Evolutionary Philosophy and Reasons for Existence

Thankyou Jack. That is very illuminating. You are right, I am not really looking for an argument and I do very much appreciate that comments that have been made in response. It is a very perceptive statement on your part. If there is any prophecy in it, it is from those whose teachings I have studied, so I will take this as an indication that I am reading them properly.

You are indeed very articulative.

there are many other issues related to this one, which is worth pondering about. Hope clarity will pave way to more clarity.

Purposefullness is a delusion, just like the soul is a delusion, as Buddha has pointed out.

The purpose theory or intution will rejuvenate the soul theory. Hope you get me, again. Thanks

Hate to quibble, but I really don't think the Buddha says there is no soul.

I think he says there is no 'me'.

There's a difference.

What's your understanding regarding his work on alturism?

Well, on this Youtube series he seems happy to discuss exactly that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzCI2yHNboI

Okay...accepted. As he would say to the effect..... 'dont bother much'

Jeeprs,

Thanks again for the good thread - there's a couple of comments I'd like to add on what you've written. I think we fundamentally disagree, although I must admit that all you've said might well be true (and certainly isn't what I'd term 'a destructive view') - so kudos for that. In any case...



Thanks for sharing this - I really like it when folks express their opinion/belief as an opinion or belief - I'd like to comment on it

From what you've written, it sounds as if your belief system places homo sapiens at Center Stage; it's this a little self-absorbed? Even life itself, for all the praises we sing, is but one element/aspect to the whole of creation. We believed the heavens revolved around us (many still do), many believe that the creator must look just like us, etc., etc. In other words, our view is forgivably self-centered, but as we postulate the whole of creation, shouldn't we pull the camera back just a tad?



So was Pez.


"Result"... as in the finale, the pinnacle, the "end product" of so much toil and work? And I don't think it was inevitable at all - that's simply the way what we know now came about; unless one believes there was a purposeful intent to make humans, cuz they're so awesome

Thanks for commenting

[QUOTE=Khethil;117651] From what you've written, it sounds as if your belief system places homo sapiens at Center Stage; it's this a little self-absorbed? Even life itself, for all the praises we sing, is but one element/aspect to the whole of creation. We believed the heavens revolved around us (many still do), many believe that the creator must look just like us, etc., etc. In other words, our view is forgivably self-centered, but as we postulate the whole of creation, shouldn't we pull the camera back just a tad? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Khethil;117651] "Result"... as in the finale, the pinnacle, the "end product" of so much toil and work? And I don't think it was inevitable at all - that's simply the way what we know now came about; unless one believes there was a purposeful intent to make humans, cuz they're so awesome[/QUOTE]
I do not think the notion is one where "human beings" in particular were the purpose of the universe. The notion of purpose or striving is more one of things on the whole being well arranged to bring forth order, complexity, life, mind and experience. Human beings are just an example of being capable of more complex awareness and experience. Even that notion may strike you as being particularly anthropomorphic. Those of us who see purpose in the overall scheme of things believe "things on the whole seem well arranged" to bring forth life and experience. In fact life has been severely challenged (through climate changes, basaltic lava eruptions, asteroid strikes, etc.) and life has come back time and again, contributing to the notion that all is not accidental or rare. I do not think the presence of intelligent life on other planets would make a bit of difference in our notions of purpose; in fact it would confirm that life is not accidental but part of the overall scheme of things.

Don't you think that asserting that the universe lacks purpose and is composed of blind indifference is just as large a metaphysical assumption as the notion that there is some underlying tendency or purpose towards the conditions for more complexity and more experience? The ultimate purpose in most of these anthropic views is not man but experience, novelty and creativity. The ultimate mechanism in most such views is process of which cosmological and biological evolution are the chief examples. Neither is a scientific assertion. .

I'm saying that he is proud to over-ride any biological compulsion for religious belief, but does not over ride any compulsion to care about things, which also comes from a biological compulsion.
He offers evidence that he does care about his "missions" in life, as if there were a higher purpose to his actions, than to merely travel to speak, etc.

He needs to be educating people..but to what end ?

He pretends to be "doing good", when there is no "good", if everything is without any higher meaning or purpose.

Alturism. He's written quite a lot on it.

Hiya Prothero,

I was asking Jeeps about his view and that portion struck me as poignant - thus my question. I think here you bring into play other aspects of the topic at hand upon which I'm only too happy to engage you on. I appreciate your tone and candidness and hope you'll in-turn welcome the same:


