issues with evolution and emergent behavior
Dale Kelly
mind
free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
mechanism like biology or physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
and animated existences
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Sir Frederick
>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind
Yes it can, those are virtual attributes of our evolved self model.
>
Radix2
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
Your foundless assertions are getting bloody tiresome. "Don't know how
yet" =/= "goddidit".
Besides - there is work in science occurring right now to examine
these things. I cannot agree with their findings always, but your god
is getting squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps.
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
it can't explain ballet dancing, crocheting or dwarf tossing. so what?
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>
only if the brain is deterministic. and you haven't shown that. your
logic is so weak it's like a homeopathic soup made from the shadow of
a pigeon that starved to death.
Rodjk #613
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
And yet the evidence shows that evolution did occur, and so it
accounts for whatever aspects of life do exist.
Rodjk #613
Bobby Bryant
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> writes:
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be
smoked, like the poor plant that inspired you to this rant.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Craig T
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
>
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
consciousness or a mind?
Dale Kelly
> Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
> have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
> consciousness or a mind?--
yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
reincarnation
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
Thurisaz the Einherjer
"You can't explain why I just rolled 3 on a standard die, therefore
Cthulhu!"
Oh well, keep on the good work of showing all the world what morons you
jebus cultists are.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Spencer 忽帕
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
| evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
| mind
|
| free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| mechanism like biology or physics
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off all
the other errors.
You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are really
one thing all your issues disappear.
| otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
| and animated existences
They do and they are. This does not make humans any less important but does
make plants and animals even more wonderful.
--
Let us reject the cowardly instincts of the Bio-Luddites and embrace
the technology by which to correct the design faults imposed on us by
nature.
Conscious Evolution
http://www.euvolution.com/
Spencer 忽帕
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:LSlUh.14993$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
LOL. Nice one Bobby!
Spencer 忽帕
And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
right?
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
How do you know? Many Buddhists disagree with you, and they've studied
the subject longer than you have.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
>
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
That's not what the article says.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
That's not what the article says either.
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
Abiogenesis doesn't have to describe consciousness. Evolution can inform
discussions of consciousness. Physics can describe free will, but hasn't
yet.
> one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies,
One would answer "yes."
> yet how well
> would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
> will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
> will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
> and animated existences
I think you've just shown that the evolution of motile living things may
eventually bring about the evolution of consciousness and free will.
Timberwoof
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
Well, no, actually, they have not believed this. But they and the
Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
attention to them.
Spencer 忽帕
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message news:
| > |
| > | > Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
| > | > have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
| > | > consciousness or a mind?--
| > |
| > | yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
| > | just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
| > | reincarnation
| >
| > And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
| > right?
|
| Well, no, actually, they have not believed this.
Hindus don't believe this? That's news to me.
| But they and the
| Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
| attention to them.
As a Buddhist myself who has researched the question quite deaply, I am
aware that the common Buddhist in the street often has beliefs similar to or
overlapping with Hindu beliefs, but this is not what The Buddha taught. He
did, however, teach that it is harmless to have these beliefs, and also
permissable to pray to worldly gods for worldly things.
--
"I fought the Dharma, and the Dharma won." (Allen Ginsberg)
Timberwoof
"Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> "Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message news:
> | "Spencer 忽帕" <qs...@supahat.com> wrote:
> | > "Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | > | On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 05:08:12 -0700, Craig T wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Help us narrow down what you are talking about. You say plants don't
> | > | > have free will. Do all animals have it? Do apes have free will,
> | > | > consciousness or a mind?--
> | > |
> | > | yes, all animals have the same free will, consciousness and mind, they
> | > | just have not reaped the rewards of certain experiences throughout
> | > | reincarnation
> | >
> | > And Hindus have believed this for thousands of years so it must be true,
> | > right?
> |
> | Well, no, actually, they have not believed this.
>
> Hindus don't believe this? That's news to me.
Well, okay. I was splitting hairs between certain and any. Beings do
gain from experiences in different incarnations.
> | But they and the
> | Buddhists have researched it longer than Dale Kelly has, so I'd pay more
> | attention to them.
>
> As a Buddhist myself who has researched the question quite deaply, I am
> aware that the common Buddhist in the street often has beliefs similar to or
> overlapping with Hindu beliefs, but this is not what The Buddha taught. He
> did, however, teach that it is harmless to have these beliefs, and also
> permissable to pray to worldly gods for worldly things.
Yeah, that's one of the things I like about Buddhism: It plays well with
others. :-)
Mark Isaak
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or
> the mind
Evolution *has* explained the emergence of free will, consciousness, and
the mind (or rather, evolutionary explanations have been proposed).
