Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 11:43am PT
|
The underlying structure of the universe - necessary for life to emerge - is neither ignored nor avoided by science. Quite the opposite. What emotional need produces such ridiculous claims?
THAT question is probably ignored by science for the most part.
We're a scant few decades into our incomplete understanding of this structure after milling around for a quarter million years or so.
I'd say we're just getting started in figuring out the 'hows'.
As to the 'why', the answer has always been 'as you like it'. It might be helpful to those to require such an answer to remember that our currently friendly universe will very likely extinguish all life in due time.
So, what's the point of it all?
Pick one.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 11:46am PT
|
It's not quite as simple as reproduction = success, no reproduction = failure. If for instance, your sister died and you raised her children in place of having your own, that would be a partial success (in terms of reproduction) because your sibling's children would share much of the same genetic material as you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Worker ants are sterile so obviously their reproductive success is not based on their own reproduction directly. The worker's purpose is to ensure the survival of the colony so their fertile brothers and sisters have an opportunity to reproduce.
Group selection actually applies to any multi-cellular organism. The purpose of skin cells is not to reproduce as much as possible; rather it's to reproduce the correct amount. The rapid reproduction of cancerous cells wouldn't be a success for long as they quickly destroy the organism and themselves. The same could be said of a species which increases in population to such an extent that they outstrip their resources and go extinct as a result.
Basically "success" and "failure" are loaded terms, and carry a lot of baggage that doesn't apply to this particular usage. Reproductive success just means that you reproduced, and that's it. Whether or not it's good for you, or good for your species, or good for the planet, is another thing altogether.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 11:54am PT
|
Well this is interesting. healeyje just told us in no uncertain terms that the answer to everything to do with life is evolution. In the past, people had 15 children, the Duggars still do. Now suddenly we can come up with nuances regarding the theory, nuances that involve values in what was supposed to be a valueless process. So either base's argument about humans over reproducing isn't valid, it's just random evolution at work, or humans can't get away from values even when discussing a random valueless process. Which is it?
And yes, fructose is right, good genes will count in the end, but I doubt they will belong to the people reliant on technology. If push comes to shove, I'll bet on the tough old guys in places like Bangladesh, who produced 15 children, never took a drop of medicine in their lives and survive periodic typhoons by lashing themselves and their children to the upper reaches of cocoanut trees for three days at a time.
And well said, Bryan.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
|
Everything we are evolved, by definition. If not - one needs to find another source for what we are. Best of luck.
There has been a large body of scientific work in finding the evolutionary underpinnings of how we behave, but this work is, as always, incomplete. Until we can travel back in time, which will theoretically be never, it will remain so. The 'where's the missing link'? tactic is apparently alive and well here, but, as with the evolution of homo sapiens - this debate tactic remains a simple logical fallacy.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:10pm PT
|
No one is denying evolution here. What is up for debate are the human values that people claim go with it. One group is arguing that only atheism fits evolutionary reality and I am arguing that a religious world view may in fact fit it better (without any reference as to which belief system is "true"). If evolution is reproductive success, I say the religious people win.
I'm not happy about this by the way, as I agree with base's observations about us endangering the rest of life on earth and ourselves eventually.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:10pm PT
|
Similarly, the idea that evolution no longer applies in a technological society is just as silly. The rules of the game are changing - as they always have, but the basic mechanisms of genetically becoming what we are becoming is more active than ever, given our large population.
Our accelerated lifestyle can shorten the time horizon of our thinking about this, and the process is often thought of as being simpler and less dynamic than it is. 'prolific' 3rd world societies may seem 'more successful' than, say, ours, but that depends on how the rules of the game go, doesn't it?
It's not a simple 'how many kids you got?' equation. Let's look at it another way. What is the effect of an individual's life on the survival of that individual's species? Jonas Sauk had 3 kids, not 19. Jenny McCarthy only has one child. Comparative impact on the survival of the species?
Some offspring is necessary, of course, but in an age of resource depletion and overpopulation, a depopulating level of procreation would arguably aid the survival of the species more than an unsustainable birthrate.
Even so, studies indicate that the rules of mate selection probably haven't changed that much - health, potential for success, wealth (however that's defined locally) still figure as large there as they ever did, although what those attributes look like varies a bit.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:12pm PT
|
" ...and so what's the point of it all?"
And so science yields its ultimate wisdom and from this we find meaning in a worthwhile life. How silly and wasteful... one wonders what kind of emotional bankruptcy leads to such ridiculous conclusions.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
|
Many many become dogs and other animals.
Many many people devolve into the lower species in their first life.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:26pm PT
|
'Ultimate wisdom'? What's that?
If A then B. If you find personally find wisdom in there somewhere, cool.
On the flip side, if wisdom is defined by knowledge that guides one's behavior for more positive outcomes, then, yes, science has much to offer there. Understanding a bit about the science of human behavior? Very useful so far. All scientific knowledge has the potential for enhancing one's wisdom - an understanding, appreciation, and acceptance of the world we live in.
In the end, though, wisdom is a series of decisions made by an individual. What's the 'source' of that wisdom? What, there has to be a single source now?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:43pm PT
|
There is arguably much cause of optimism if we compare today with our historical past. Slavery, strategic bombing of cities, poverty - all are on the decline. Yup - there's global warming. It won't kill us - but it probably will depopulate us quite a bit. Would that be a bad thing? Given our unsustainable population level - not necessarily.
