More bad news for the Religion Haters

[Moonbeam]

e: Well you can say evolution doesn't have a goal, but the force that evolution describes most certainly does.

M: We do not think the same way about this apparently. Evolution does not describe a force. Evolution says that organisms more fit for the environment they are in tend to reproduce with greater success.

e: It doesn't have to be a conscious goal, but it's one that all life moves towards regardless.

M: Life isn't moving anywhere. Life refers to things alive. Live existed billions of years ago and maybe that far or farther into the future. Life can have any form. It isn't looking to be this or that. It just is. It isn't trying to get anywhere, has no goal etc. It just continues along because it evolves by adaption.

e: A primary purpose of life almost by the mere fact of its existence must be to perpetuate itself (or else face extinction), and since all life is subject to evolutionary principles I am quite comfortable saying that evolution has a goal. Can you point me to a form of life on this planet that does not work to perpetuate itself?

M: Live doesn't care if it goes extinct. Live of one kind or another is always going extinct. Life continues to exist without any reason at all because it evolves. This is just fact, not intention. You seem to be more of a believer in a supernatural force with intent than I am, hehe.

e: Also, I didn't mean that you had stated religion exists to offer comfort and happiness, I was merely stating that you could make such an argument reasonably if you so desired. The purpose of this was to answer you when you asked why I would not join in something that served to 'protect the evolution of the species'. The continuing evolution of humanity is not a goal of mine, nor would it ever be, and that's where it comes back to my goals being different than evolution's goals. I'm concerned with the happiness and comfort of those living with me on this planet, not some nebulous goal in the future that exists long after I am dead.

M: OK but I think the size of the spirit of man is seen in his goals. Yours is nice, but I prefer the Buddhist who vows to save all sentient beings.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How does something which is a mindless process have a goal? What is the goal of the color blue?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
When I was in school I this is pretty much how I was taught. Darwinism


"Good" in your context as I understand it is arbitrary. It's entirely possible that species which employ technology is a dead end. It would answer the Fermi Paradox. The reason that alien species aren't seen is because they wipe themselves out before they are able to embark on interstellar exploration. If we wanted to explore a vast area, the best way would be to assemble Von Neumann machines. The problem is that before we launch such machines someone might just drop one programmed to do nothing other than replicate.

That would be the end of the world.

So again, "good" is an arbitrary value or belief system you use to view evolution. It's natural enough, but the "good" which may be needed to save the future of the species is that we become unintelligent and unaware animals. I think I'd rather go extinct.

I agree with your definition of Darwinism. However, when I think of "evolution" I think of the biological definition - the change in genetic material of a population over time. While related, one does not equal the other.

"Good," in the manner in which I've used it is not really arbitrary. I guess it's a personal observation, though I doubt that many would argue that the continued existence and gradual evolution of the human race is a bad thing, except maybe for PETA members. Darwinism in and of itself is, of course, not really good or bad. In fact, Darwinism at its core is rather ugly. The strong generally survive to pass on their traits and the weak do not.

As far as reverting to unintelligent and unaware animals, wouldn't that be a kind of de-evolution? Would it be considered Darwinism?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
How does something which is a mindless process have a goal? What is the goal of the color blue?

God only knows how many mindless processes have 'goals' in the means by which we define them. Electricity has a goal of equalizing charges. It doesn't need to write down an electrical manifesto, if we see two different charges we know what they are going to do. This isn't some attempt to anthropomorphize natural phenomenon, it's an attempt to state the trends in systems in a way everyone can understand. I figured that was pretty obvious.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
e: Well you can say evolution doesn't have a goal, but the force that evolution describes most certainly does.

M: We do not think the same way about this apparently. Evolution does not describe a force. Evolution says that organisms more fit for the environment they are in tend to reproduce with greater success.

e: It doesn't have to be a conscious goal, but it's one that all life moves towards regardless.

M: Life isn't moving anywhere. Life refers to things alive. Live existed billions of years ago and maybe that far or farther into the future. Life can have any form. It isn't looking to be this or that. It just is. It isn't trying to get anywhere, has no goal etc. It just continues along because it evolves by adaption.

e: A primary purpose of life almost by the mere fact of its existence must be to perpetuate itself (or else face extinction), and since all life is subject to evolutionary principles I am quite comfortable saying that evolution has a goal. Can you point me to a form of life on this planet that does not work to perpetuate itself?