Those explanations are tentative and likely incorrect in many details,
but they exist.
> free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> mechanism like biology or physics
Biology and physics are not determinate, nor are they mechanisms.
> this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
> can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
Since your premises are false, you will need to go back and rethink
everything you have ever believed. (If you have free will, you can do
that, but I'm betting you can't.)
> <snip more invalid conclusions>
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale....@comcast.net>:
>evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
>mind
Sorry, but this is incorrect, by observation.
>free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>mechanism like biology or physics
Please provide evidence for this assertion.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
>this said evolution, abiogenesis or no biological or physical mechanism
>can describe free will, consciousness or the mind
That's nice. Is it supposed to mean something?
>one might ask whether evolution can account for our bodies, yet how well
>would our bodies exist in the environment without a relationship to free
>will, it seems most likely that our bodies were designed for use by free
>will, otherwise they would act like poor plants, and be simply programmed
>and animated existences
I'd like Thousand Island on that word salad. Thanks.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Immortalist
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04...@comcast.net...
> | evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> | mind
> |
> | free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
> | mechanism like biology or physics
> |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
> |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off all
> the other errors.
> You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
> Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are really
> one thing all your issues disappear.
>
Great point! But better than that, this looks alot like a case of the
fallacy called "The Stolen Concept." He asumes the very thing that he
claims is not derterminable either way.
Stolen Concept
Definition: One or more concepts on which an argument logically
depends are denied in the argument.
Examples:
(i) There are absolutely no absolutely true statements.
(ii) It is impossible for people to communicate with one another.
(iii) I do not exist.
(iv) Physics has proven science is incapable of telling us anything
true.
Proof: In putting forth his argument the author both accepts and
denies the same proposition, (though usually not explicitly) thus
accepts contradictory positions. This is essentially the same as
Aristotle's "reaffirmation through denial".
http://www.goodart.org/stolen.htm
[1] - Positive Universal Skepticism:
In its positive form it consists
of the doctrine that man
can know nothing.
This belief can be easily dismissed, because anyone who defends it
finds himself immersed in hopeless absurdities.
In asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a
knowledge claim-which according to his own theory is impossible.
The universal skeptic wishes to
claim truth for a theory that
denies man's ability to arrive
at truth, and this puts the
skeptic in the unenviable
position of uttering
nonsense.
...he cannot even begin to argue for his position, because the
"possibility of knowledge is presupposed in the very possibility of
argument, in the very possibility of having recourse to reasons."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/b86ea8051203c7f6
To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of
politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."
"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the
antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property"-and refers to the
act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no
property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there
can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property
is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft"
while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use
"theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right-that is, as a
stolen concept.
http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html
Spencer 忽帕
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:11766
| On Apr 15, 7:50 am, "Spencer 忽帕" <q...@supahat.com> wrote:
| > "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
|
the
| > | mind
| > |
| > | free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| > | mechanism like biology or physics
| > |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
| > |http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
| >
| > Note the reference to dualism in the above link. This is the source off
all
| > the other errors.
| > You begin by assuming dualism. Why? Monism is half as complex so by The
| > Razor of Occam we should start here. Since a living body and mind are
really
| > one thing all your issues disappear.
|
| Great point!
Thnx. I'm not appreciated enough so it's nice to read that.
| But better than that, this looks alot like a case of the
| fallacy called "The Stolen Concept."
"The Case of the Stolen Concept." from The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes.
c.f. The purloined Letter -- E. A. Poe. & The Purloined Butter -- John
Sladek.
Proudhon actually wrote, "Property is Theft." -- a slogan rather than a
statement.
It was just a short way of saying we should question the idea of exclusive
ownership.
The slogan is effective so it is OK -- it achieves it's purpose.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
>mind
>
>free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
>mechanism like biology or physics
What if a thermometer you just bought had free will? Would you
use it to measure temperatures, or would you take it back to the
store and demand a refund?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
skyeyes
> evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
> mind
The more I learn about neurochemistry, the less I believe in free
will.
<Snip remainder>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Spencer 忽帕
"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
message
|
| Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
| >evolution cannot explain the emergence of free will, consciousness or the
| >mind
| >
| >free will is indeterminate and cannot result from any determinate
| >mechanism like biology or physics
|
| What if a thermometer you just bought had free will? Would you
| use it to measure temperatures, or would you take it back to the
| store and demand a refund?
Whatever the thermometer wants.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
Give me a pair of pliers and a glass tube the same size as the
thermometer. By crushing a quarter inch off the end of the glass
tube, then another quarter inch, then another, etc., I could *MAKE*
the thermometer want to return to the store.