Secular Intolerance

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: I fully acknowledge and accept the fact that everything I say could be total nonsense.

Nevertheless, I still must ask you what is it that “isn’t true” in regards to the suggestions I offered?
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm You have not demonstrated that there is any "teleological impetus" in nature, merely asserted this as if it were a fact.
First of all, I did not assert it as if it were a “fact.”

I simply implied that the Big Bang’s initial “kernel” of matter, appears (as in “seems”) to have been impregnated (imbued, fully equipped - like a cosmic “seed”) with every possible ingredient necessary to produce all of reality as we understand it.

And in defense of my “teleological impetus” remark, please allow me to import from an alternate thread, a slightly paraphrased assessment of the post Bang scenario:
seeds wrote: ...how in the world did fields of random and chaotically dispersed energy and information somehow “know” how to self-adjust their quantum attributes in such a way that would cause the three-dimensional phenomena appearing up in what physicists call “local reality” to be so “vital and appealing” to the five senses of consciousness?

In other words, how did unguided and unconscious (mindless) algorithmic processes...

(without any way of determining what the universe’s three-dimensional phenomena would actually look like, feel like, sound like, smell like, and taste like to consciousness)

...again, how did the primordial quantum processes “blindly predetermine” that in the presence of some future (heretofore nonexistent) consciousness, that fragrant vines of blooming honeysuckle, or beautiful mountain streams, or a vast cornucopia of delicious foods would suddenly emerge from the “noumenal-like” patterns of quantum information?

Now of course none of that “proves” anything about whether or not the universe has a guiding intelligence.

It is merely offered up as another puzzle piece to ponder (like the Kalam argument) that points to the idea that the universe seems to be founded upon an unignorable “teleological impetus” that – right from the start - had a highly specific “purpose” in mind.

And that purpose was not only to facilitate the manifestation of life and consciousness, but also to meet life's needs and preferences once it had arrived on the scene.
_______
(Continued in next post)
_______
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Walker »

I haven’t seen Groundhog Day but thanks for mentioning it.
You simply must. Brilliant film, one of the best.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm To say that humans are the "culminating apex" of this process has no evidential support whatever,...
What do you mean by “evidential support”?

What kind of evidence do you require that is not already on display?
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm ...and flies in the face of fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology,...
How can thinking that the human brain represents the “culminating apex” of evolution, fly in the face of evolutionary biology?

In purely materialistic terms, is there something higher (more evolved) than the human brain that I am unaware of? If so, then point it out to us.

Furthermore, the “fundamental tenets” of evolutionary biology have been promulgated by certain outspoken humans who seem to presume that by understanding “how” the great machine of biology works, that they then somehow understand the means through-which the great machine came into existence, which is complete and utter folly (as I discussed in this post here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3561&start=1830#p297095).

I mean, the fact that humans can immerse themselves in the midst of an already fully-functioning biosphere and discover a few “fundamental tenets,” is simply evidence of an implicit order that preceded the discoveries, and says absolutely nothing of how the vast and stable “setting” in which the order ensues, came to be.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm ...which fully rejects the scala naturae.
I have often declared that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish” idealist who believes that the universe (one of those closed “bubbles” we talked about in an alternate thread - of which there could be an infinite number) is the sovereign mind of a higher Being.

In which case, the following illustration is my own personal depiction of the “scala naturae” (the great chain of being):

Image

What the illustration is attempting to depict is that just as there is a tremendous leap from the amoeba’s level of consciousness up to the human level of consciousness, so it is from the human level up to God’s level.

God’s level is not only the top rung of the ascending ladder of consciousness, it is also the foundation and containment medium of all subsequent rungs within the mentally manifested “universe” of his living mind.

As I discussed with Greta in the science forum:
seeds wrote: ...if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”
In the “great chain of being” depicted in the illustration, I believe that a human, or more specifically, the creation of the human mind, represents the highest goal toward which “material” evolution is aimed...

...(as opposed to the highest goal of the evolution of our minds that will take place after death).