M: Live doesn't care if it goes extinct. Live of one kind or another is always going extinct. Life continues to exist without any reason at all because it evolves. This is just fact, not intention. You seem to be more of a believer in a supernatural force with intent than I am, hehe.

e: Also, I didn't mean that you had stated religion exists to offer comfort and happiness, I was merely stating that you could make such an argument reasonably if you so desired. The purpose of this was to answer you when you asked why I would not join in something that served to 'protect the evolution of the species'. The continuing evolution of humanity is not a goal of mine, nor would it ever be, and that's where it comes back to my goals being different than evolution's goals. I'm concerned with the happiness and comfort of those living with me on this planet, not some nebulous goal in the future that exists long after I am dead.

M: OK but I think the size of the spirit of man is seen in his goals. Yours is nice, but I prefer the Buddhist who vows to save all sentient beings.

Incorrect. Evolution is change over time, specifically in the case of life, change in genes. I imagine you are referring to natural selection, but your definition of that would be wrong as well. Specifically natural selection deals with the ability for organisms to reproduce successfully... which is exactly what I was referring to in the beginning. Organisms not predisposed to reproduce do not exist (or if they do, they won't for long).

As I told HR, I don't have the slightest clue as to why you would think I am attempting to anthropomorphize evolution. Absolutely nothing in anything I wrote suggested that in any way, shape, or form. Creatures on this earth display a host of very similar traits that lead towards reproduction. If you look at something an animal or plant is doing, it is almost certainly doing it to survive or reproduce to the exclusion of virtually all else. When we're referring to a purpose that life has, it's as close as we can get and once again I'm absolutely comfortable labeling that as a goal.

Oh, and last thing you're wrong on... life most certainly does care if it goes extinct or not. Nearly every species has a strong instinct for self preservation and reproduction, two activities that specifically ward off extinction. This is no surprise, as no species would survive long without these two traits.

So anyways Moonie, quit with the crap. You know what I meant as well as I do.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,
Very interesting thread
I've a few questions to sort of understand the basis of what you're saying.

You'd agree that all things are made of the same things... simple electrons and neutrons and protons.

You'd agree that there is no difference between the bark of a tree and the skin of a human except the two are configured differently.

How they are configured is how the instructions tell each how to use the basic stuff to end up with skin and bark, You'd agree, right?

Would You say that a tree could pass on its instructions and so on until a totally different form is developed. Adaptation perhaps. Are trees different in their process than humans? Is a tree is a tree is a tree and IF conditions warrant trees will simply become extinct? Are they just like Humans in that regard?

Could a human using that process create over time a fish? Could we devolve if devolving was survival of the fittest? Would we do that?

What is the mechanism used by human to encode their contribution DNA to reflect change or is it simply error all be it maybe error with purpose?

Do trees use the same enzyme process to combine and organize the proteins that form the DNA as humans?
And, does a tree have RNA and is it single stranded and transcribed from DNA and does the RNA in part determine which genes are expressed in both tree and human?
IF I knew where on each the bits to make hands and branches existed could I end up with an Oak Tree that yields an acorn with different DNA and that DNA creates hands instead of branches on the Tree it creates?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Moonie has nothing to worry about. I'm in complete agreement with eskimospy, a clear sign that the end is nigh.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and the idea that I am in charge of my own existence is the most deeply fulfilling idea I have ever experienced.

But you aren't. You have very limited power. You had no decision on where you were born, your parents, your genetics, whether a drunk driver will run you over whether you'll get cancer whether you'll get mugged and shot. We have our comforts of military and food and a house but anybody can be hit at any time with something to shatter what they thought was so secure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Interesting, isn't it, that the one thing the Right really has right is the survival value of religion. No wonder they are going crazy with the secular and and perhaps increasingly anti-religious left. The left is out to make us less fit to survive. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

An interesting point, to be sure, however couldn't something else easily fill the role of religion? Something that offers a cohesive bond between people allowing them to accomplish things together that they couldn't do on their own?

