Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:09:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D756B53.173640C0@mindspring.com> References: <20020831093523.G8288-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > So then would it be correct to classify you as a monist? It seems > that you and Dave are actually on the same wavelength after all! > I know, I know, he's a dualist, but considering the fact that he > thinks everything is just one big dance, he's ultimately a monist. > Everything just "is." I would say that Dave is a monist, or has, at least, "demonstrated monist tendencies". I would not argue that the air which a person breates and the food which they eat is, because their removal will result in the person's death, therefore a part of the person (i.e. an example of a strict monist viewpoint). If I *were* a monist, I would need to argue Dave's point about the validity of trolls. > > > By the same token, is the development of light bulbs a good thing? > > > Why? What I'm trying to get at is your ultimate criteria. Usefulness? > > > But then pragmatism is only useful if you know what ends to pursue. > > > > "What is the meaning of life?" 8-). > > According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A#1, "To glorify > God and enjoy Him forever." 8-) Probably explains why they haven't named an Abbey after me yet... 8-). > > I don't claim to have an answer to that question. What I do claim > > is that resetting the clock to an earlier time does no good. We know > > this because, to analogize Dave Hayes, there was no sudden heavenly > > chorus announcing the amount of real, user, and system time elapsed > > since the beginning of the universe, now that the run is complete. > > It's complete? If "The Answer" was arrived at at an earlier time, then yes, by definition. > > There is also the slight problem that clocks run forward, meaning > > that eventually you will get to the same point yet again, so you > > might as well cross that bridge sooner rather than later. > > You'll have to excuse me for missing your point! <g> You can't put off the future forever. > The problem with analogies is that sometimes they prove too much. Have > you ever met the Programmer? There's a programmer? 8-). > > So I think most of these standards of conduct are emergent, based > > on their anti- or pro- species survival value. > > Isn't the concept of "emergence" just a clever mask for "faith-based > committment"? I mean really, as a theist, I feel like an absolute > rationalist compared to you evolutionists! Consider this: [ ... ] > All of this is self-emergent, or self-creating, with no help from > any supernatural intelligence! I look at that and think, wow, > I guess I just don't have that kind of faith! Hence, the > classification of evolution as a religion. Louis Pasteur > disproved spontaneous generation but I guess some ideas die hard. The rationalist view is that, given two explanations which fit the facts, the simpler one is the correct one. > > Jealousy. Trolls crossing the borders. Inability to effectively > > compete in the context of a given consensus rule set (e.g. there are > > no radical Moslem First World countries, there are no first world > > countries without some form of population controls, volintary or > > otherwise, there are no first world countries without immigration > > controls, there are no dominant religions that favor birth control, > > etc., etc.). > > Well, then why do we fight back, if not to impose our standards > of morality on them? Besides, I would hardly classify Islam as > "not a dominant religion", unfortunate as that fact is. 1) Or to *prevent* other people from imposing their standards on you. 2) Islam favors birth control? Since when? > Yes, but one would have to show that propagation of the genetic > material and survival of the species is a goal worthy of pursuing. Not really. You'd only have to show that it was desirous, not "worthy". > I mean, how do you know that murder victims are just the unhappy > losers in the evolutionary fight for survival? You mean "aren't", I guess. One answer is that murderers are not so prevalent as to constitute a generalized evolutionary pressure. > Why do we keep trying to subvert evolution with such things as > "consensus rule sets"? This seems to be self-defeating (in the > larger scheme of things). Maybe humans are, at heart, Lamarckians. > This all just seems like so much rationalization. I admit, longer > reproductive life spans and higher standard of living is nice from a > subjective perspective, but in the ultimate scheme of things how do > we know it isn't counter-productive? It is not the job of evoution to be "counter-productive" or "productive". You assume a goal, without a goal in evidence. > > I guess in terms of conflicting societies, it comes down to whether > > powerful society A can suffer less powerful society B to exist. > > Sometimes it comes down to whether more powerful society A can suffer > itself to exist, or rather God can suffer it to exist. All societies which have ever existed have been suffered to come into existance in the first place, by definition, if, in fact, anyone is suffering them at all. > Why are mutual boundaries relevant? I mean, what does it really > matter if one piece of bio-matter A inadvertently bumps into > another piece of bio-matter B, and in the process changes it's > state from what we arbitrarily call "alive" to an equally > arbitrarily named state we call "dead". Such is nature red in > tooth and claw. To ignore the boundaries is to not admit the possibility of stalemate. > > > Or do you advocate a global society? > > > > Not really. I recognize it as emergent. The Geneva Convention, > > The World Court, The World Intellctual Property Association, > > Maritime Law, International Law, war, treaties, capitualation, > > etc.. > > Of course, what you call "emergent", is what some of us would > call "providence". Call it what you want; if you need to believe that will is required as a first mover in all things, go ahead and believe that, though it's easy to conceptualize such things occurring in the absence of will. > > > If so, is whatever mores that society adopts right by definition? > > > > Personally, I believe a global society is not possible, at least > > until there are one or more additional globes involved. Call it > > a result of "Thalience". 