I believe that the human mind’s ability to willfully create absolutely anything imaginable out of the living fabric of its very own being, represents a literal replication (as in “offspring”) of the higher mind (God) that made the replication possible via the same process.

We just need to realize that the full potential of our minds will not be revealed to us until after we have experienced our second and final birth as depicted below:

Image

It is important to note that the outcome depicted in the illustration is not limited to just “humans.”

That which is depicted in my fanciful drawing, again, represents the “highest goal” that life can aspire to anywhere throughout the universe.

And what that means is that the physical facades of God’s offspring throughout the galaxies could be wildly different from each other but would have no bearing on the sameness and eternal purpose of our inner being (just as they have no bearing on the sameness of our inner being here on earth in terms of a body’s gender or race).

Needless to say (and to preempt what will no doubt be your response back to me), this is all ridiculous sounding speculation on my part.

Nevertheless, allow me to offer a variation of one of my favorite quotes from Niels Bohr:
Niels Bohr wrote: We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:35 pm Greta
Again, you seem unable to see the difference between observations verified by many and your own subjective observations. Your attitude displays a weak and blinkered grasp of philosophic history, especially the growing need in ancient civilisations to verify people's varied subjective claims.
What are these unique observations many have verified that I have missed?
Might you recognise names like Democritus and Ibn al-Haytham? If not, and if you had any philosophic depth you would understand why those pioneers of reason pointed out the need for proof of subjective claims.

The need for such thinking came about due to people like you who make over-certain claims and use repetition, bullying and manipulation to push your points.

Nick_A wrote:Only recently has the wheat begun to be separated from the tares and preserved for the few willing to experience beyond blind denial.
This is the crux of everything that you say - that you are the wheat and all other forum members are chaff. The king deigning to educate the peasants.

Nick_A wrote:
So, when someone chooses not to speak about their subjective stuff (as anyone could), you seem to assume that they don't have any subjective existence like David Chalmer's "philosophical zombies". It's a naive view that underestimates the nature of human consciousness.
No. People prefer to present an image as opposed to admitting what we are. Why is this surprising for you? Jesus accused the Pharisees of hypocrisy because they had become creatures of image who did not feel and experience what they said or how they acted in public. They were zombies trying to appear alive.
No, they were just immature people in positions of power, just as you are an immature person without power. To claim that there's nothing inside of other people is just solipsism.
Nick_A wrote:
I am perfectly happy exchanging views with theists and, aside from you, can have a relaxed sharing and comparing of ideas. As it is, you STILL think that it's your ideas that bother others when the problem is simply your aggressive personality. Stop being aggressive and carrying on as though you are The Great King Poop speaking down to his unworthy subjects and you'll find people being a whole lot more receptive to you.
Why would you have trouble with a theist?
That was your claim. I only have trouble with theists (and atheists and agnostics) when they are over-certain, obtuse, hyper-sensitive or unpleasant.

Nick_A wrote:You are apparently unaware of what “being” is. It is more than just being alive or dead. Human being is the same. It isn’t a matter of being alive or dead. You are unaware of both the relativity and scale of human being. The concept is offensive for you and you react to it. You don’t appreciate the value of the message so must condemn the messenger.
A good example of your misguided arrogance. Nobody understands being - and that includes you.

Also, effectively accusing me of antinatalism is just throwing random mud. Why not accuse me of being a murderer, lesbian and baby molester who tortures small animals while you are at it? You can say anything you like - it's a free country - but your reckless and random lying is tiresome and reminiscent of your man, Trump's constant stream of fabrications (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stLwtHEx74A).

Why not stop and consider whether you are speaking with mind or emotions before pressing the "Submit" button?

Nick_A wrote:
Nicolae Tanase: Prof. Needleman, what is the meaning of life?

Jacob Needleman: The dramatic effects of the accelerating advance of technology, for all the material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) are but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being.

The deep meaning of many rules of conduct and moral principles of the past — so many of which have been abandoned without our understanding their real roots in human nature — involved the cultivation and development of the uniquely human power of attention, its action in the body, heart and mind of man.
Nick, old people, theists and conservatives often express disappointment at the way the world changed since they were young. When a person is all three, like Needleman, then one can expect him to see the present through a dark lens.