What we read on the news everyday has a lot to do with the ubiquity of media these days - EVERYTHING gets reported EVERYWHERE, and bad news leads, as it always has. Are things worse than, say, during WWII or the Civil War? Imagine reading a headline that the US just nuked a city in tomorrow's paper.
Still, what happens to technological species over time? We only have one data point, here, but self inflicted extinction remains a likely outcome. Will the superior artificial beings we will almost certainly create spell our doom?
Perhaps this is why we haven't been visited from afar yet. At 3% of the speed of light and planetary stays of 400 years before the next interstellar jump, it would only take 8 million years to leap frog across our entire galaxy. Do technological species last long enough to make the interstellar voyage? Or maybe we're the smartest kids on the galaxy. Or the only kids in the galaxy. Or maybe interstellar travel is just too big a project for anyone to tackle.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 12:52pm PT
|
I think some of the most interesting philosophical speculation around these days is in the form of science fiction.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
|
Check your sources, my friend. I make only one explicit claim: I am. I claim that I am a skeptic. You seem to be the one who knows everything else.
I appreciate skepticism. But if you are skeptical about things like consciousness being sourced purely from material, what's the alternative?
Skepticism by itself is pretty boring, conversationally speaking...
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 01:29pm PT
|
Prove it.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 02:44pm PT
|
Wisdom is knowledge prudently applied. Without prudence there’s little wisdom. Knowledge requires judgment and evaluation before it acquires authority.
The knowledge and the judge are two different entities. Some knowledge is entertained some is discarded, but the judge makes the call.
The judge is that persistent entity within, the “I,” the thing that stands apart from knowledge as an arbiter of sense, that unique entity of consciousness that is the self, that thing we must protect, that thing we fear for, whose end seems intolerable and this “entity” is what becomes wise.
Wisdom is as much a function of morality and virtue as it is the absorption of facts. Where is the morality in science? Science like evolution maintains a kind of neutrality in regard to such matters.
But if science informs us that evolution is the paradigm of existence then ruthlessness in favor of survival should be our only interest. Virtue is foolish as is morality except as a device for enhancing procreation.
Goodness and empathy are unnecessary distractions and we can live in a dystopian world where a rigorous athleticism of aggression will favor our evolutionary success… really? Just as important as the question where shall wisdom be found is where shall morality be found?
The issue isn’t that God is required for morality it’s that science has no justification for it.
If you claim that morality is natural to the human species because it enhances social efficiency, fine. But contemporary structures of morality have become so incredibly complex (read Aquinas) that the original impetus to empathetic behavior seems no longer connected.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 02:59pm PT
|
Evolution isn't just ruthless. It's everything we are, by definition - ruthlessness, altruism, cooperation, competition, selfishness, and selflessness.
It flummoxes me why supposedly educated people today still view evolution as an entirely exploitative, competitive system - as if interdependence and cooperation played no role at all.
If the system is so heartless - where did love come from?
Hint: It evolved.
Does love aid in our survival?
So far, yes, apparently.
Will it always?
I don't know.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 03:08pm PT
|
"Evolution isn't just ruthless. It's everything we are... ruthlessness, altruism, cooperation, competition, selfishness, and selflessness."
Thank you.
One wonders why those who don't get this, especially those supposedly "into" evolution, one way or another, either as student or teacher, just don't post less and go hit the books more.
I mean, it would be such a leg up. Then we could move on?
And then there's this too, increasingly ever more popular in the evolutionary psych circles, etc... Sometimes for somebody in their development, it's less about facts and more about changing attitudes, changing perspectives, changing habits (of thought and/or value).
PS
Why do some continually fail to get evolution? Because they're into it only half-ass, in half-ass measure. They still cling to the idea that physical structures evolve... even the brain evolves... but not the source of emotions and feelings. No, that's the immaterial soul or spirit or ghost; or that's the immaterial mind. They'll never get it - evolution that is - in full till they give up on the "ghost in the machine" pseudo and jump in all the way.
As far as I'm concerned, folks couldn't get their teaching credentials in evolutionary theory unless they accepted it in full. Mind-brains evolve. By phenotypic extension, so do their products: thoughts, memories, emotions and feelings.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 03:12pm PT
|
The issue isn’t that God is required for morality it’s that science has no justification for it. Ridiculous on the face of it. Nature is rife with cooperative behavior, empathy, and altruism. Nature: no god or science required.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 03:18pm PT
|
HFCS said"If you're really into mindfulness meditation, you should avoid the woo pool here and check into something science-based.
I'd recommend Kelly McGonigal.
Eg: The Neuroscience of Change_ A Compassion-Based Program for Personal Transformation
She uses mindfulness in a practical way as a basis of her personal training programs. "
I f you look into it a little bit she "did some work" she is a zen student.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2015 - 03:18pm PT
|
If you want to observe 'man as animal', warfare provides an example of how we behave in an almost pure survival situation.
Why do soldiers put themselves at such risk?
The answer is timeless and universal: to protect their comrades.
Welcome to love, loyalty, and evolution.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!