8-). There is an implicit need of "the > > other", at least in all the societies we've so far managed to > > construct. > > Kind of a yin and yang thing then, eh? You can't sort things into two groups by going through every one of them, one at a time, if, after identifying which group it belongs two, you throw them randomly back in the same bin. 8-). There has to be a mutually acknowledged border. > > > Then it would not be an internal code of conduct, by definition. > > > Just because you wouldn't engage in a particular activity doesn't > > > mean that somebody else shouldn't. > > > > It turns out that there is an escape hatch. It has to do with the > > semantics of "human being". This is actually *why* it's OK to kill > > the enemy, without having to make an explicit exception which leads > > you to a slippery slope: you define them to not be a human being. > > The Sioux understood this implicitly. The translation of the Sioux > > word for themselves is "human being". > > So did the National Socialists. That's some escape hatch. More > like out of the frying pan into the fire. That's all well and good, > until you find yourself on the receiving end of being defined in > such a manner. For example, when you break into someone's house and threaten to kill their child, and find yourself killed by one of the parents in consequence, because at that point, the parent is able to define a human being as "not someone who would do this"? Some definitions are emergent. > > In reality, there's no avoiding externalizing ethics; if it's wrong > > to kill another human being, then it's wrong whwther the act is > > manifest by comission (performing the act) or omission (you permitting > > the act to be performed). By not acting, you act. > > On the other hand, if man is the imago Deo, you at least have > a rationale for protecting God's image bearers through the means of > capital punishment. ...Of God's image bearers? That doesn't make sense; it's self contradictory. > You fail to distinguish between murder and killing. Killing > under most circumstances *is* wrong, but in some circumstances > the greater sin comes from allowing murderers to live. Not coming from the theory of morphological value you've put forth... from that theory, the murderer could in fact be acting as an instrument of God's will. Mostly we lock those people up. > Hence, as a previous poster pointed out, the governing > authorities (whether Christian, or pagan) are ministers of God's > wrath. By virtue of a popular election? I didn't realize that God had deputized the population with the power to deputize people to act on His behalf. I must not have got that memo... > > It is moral *within the context of that society*. Whether neighboring > > societies would tolerate the activity is another matter altogether. > > Societies hold each other to consensual standards, as well, in the > > context of the society of societies of which they are members. > > Why shouldn't they tolerate it? It's not a matter of "should" or "should not". Tolerance or intolerance arises fron consensus among the society of societies. > > > > Individuals do not have morals, though individuals may *be* moral > > > > or *act* morally or *demonstrate* morality. > > > > > > Act morally with regard to what? You seem to think that a society > > > cannot enshrine laws that are immoral. > > > > They can't. They can enact them, but they can't enshrine them > > without the consent of the governed. The police will refuse to > > enforce them, or the citizens will ignore them. That's the > > difference between a law that has been enacted, and one that is > > in effect. > > I'm talking about a society that *does* consent, such as one that > tolerates abortion. Dave Hayes made the initial statement. What you, Neal E. Westfall are talking about, is adjunct context to the original discussion, isn't it? ;^). > By the way, if it were not for imigration, most Western societies > would be decreasing in population, as the native population is not > reproducing fast enough to replenish those being lost. You act like you believe this is a bad thing, that a higher population is somehow a global good. > And by the way, speaking of abortion, isn't this also > counter-productive to evolution? Not really. What is evolution's goal, such that abortion is counter to it? > > In the case of a police state, where physical power is centralized, > > there's always the possibility of subversion, infiltration, or, in > > the limit, human wave assault. > > This usually ends up with many dead humans. Yes. But one ideal wins dominance. > > To have a society is to grant that society rights over individuals. > > There is no such thing as a tyranny of one. By your