I also note the superficiality of the observation, as though humans are all doing the same thing. Most are doing the same thing, but some are not - and like Huxley's Alphas - a minority need to act as the "brains of the outfit". Much as I am idealistic about egalitarianism, what I see is genuine differences. There is a growing, poorly educated rump on societies that lacks prospects. That points to instability. Yet, the power brokers have enough technology to augment their minority numbers to control and repel the masses.

So, sure, your "Great Beast" ("society at large" to less crazy people) is exploiting and discarding what it deems as its least useful people, as societies have done since tribal days. The ranks of the "not useful" are growing, though, with much talent going to waste, being dwarfed by the speedy, precise, tireless, cheap and 24/7 work of modern machines.

The Earth is restructuring and anyone who has been through corporate restructures will know that waste and pain inevitably come with change.
Nick_A wrote:Those like you and F4 have no idea what human being is so naturally no idea how and why to cultivate it. The secular answer is indoctrination which they call education for the outer man. Without any appreciation for the reality of human “being” you cannot understand how the narrow-mindedness of secular indoctrination leads to spirit killing. The fact that I realize it and am wiling to discuss it is seen as looking down on people. If we are asleep in Plato’s cave unaware of what we are in comparison to the potential for human “being” it is a very insulting revelation to those with the normal modern belief in the superiority of the Great Beast and all its supporters
Re: your claims that "F4" and I have "no idea" - you have NO IDEA what goes on in our heads so kindly STFU with your pointless accusations, you Nickhead.

Anyway, what you base these grand claims of knowledge on? Seemingly the polemic of ancient people who believed that bacteria were evil spirits.

While you seemingly believe me to have the consciousness of a dead lizard, I actually do experience qualia. Thus, I appreciate the emotional need for a sense of solidity in a sometimes alarmingly dynamic reality. However, I see your interpretation of the situation as neurotic. Like many, you are convinced that humans are acting as a cancer on the Earth and need correction. I am yet to see cancers create structures more organised and sentient than that which they replace. So I see a fully integrated natural system that includes human beings and their works as agents of change, perhaps akin to blue-green algae during the Great Oxygenation event.

For inhabitants of larger systems (like us), restructures are not good news. However, if what emerges from humanity is even half as exciting and profound as what emerged after the Earth was oxygenated, then at least all the torment is in the cause of a better future form some. Who is to say that humanity is the ultimate expression of evolution and must not, or cannot, be superseded?

For all we know, there may be a primary game of life in which we are merely a primitive middling player. It's possible that every humans' moral ideas up to this point in history have all the ontological depth of a three year-old talking about right and wrong. In fact, that seems likely.

If the Earth continues to develop (eg. sans planet-killing asteroids or runaway greenhouse effect) there will come a time when much of the guesswork of morality is replaced by knowledge. For instance, a well-meaning exorcist or healer can do unknowing harm though pointless trauma or impotence of the treatments, while modern healers have the knowledge to avoid that harm and hopefully do some good. The power of knowledge is well enough known, so the more that a population knows, the more effectively moral, or immoral, they are able to be.

So, yes, technological progress is ideally be matched by moral awareness, which of course is largely only happening amongst a minority of well educated and informed people and a spattering of the uneducated and morally gifted in the broader community.

Shifting the mind of a population is a huge undertaking, akin to turning around an ocean liner. I think it necessary and good that people keep trying, and remain interested in maintaining a sense of morality - real morality, not just attacking easy, highly vulnerable targets like churches, who in chasing easy targets have morally let their flocks down.

However, I don't hold out much hope for the masses, especially refugees and those in developing countries, and not just due to religions focusing on populist issues rather than that which is most morally important. The nations' corrupt and shambling leadership (usually conservative theists) have grievously let them down and now those populations will die like flies this century due to population pressure, climate change, resource depletion and concomitant war and disease.