Evolution often takes us down multiple pathways, and it's not usually clear which one is the strongest until after the fact.

beat me to the punch....I highly doubt that it is religion itself that is required for these things to happen. One could say that a cohesive set of ideals would be required, but it doesn't really require a religious justification for those ideals to be in place.

To L and DM:

I should think that for the left government or secular institutions could pick up the slack.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and the idea that I am in charge of my own existence is the most deeply fulfilling idea I have ever experienced.

But you aren't. You have very limited power. You had no decision on where you were born, your parents, your genetics, whether a drunk driver will run you over whether you'll get cancer whether you'll get mugged and shot. We have our comforts of military and food and a house but anybody can be hit at any time with something to shatter what they thought was so secure.

Well of course I only have choice within a range of circumstances that are predetermined. I'm talking about the fact that the purpose I find in my life is my own to create.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Moonie has nothing to worry about. I'm in complete agreement with eskimospy, a clear sign that the end is nigh.

Don't worry, we can still hate each other tomorrow!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Moonie has nothing to worry about. I'm in complete agreement with eskimospy, a clear sign that the end is nigh.

Don't worry, we can still hate each other tomorrow!

We don't hate each other. We only hate ourselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As far as reverting to unintelligent and unaware animals, wouldn't that be a kind of de-evolution?

No, that would be evolution. Evolution is precisely one thing. It is the change of one species to another by means of natural selection. If intelligence turns out to be a liability, then we will either go extinct or the less intelligent out-breed the more.

It has occurred to me that at some point we may create a society where we become less intelligent once we reach the point of machines taking care of our every need. Like the Eloi, there would be no necessity to innovate, no reason to learn. We just exist.

Another fate I would not look forward too.

 

[Ozoned]

GLUE

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As far as reverting to unintelligent and unaware animals, wouldn't that be a kind of de-evolution?

No, that would be evolution. Evolution is precisely one thing. It is the change of one species to another by means of natural selection. If intelligence turns out to be a liability, then we will either go extinct or the less intelligent out-breed the more.

It has occurred to me that at some point we may create a society where we become less intelligent once we reach the point of machines taking care of our every need. Like the Eloi, there would be no necessity to innovate, no reason to learn. We just exist.

Another fate I would not look forward too.

A favorite book and movie of mine.

However, I fail to see how a loss of intelligence would, in reality, impart an evolutionary advantage to a species offshoot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As far as reverting to unintelligent and unaware animals, wouldn't that be a kind of de-evolution?

No, that would be evolution. Evolution is precisely one thing. It is the change of one species to another by means of natural selection. If intelligence turns out to be a liability, then we will either go extinct or the less intelligent out-breed the more.

It has occurred to me that at some point we may create a society where we become less intelligent once we reach the point of machines taking care of our every need. Like the Eloi, there would be no necessity to innovate, no reason to learn. We just exist.

Another fate I would not look forward too.

A favorite book and movie of mine.

However, I fail to see how a loss of intelligence would, in reality, impart an evolutionary advantage to a species offshoot.

It's a hypothetical, but I'll go for it.

With advancing technology, individuals will be able to access more destructive weapons. At some point the rule for such societies may be self destruction. Creatures which aren't as smart don't develop such abilities.

So other creatures such as dolphins, which are fairly intelligent, but not technological would survive. It's not such a far fetched idea.

Remember Fermi's Paradox (I love Fermi, a man after my own heart). Given the length of time the Milky Way has existed, why haven't we seen any sign of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

The reasons for that are few. Either intelligence as we define it is remarkably scarce, or we are alone.

If intelligent life isn't an isolated instance, then we should have some evidence of it given billions of years. If we survive the next thousand years, we should be well on our way to exploring the galaxy, if not ourselves then our machines. Again Von Neumann machines.

Why haven't we seen them? Because as I have already said, it could be that those civilizations blow themselves out. An evolutionary dead end.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As far as reverting to unintelligent and unaware animals, wouldn't that be a kind of de-evolution?

No, that would be evolution. Evolution is precisely one thing. It is the change of one species to another by means of natural selection. If intelligence turns out to be a liability, then we will either go extinct or the less intelligent out-breed the more.