argument, all > > jailed tyrants should be freed, because it's tyranical to jail a > > tyrant. But in freeing a tyrant to act upon your society, are you > > not therefore still tyranical, this time by proxy? > > Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Why is this dichotomy false? > I never advocated Dave's position any more than I advocated yours. > I don't define tyranny as being "not free". With freedom comes > responsibility, and it is acknowledged that the state must be > granted some degree of power for the purpose of securing individual > rights. This means putting tyrants in jail, and defining freedom > in such a way as that it excludes acts of wickedness. For this we > need an external, objective standard of ethics. Not really. All you need is a self-consistent system of ethics. > > > I see. And what exactly is "the greatest good for the greatest > > > number"? Weeding out inferior individuals from the gene pool? > > > Why not? Moreover, who makes these decisions? Philosopher-kings? > > > > Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > > I would still like to know what "the greatest good for the greatest > number" means. It means whatever consensus says it means. > Sounds kind of like Marx, or Star Trek. The problem, > or course, is who gets to decide what the "good." Whoever the governed consent to have govern them. > Well, let's take the logic of naturalism for example. Recall that > naturalism attempts to account for everything on the basis that > all that exists is matter/energy and the operation of physical laws. > > Premise A: All current states of matter/energy are determined by > the operation of physical laws on antecedent states > of matter/energy. > Premise B: My current beliefs can be accounted for solely on > naturalistic principles. > Premise C: Other people's beliefs can be accounted for solely on > naturalistic principles. > > Conclusion D: All beliefs are pre-determined. So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if naturalistic principles permit randomness. > IOW, you cannot get from electro-chemical reactions in the grey-matter > to the notion of "true belief" and "false belief". All beliefs can > only be accounted for on naturalistic terms, therefore nobody can > say that their particular view of reality is true in the sense that > it is the actual state of affairs that obtains, but rather you > couln't help but believe what you believe, because that's just the > way the synapses fired in your brain. And if someone else holds to > a diametrically opposed view, it cannot be deemed "false" since it > too is just the result of electro-chemical reactions in their brain. > In short, if naturalism is true, it could never be known to be true. > It would be like saying the Mississippi "knows" how to get to the > ocean, while Lake Michigan does not. You appear to be trying to recreate an example of Godel's incompleteness theorem, using a naturalistic example. The problem with doing that is that naturalism recognizes Godel. > And I've already anticipated your answer. You will say that > reasoning abilities are "emergent". To which I will respond, > "How?" Please elaborate. I don't understand what your example has to do with the existance or non-existance of reasoning. All you've really addressed is the idea that contradictory beliefs can be held by different people. I would point out that the naturalist view is that these contradictory beliefs can be tested empirically, and if false, be falsified. I think that many people apparently don't understand that the scientific process is about the falsification of hypotheses; a scientist does not *prove* things, a scientist only ever *disproves* things. A hypothesis, if it has not yet been disproven, is still just a hypothesis, not Truth. The standard we use to judge one hypothesis against another, if neither has yet been disproven, is that of simplicity: the simpler explanation is presumed to be the correct one, unless there is evidence to the contrary (thus falsifying the simpler explanation). > > > Then I would have to ask to what end such "self-organizing systems" > > > attain? Organizing into what? For what purpose? > > > > Why does there have to be a purpose? > > If you say something has a teleological basis, it has a purpose by > definition. I think you are consuing teleology and theology? > > It may matter to you, personally. If it does, you with either act > > within the system, to change the mechanism whereby the action results > > in a penalty, or you will engage in civil disobedience to provide an > > example to others -- sacrificing yourself to the greater good, or you > > will declare your seperateness from society, in some way. > > Yes, yes, I know. But can you explain, on your worldview, why such > disagreements should arise in the first place? Manifest self interest by one of the complaintants. > > So you will change the rule, or you will be removed from the conflict > > situation, or you will remove yourself from the conflict situation. > > No matter what you do (or the actual outcome), the conflict will be > > resolved to the satisfaction of the society. > > Yes, but this is all beside the point. It is purely descriptive. > To what ends *should* society be seeking? IMO? The advancement of human knowledge. If nothing else, we will end up finding the answer to the question os what ends society should be seeking, and, most importantly, not be able to falsify the idea that we have discovered the answer. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D756B53.173640C0>