This is a critical time when societies will either set themselves to persist in the new world, or to fall away into history.
fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by fooloso4 »

Nick:
Fooloso4:

Nicky pretends that it is about secular intolerance but the real issue is intolerance of his false piety, which he has a compulsive and insatiable need to put on display.
Translation. If I oppose the harm of the dominance of secularism it is false piety.
You have just proven my point. Your spurious claims about secularism just demonstrates your ignorance not your false piety.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Seeds
I have often declared that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish” idealist who believes that the universe (one of those closed “bubbles” we talked about in an alternate thread - of which there could be an infinite number) is the sovereign mind of a higher Being.

In which case, the following illustration is my own personal depiction of the “scala naturae” (the great chain of being):

What the illustration is attempting to depict is that just as there is a tremendous leap from the amoeba’s level of consciousness up to the human level of consciousness, so it is from the human level up to God’s level.

God’s level is not only the top rung of the ascending ladder of consciousness, it is also the foundation and containment medium of all subsequent rungs within the mentally manifested “universe” of his living mind.

In the “great chain of being” depicted in the illustration, I believe that a human, or more specifically, the creation of the human mind, represents the highest goal toward which “material” evolution is aimed...
If you re open to it, we could begin a thread on Panentheism and the Great chain of being. It is obvious that you have a sincere interest in these ideas. I know it is a minority belief but perhaps if one other person showed up with a mind open to these ideas the thread could become thought provoking. For example how can we put Plotinus’ depiction of ONE and Nous into a Panentheistic perspective. Does this explain how God is One and three simultaneously in Christianity? How and on what basis does Nous produce the involution of the Great Chain of Being which leads to its evolution? My gut feeling is that some variation of Panentheism is the religion of the future which will have a structure to satisfy the logic of science and justification for the needs of the heart the essence of religion serves. If we survive technology, I don’t think that even the most intense secular intolerance can suppress it.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:21 amMy gut feeling is that some variation of Panentheism is the religion of the future which will have a structure to satisfy the logic of science and justification for the needs of the heart the essence of religion serves. If we survive technology, I don’t think that even the most intense secular intolerance can suppress it.
One of the more sensible things you have said.

I wouldn't worry about secular society in context but the established religions that, as always, will attempt to eliminate any threats to their supporter base.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by davidm »

seeds wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:13 am _______

(Continued from prior post)
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm To say that humans are the "culminating apex" of this process has no evidential support whatever,...
What do you mean by “evidential support”?

What kind of evidence to you require that is not already on display?
"Culminating apex" presupposes a teleology. There is no evidence at all of teleology in evolution.
davidm wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:11 pm ...and flies in the face of fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology,...
How can thinking that the human brain represents the “culminating apex” of evolution, fly in the face of evolutionary biology?

In purely materialistic terms, is there something higher (more evolved) than the human brain that I am unaware of? If so, then point it out to us.
Humans are not "more evolved" than any other species on earth.
Furthermore, the “fundamental tenets” of evolutionary biology have been promulgated by certain outspoken humans who seem to presume that by understanding “how” the great machine of biology works, that they then somehow understand the means through-which the great machine came into existence, which is complete and utter folly (as I discussed in this post here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3561&start=1830#p297095).
Evolutionary theory does not concern itself with the origin of life, a field know as abiogenesis. It certainly does not concern itself with the origin of the universe, which is in the domain of physics.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:43 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:26 am Kids are born with the need to be real. Around the age of five or six they begin developing a personality, an image, to relate to the external world around them. The kid creates an interpreted world to replace what their heart yearns for. They sacrifice their ears and their voice to placate the image which slowly but surely lives their life for them. Secularism and its skilled methods for spirit killing does its best destroy the essence the child was born with and often succeeds. If a child survives this attack and matures they must face all the fears associated with taking their lives back, Secularists are proud of their victory and call it progressive. Sick stuff.
Did you have some traumatic experience as a child, and is that why you are so bitterly obsessed with defining children and ranting against those you perceive as threats? When I was a child, I would not want you protecting me or influencing me because even then I would have perceived that you are off your nut. Spirits are strong and wise regardless of human form/age. You speak for children as if none of us know what its like. That's really idiotic.
"We cannot live in a world that is interpreted for us by others. An interpreted world is not a home. Part of the terror is to take back our own listening. To use our own voice. To see our own light." —Hildegard of Bingen, "Selected Writings," (Penguin Classics, 2001).
So stop interpreting the world for everyone else, Nick. You're projecting your own funk.