To call something ordered or well-arranged, for that matter, would require some standard against which to judge that which is being evaluated. Or, at the very least an knowledge-environment which can take into account the variables for contrast and comparison. I know what I perceive to be "order" by having some grasp of the in-context ideal of what "disorder", for that thing is. Many hair-dos I see nowadays I see as disordered, yet often I find that just such a doo has been fastidiously-prepared over hours. Without one, how can we know the other? Now expand this concept to the universal; if it were ordered, how exactly might that be known?[INDENT] In any case, I don't have this perspective rightfully and absolutely, and I suspect no one else does (unless they've traveled the cosmos, throughout all it's infinite distance and dimensions and having spanned all of time-incarnate now knows all that is). What we end up with is a mindset that's a little like the infant raised in a box, never having seen the outside: "My, all this just seems to fit" he says - gazing at the walls. The point is: We're stuck inside what is around us, of course it seems to fit. Which, as you aptly called, is hardly scientific.
[/INDENT][INDENT] For what little we think we know, and all that we do, I see nothing that indicates any overall purpose or ordered. Perhaps it is, I can't know for sure. But I do know there is as much natural phenomena that could be called destructive as constructive, as much thrives as decays, and its widely accepted that more species (in terms of lifeforms that we know, only) have ceased than thrived based on various factors; taken together, how might this be called "bringing forth life"? Further, as evolution itself tramples on, its a large misnomer that it's "advancing" - evolution adapts to environments, climates, conditions, interactions between and within species. Sometimes it perfects, other times it produces something nonviable over the long term and quite often it destroys.
[/INDENT] We realize and learn of our past but can't see our future; and when evolution is, through the affectionate or vilifying terms expressed, contextualized to be a "towards-perfection"-kind of ladder, we therefore end up envisioning ourselves standing on the highest/higher rung. I guess it just feel its not only a bit over-egocentric, but constitutes a self-centered view for which there's no rational basis (or, none that I can see). Yes we've adapted much over the eons, but it's more a horizontal than vertical progression, so to speak.


That's nice, I'm happy for you. I'm not completely decided, you know, I too have felt the tinglings of wonder and the beauty of what I perceive. But after decades of study, thought and philosophical inquiry, I'm currently at a place where although I could easy stand with you and say, "Yes, I see it too!", I'd be disingenuous if I didn't also add that rationally, I fail to see any basis to adhere to such a notion - not that such couldn't be the case, only that I find nothing to indicate any over-arching purpose is present. I do honestly strive to see the different aspects of any issue: I hope this was <this> way, I want <that> yet what I see and know leads me to <yada>.
[INDENT] Again, I'd suggest we remember that we're stuck inside our own boxes; what we wonder at is stimuli that lacks a comparative model to rationally decide "ordered" or "disordered". Further, at play in our heads are TONS of genetic memory and inclinations. We like gazing at vegetation because of the strong, healthy and/or fertile association we have innately as a result of our millions of years of genetic experience. I find all of creation infinitely beautiful, such a thing needn't be infused with purpose to have beauty or otherwise be worthy of our admiration.
[/INDENT]
This is an interesting question. To be direct; Yes, absolutely. If one were to make either assumption without qualification, they're both have all the value most assumptions do. I'd think this obvious...
[INDENT]... but what's interesting about your last question there, is the inference that (presumably, as you appears you might believe) such a purpose would be to have or develop more complexity and 'experience'? Complexity, when we speak of anything universal, is almost guaranteed on this topic (purposefully so or not - for what we can so far understand), so that's a self-fulfilling ideal. And whether multi-dimensional or linear, "experience" (read: time, essentially) is also unavoidable. Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but it sounds like what you've described as a potential "purpose" are really what I'd call attributes.
[/INDENT][INDENT] It's like the old illustration: What color was General Grant's White Horse?
[/INDENT]Thank you again for expressing your views. I'd like to close this far-too-long post by posing this: Can't something which has no purposeful-intent be worthy of our admiration? Can't it be beautiful? In order to have irresistible adoration - can it be purely natural; a product of "indifferent" or "blind" processes absent of some guiding-hand (read: purpose)? I think so - and the more I learn about my world the more I see that nothing need be "purposefully created", or otherwise have purpose, in order to still be something wonderful to behold.

Thanks again

yes, but calling it disguised selfishness, IOW, not atruism.

Well, I haven't got a lot to add to what I have already written, or what Prothero kindly added. I normally understand 'self-absorption' however as something completely different to this outlook. A self-absorbed person - incidentally I am sure I qualify for that description in many way - is concerned with his/her own thoughts, feelings and viewpoint, to the exclusion of others. Pointing out the H Sapiens has (1) unique powers and abilities and (2) is the only being on earth who is both self-conscious and really able to perceive the universe at all does not indicate self-absorption.

I don't think animals actually 'see' the universe at all. You might think that an elephant or a monkey can gaze out like us upon the starry cosmos; I very much doubt it. Unless you have the intellectual capacity to conceive 'starry cosmos', it won't enter into your field of view. I am pretty sure that very early man did not see the sun. I read somewhere that the start of solar worship co-incided with the new ability to actually make out the sun and the consciousness that it existed. This was a milestone in human development. Birds may navigate by the stars, but they have no idea of 'stars'.

There is nothing sentimental or emotional about what I am saying. It is a reflection on the unique characteristic of human consciousnes and a way of understanding our relationship to the world: you are life made conscious.

