the attributes of flammability, explosiveness, fire-suppression, melting point, boiling point, electrical conductivity, and a host of other attributes I can't even think of are wildly different for water than for O & H.
As for the two descriptions of the same event, A is effectively useless if we want to know why the event happened and what moral judgement to place on it, and B is effectively useless if we want to know the physics of injury & death. Yet they're both perfectly valid descriptions (within their own domains of descriptive competence) of the exact same event.
I suppose we could drop this. :-) But I'll leave you with something to ponder: Some of these attributes of water are created by the interactions of the atoms, and other attributes come from the atoms individually. It's the attributes that come from the atoms individually, such as mass, that don't change when they form the molecule. But it's the attributes that are created by the atoms' interactions with each other (flammability for example) that change drastically when they form the molecule. Likewise, consciousness is an attribute that is created by a working brain - i.e. a functioning network of trillions of neurons with a specific topology. This depends entirely on how the individual neurons interact with each other. That's where the attribute of consciousness comes from, and why it can arise out of components that have a radically different (or even nonexistent) "amount" of this attribute.
Regards, and CYA round...
The difference is that now you're talking about social constructs, not the natural world. We cannot force the real world into accordance with our notions of morality the way we can with society. In terms of the physical world, reality exists, and it is what it is, regardless of how you or I feel about it - society and culture are bit more flexible than that. We can make them or unmake them as we see fit, but we are entirely powerless to remake the natural world in such a manner. I don't care for gravity much, but it's not going away just because I don't like it, so I might as well learn to live with it.
And so it is with evolution. It's sad, but true - the facts on the ground will mug your beautiful theory every time, and there's nothing you can do about it.
‘Mindlessness, mindlessness, all is mindlessness.’ :-)
According to your belief, the common attribute of everything you describe is mindlessness and the intrinsic attribute of the universe is mindlessness. Nothing that you or anyone describes is observable without consciousness, although you claim consciousness emerged from mindlessness and is void of any intrinsic properties of consciousness.
You have not explained how consciousness came from and is included or placed within this mindless universe and how we are submissive to or controlled by the authority of this universe marked by a lack of mind or consciousness. Moreover, you have not explained how everything (including ourselves’) is a subordinate entity of this mindless universe but our consciousness is the only ‘higher-order entity’ that transcends this mindless universe and is created from this mindlessness. Furthermore, how everything is subsumed by mindlessness except our conscious.
You are still trying to prove a mindless positive and assert that it is not possible to prove conscious positive…
But yes, I suppose we could drop this mindlessness (I hope!)… Or we can discuss more intrinsically mindless items that our conscious observes (if you choose to follow that road…)
Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Flames… H2Oh my!
Interesting.
There's a nice refutation of the Marxist "Property is theft" slogan which points out that the concept of "theft" is meaningless without the concept of property and the rightful ownership thereof. However, I don't see the shoe on that foot here.
My somewhat abrupt comment in 61 was expanded upon in 66, but I'll attempt to be clearer yet. In the following passage of your article, you make an argument from semantics.
If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect. And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist.Scientists believe (in fact fully know) that a system which is initially easily described may over time generate a vast amount of internal complexity, no longer easily described with accuracy. Of special interest: a super-duper-hot expanding quark-qluon-plasma may become a universe of clusters, galaxies, planets, comets, gas, and dust by following known rules of behavior. An initially simple proto-planet can cool in interesting ways in the right conditions.
Whether any of this counts as "design" in your dictionary is irrelevant even if somebody has used the word in a manner you disallow. It is quite possible, more likely than not, that our condition here arose in some such way, whether with or without some initial manipulation by some sentient being. You don't dismiss the possibility by lawyering on what "design" means to you.
Quark-gluon plasma. (Sheesh!)
Sturgeon's Law. Nobody gives a d@mn about what the average Joe thinks.
Animals that hunt in teams are usually more successful than lone hunters. All animals that hunt in packs have rules of behavior, in other words morality. If a team member makes a kill made possible by team cooperation but hides the kill from the pack or does not share, they are outcast and not as likely to live or pass on their genetic traits.
Humans are a very special case of evolution though. Our genetic progress can not be explained by group hunting alone. The first tribal war set in motion a very high speed version of evolution. Once tribal warfare was added to the mix, the need for advanced intelligence, cooperation, group loyalty, longevity, self-sacrifice, and group morality became more important. And the cycle of selecting the most genetically advanced tribe became very time compressed. Small genetic advances that normally take many thousands of years to test out are evaluated much faster in humans. Almost every trait of modern humans is now optimized for winning at war. Those of us alive to today are the descendants of the winning warriors and war makers. We are naturally very moral alright, but only to our group for the ultimate purpose of winning at war.
Many people, but not all, have a super-sense of survival. They must survive at all costs, even after death. This motivates many people to behave especially well in the hope they will be granted eternal life. This isn't the major genetic driver of morality though. People who have no super-sense of survival can be just as moral, with no motivation at all other than the genetically programmed desire for the group they belong to win at war. Groups of 100% super-survivors are not as good at war and eventually get killed off. The best tribes at war may have a high percentage of super-survivors but they can't all be.
JennyP, even if I buy your assertion that lifeless atoms can self-organize in a way that allows them to “want very much” to survive…well, so what? That doesn’t tell me the first thing about getting to a transcendent moral “ought.” All it tells me is that something exists that previously didn’t. It doesn’t tell me why it exists or why it should not yell “Fire!” in a crowded block of molecules. Even bacteria self-organizes at the top of a slice of cheese.
A transcendent moral "ought", eh? You creationists are all alike: Closet monarchists! :-)
It's been a while, but looking back I think I argued reasonably well for the naturalistic basis for objective morality in 83 & 90.
In fact, even in packs or tribes, the lone male takes off and survives on his own before joining up with another group, if he ever does. Plus, what about all the pioneers, who deserted their packs and struck out alone? They seem to have survived just fine, even in hostile environments. The pack is not necessary for surviving. It can in fact, be very dangerous to one's well being.
You have an idealistic view of your fellow man, which is commendable, but unrealistic. Just ask your neighbor to pay your mortgage and all your other bills this month, so that you and your genes can survive. Let me know what his reply is. Or better yet, ask one of your relatives to take them over. That might be even more intriguing. thanks, Mark
Other than being false, your position is well stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.