Did you have some traumatic experience as a child, and is that why you are so bitterly obsessed with defining children and ranting against those you perceive as threats? When I was a child, I would not want you protecting me or influencing me because even then I would have perceived that you are off your nut. Spirits are strong and wise regardless of human form/age. You speak for children as if none of us know what its like. That's really idiotic.
Well I was deprived in school and maybe that explains it. I read how many young guys are getting screwed by their sexy young teachers and it never happened to me. I was deprived. I usually had 300 pound teachers with names like Thelma. The idea of getting screwed never crossed my mind. I was deprived of authentic education as to the facts of life. Maybe now it would be different and I'd have a favorable attitude towards secular education but being deprived in this manner has raised doubts as to the value of secular education as it concerns the facts of life.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by seeds »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:21 am Seeds
I have often declared that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish” idealist who believes that the universe (one of those closed “bubbles” we talked about in an alternate thread - of which there could be an infinite number) is the sovereign mind of a higher Being.

In which case, the following illustration is my own personal depiction of the “scala naturae” (the great chain of being):

What the illustration is attempting to depict is that just as there is a tremendous leap from the amoeba’s level of consciousness up to the human level of consciousness, so it is from the human level up to God’s level.

God’s level is not only the top rung of the ascending ladder of consciousness, it is also the foundation and containment medium of all subsequent rungs within the mentally manifested “universe” of his living mind.

In the “great chain of being” depicted in the illustration, I believe that a human, or more specifically, the creation of the human mind, represents the highest goal toward which “material” evolution is aimed...
If you re open to it, we could begin a thread on Panentheism and the Great chain of being. It is obvious that you have a sincere interest in these ideas. I know it is a minority belief but perhaps if one other person showed up with a mind open to these ideas the thread could become thought provoking. For example how can we put Plotinus’ depiction of ONE and Nous into a Panentheistic perspective. Does this explain how God is One and three simultaneously in Christianity? How and on what basis does Nous produce the involution of the Great Chain of Being which leads to its evolution? My gut feeling is that some variation of Panentheism is the religion of the future which will have a structure to satisfy the logic of science and justification for the needs of the heart the essence of religion serves. If we survive technology, I don’t think that even the most intense secular intolerance can suppress it.
Sounds good to me.

You are good at starting threads, so why don't you create it and I'll join in.

Which sub forum do you think would be most fitting? Philosophy of Religion?
_______
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

seeds wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:04 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:21 am Seeds
I have often declared that I am a “Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish” idealist who believes that the universe (one of those closed “bubbles” we talked about in an alternate thread - of which there could be an infinite number) is the sovereign mind of a higher Being.

In which case, the following illustration is my own personal depiction of the “scala naturae” (the great chain of being):

What the illustration is attempting to depict is that just as there is a tremendous leap from the amoeba’s level of consciousness up to the human level of consciousness, so it is from the human level up to God’s level.

God’s level is not only the top rung of the ascending ladder of consciousness, it is also the foundation and containment medium of all subsequent rungs within the mentally manifested “universe” of his living mind.

In the “great chain of being” depicted in the illustration, I believe that a human, or more specifically, the creation of the human mind, represents the highest goal toward which “material” evolution is aimed...
If you re open to it, we could begin a thread on Panentheism and the Great chain of being. It is obvious that you have a sincere interest in these ideas. I know it is a minority belief but perhaps if one other person showed up with a mind open to these ideas the thread could become thought provoking. For example how can we put Plotinus’ depiction of ONE and Nous into a Panentheistic perspective. Does this explain how God is One and three simultaneously in Christianity? How and on what basis does Nous produce the involution of the Great Chain of Being which leads to its evolution? My gut feeling is that some variation of Panentheism is the religion of the future which will have a structure to satisfy the logic of science and justification for the needs of the heart the essence of religion serves. If we survive technology, I don’t think that even the most intense secular intolerance can suppress it.
Sounds good to me.