You can't actually be 'self-absorbed' and see life this way.

But anyway, if you don't see it like that, I have no wish to persuade. It is just something to think about.

As for the significance of consciousness being embedded in the universe, the point is that in an important way, intelligence precedes evolution. It is basic to the materialist view of life that 'intelligence evolved'. I say the capacity for intelligence evolved. This capacity has surely evolved just as described, through the various stages of evolution.

The materialist view of life, that I have mentioned elsewhere, is that man is a 'biochemical fluke' that just happens to have evolved the way that he did. It seems very important to me for the materialist account to dispose of the idea of destiny or that H Sapiens was somehow pre-ordained. I was reading a quote the other day, where Engels wrote to Marx that 'this theory of Darwins is excellent - finally we can get rid of the idea of teleology, once and for all'. (Quoted in Paul Davies The Goldilocks Enigma). It is true that methodologically, science cannot really deal with the idea of final cause; but it is also an ideological matter. Hence the 20-th Century depiction of the human species as just another by-product of an unguided process. For this vewpoint, life is purposeless by definition; you or I might have our purposes, our plans and ideas, but they can only be our own. (This might have some bearing on why only 15% of adults in the US believe the evolutionary account of life. I think it is much more fundamental than fundamentalism, if you catch my drift.)

Finally we should also consider the apparently radical idea that the Universe does not exist apart from the way we perceive it. This does not mean that if humans did not exist, everything would cease to exist. But there would simply be no coherent way for it to exist, there would be no viewpoint, no time. It is impossible to conceive of what it is sans observers. The universe is a human invention; it exists for us. You might imagine it being empty, but this is an act of your imagination, and it is simply an image of the Cosmos with no-one in it. Moderns like to think that we are little specs on a little planet, but they are the only ones capable of perceiving this. That understanding exists nowhere outside the human mind. So this idea that we are incidental to the whole show is quite mistaken. (Again, I urge you to read up on the Cosmological Anthropic Principle.)

No.

He calls it alturism.

He titles his most well-known work on it 'The Selfish Gene', true, but don't judge a book by it's title. The book deals with more than alturism, because not all the strategies adopted by genes for propogation that the book examines are alturistic.

But many are, and they are called alturism/alturistic behaviours/etc in the book.

Well put Jeeprs,

I admire your conviction and applaud your expression; but no, there's not much I agree with on it. But that's ok - still a good read. And I'll again thank you for your refreshingly-open self expression.

Take care

Postscript: actually I am coming around to the view that it is actually the materialist outlook that is self-absorbed, exactly because it can see no real connection between man and nature. If 'nature is dumb' - if the watchmaker is indeed blind, and we are only here by virtue of our selfish genes, then it stands to reason the only motives are material ones, and Nature is simply this vast quarry from which we extract resources and on which we build our artificial environments. Our morality, such as it is, has no relationship with nature on the whole, but can exist in the theatre of the conscious ego. Now that is self-absorption. (Incidentally I have just seen Avatar, which has partially inspired this rant. I'm with the blue guys.)

He does use the word "altruism", but it is never altruism as others think of it. It's "selfish" altruism. He redefines words at will.

e.g. Atheism, he says, is "rationalism". He think atheism has a negative connotation, so it is now "rationalsim".

He's just a sneaky cheat with words, not much more.

Actually, there are plenty of people who agree, or find it an interesting line of inquiry. 'Others' rarely agree on every little thing after all.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 04:21 PM ----------


And you would know.

I indeed would know that atheism is not rationalism. It is also not stupidity, not greed, not intelligence.
He's simply a dishonest person - he knows they are not synomymous, but he has his cult members' egos to stroke. You've been stroked, it appears, and are well pleased

The dispute about the biological basis of altruism is actually very significant in evolutionary theory. From my recollection - there will be many better versed in the details - it was realised quite early in the piece that there is actually an enormous amount of altruism in the behaviour of all kinds of creatures, not just human. So this tended to undercut the principle of cut-throat competition for scarce resources between species and individuals. Studies came out showing that individuals will sacrifice themselves and do all kinds of things for others and for their children.

To accomodate this, genetic theorists had to devise a way to show that, in fact, this was still the 'selfish gene' at work. Rather like a chess master who can sacrifice a pawn or a knight for the sake of strategic advantage, the evolutionary process has worked out how to gain an adaptive advantage by enabling acts of altruism and self-sacrifice to actually serve the proliferation of the genome by strengthening the group as a whole. I think that is the theory, anyway.

So chalk another one up for the triumph of evolution. You might think the existence of compassion and self-sacrifice denotes some element of nobility in a nature otherwise red in tooth and claw, but no. We can show that this too is simply the way things work out, to give the appearance of compassion.

David Stove has a few interesting lines of criticism of this (in my eyes preposterous) line of reasoning in Darwinian Fairytales (a crtitique of neo-darwinist theory by a secular philosopher.)

Beyond your distaste - what's preposterous about it?