You are good at starting threads, so why don't you create it and I'll join in.

Which sub forum do you think would be most fitting? Philosophy of Religion?
_______
I would suggest the Metaphysics board since Panentheism isn't a religion but its ideas could serve as the basis for a religion as an esoteric school that understands the relativity and scale of "being" and Man's place within this scale of being as it is now in contrast to the potential for human being.. Metaphysics seems to be appropriate defined as follows.
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:01 am Well I was deprived in school and maybe that explains it. I read how many young guys are getting screwed by their sexy young teachers and it never happened to me.
Ah, yes. How many men are stunted and become mentally "off" because they haven't gotten screwed enough? If they truly treasured women more... and treated them as the goddesses they are (rather than inferior objects to be poked)... maybe men would get more than they could imagine, and that would heal a whole lot of ills with the world. Men killed the Goddess... what do they expect? :lol:
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by davidm »

seeds wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:13 am How can thinking that the human brain represents the “culminating apex” of evolution, fly in the face of evolutionary biology?
Because the concepts of “more evolved” and “culminating apex” have no place in evolutionary theory. If you think such things exist you have to reject evolutionary theory and replace it with something that accommodates these concepts.

This is because evolution is a blind watchmaker and does not have a target. It can’t have a target because it’s a mindless process. So an advanced mind is not a goal of evolution. Neither is anything else.

To say that humans are “more evolved” than other species is not a concept in evolution but an anthropomorphic bias.

If you value the human mind so much, that’s a personal preference but not within the domain of biology. It might be fine to say that human cognitive abilities are at the apex of evolutionary “mind space.” (Though some other animals are close: dolphins, whales, chimps, octopuses, crows, parrots and elephants, for example. One researcher even claims to have evidence that prairie dogs talk to one another.) But it’s equally valid to say that elephants are at the apex of evolutionary “trunk space” and giraffes are at the apex of evolutionary “long neck space.” In any event all species are equally well adapted in virtue of the fact that they exist.

Even if the concept of a “culminating apex” had any validity, it overlooks the fact that in the future, humans may be extinct and some other species will have evolved cognitive abilities equal or superior to ours.

I would personally prefer to be a pigeon. They’re not as smart as we are (though it has been shown they can do some amazing things, like recognize individual humans and do arithmetic) but they have way better eyesight (not only much sharper, but they can see five primary colors compared to our three, which means they see tens of millions more colors than we do) and they can fly, which is more fun than walking. Plus they don’t have to work, pay taxes, or buy food. And they can shit in public without being arrested or even rebuked.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

davidm wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:32 amBecause the concepts of “more evolved” and “culminating apex” have no place in evolutionary theory. If you think such things exist you have to reject evolutionary theory and replace it with something that accommodates these concepts.

This is because evolution is a blind watchmaker and does not have a target. It can’t have a target because it’s a mindless process. So an advanced mind is not a goal of evolution. Neither is anything else.

To say that humans are “more evolved” than other species is not a concept in evolution but an anthropomorphic bias.
Certainly not "more evolved" - there's only been 4 billion years to evolve for all of us.

Still, Gould's "evolution is a bush" assumption has been demolished by humanity's continued exponential rise. There is no doubt whatsoever that humans are much more sentient than any other species, even accounting for anthropocentric bias. When another species devises a successful a space program, or builds any tools of note, I will reconsider.

The evidence is in - over 4 billion years of evolution has demonstrated a persistent tendency towards greater sentience of the biosphere, and that is what I think those who claim that humans are "more evolved" are trying to get across. Some time ago dinosaurs were the most sentient beings on Earth, the apex species of the time. Now it's our turn. In the future it will probably be someone else's turn.

Viewed through another lens, though, it could be said that we are all just a continuation of LUCA, and LUCA is becoming more complex and sentient. If a teleology could be attributed to evolution, it would be akin to the meaning of our own lives - the development, maturation and ultimately expansion of our qualities. LUCA as a whole seems to have its own process to that end.
Locked