It has occurred to me that at some point we may create a society where we become less intelligent once we reach the point of machines taking care of our every need. Like the Eloi, there would be no necessity to innovate, no reason to learn. We just exist.

Another fate I would not look forward too.

A favorite book and movie of mine.

However, I fail to see how a loss of intelligence would, in reality, impart an evolutionary advantage to a species offshoot.

It's a hypothetical, but I'll go for it.

With advancing technology, individuals will be able to access more destructive weapons. At some point the rule for such societies may be self destruction. Creatures which aren't as smart don't develop such abilities.

So other creatures such as dolphins, which are fairly intelligent, but not technological would survive. It's not such a far fetched idea.

Remember Fermi's Paradox (I love Fermi, a man after my own heart). Given the length of time the Milky Way has existed, why haven't we seen any sign of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

The reasons for that are few. Either intelligence as we define it is remarkably scarce, or we are alone.

If intelligent life isn't an isolated instance, then we should have some evidence of it given billions of years. If we survive the next thousand years, we should be well on our way to exploring the galaxy, if not ourselves then our machines. Again Von Neumann machines.

Why haven't we seen them? Because as I have already said, it could be that those civilizations blow themselves out. An evolutionary dead end.

There are plenty of other explanations why we haven't seen signs of intelligent life in the universe.

1) Our galaxy itself is massive. The universe is mind-bogglingly immense. The seperation distance alone could account for the lack of detection even if there are hundreds of forms of intelligent life in our galaxy and millions in the universe.

2) A lifeform advanced enough to finally achieve interstellar travel may be unrecognizable or undetectable to us and may even discover there's more to existence than just our universe.

3) Our universe is old. Fermi's paradox assume that hundreds, thousands, or millions of intelligent lifeforms would be present at any one time. Considering that intelligent life on our planet took @ 5 billion years to come about, we have only been aware for the possibliity of intelligent life elsewhere for the last 200 years or so, and we know our planet is somewhat special, maybe life is not quite as ubiquitous as Fermi imagined? iow, timing may be an issue.

4) It's possible that interstellar travel is impossible because it's cost prohibitive for any form of life.

 

[LunarRay]

Would the ultimate, final journey of evolution be Pure Consciousness. An entity of zero rest mass?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I've always thought this. I'm glad there is data on it now. I would go one step further and say spirituality is the true evolutionary trait religion is the control of that

I heard about this guy on NPR the other day, haven't read any of his stuff but he basically says just that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eman_Vaillant
Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Would the ultimate, final journey of evolution be Pure Consciousness. An entity of zero rest mass?

I would doubt that because any exchange of information requires particle interactions, therefore any intelligence could never completely be at zero rest mass. Even an entity that knew everything would have to maintain that knowledge. Since particles decay with time the entity would have to replace any decayed particles over time, which would require an occassional energy expenditure that included particle replacement and error checking.

Nothing is for free and eternal, at least according to the physics of the known universe. Those who want to step outside of that enter the realm of magic.

 

[Moonbeam]

e: Incorrect. Evolution is change over time, specifically in the case of life, change in genes. I imagine you are referring to natural selection, but your definition of that would be wrong as well. Specifically natural selection deals with the ability for organisms to reproduce successfully... which is exactly what I was referring to in the beginning. Organisms not predisposed to reproduce do not exist (or if they do, they won't for long).

M: Please, what are we talking about? I think it was about the adaptive advantage conferred by the cooperation engendered by religions beliefs to which you replied that I was confusing the goals of humanity with the goals of evolution and to which I replied that the force which evolution describes certainly does. Now you tell me the definition of evolution is change over time. So now are you telling me that the goal of evolution is change over time? Of course almost all genetic change is mal-adaptive.

A definition of evolution is this: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
And indeed, by the context of what we were saying I was talking about evolution via natural selection.

The definition of natural selection is: the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations

We see nothing here about any predisposition in natural selection, no intention to survive, only a description of why some traits that confer survivability in an environment accumulate. Life is alive and it evolves blindly and without any intention. Survivability is the result of evolution, not the aim. There is no aim, just a process and one we always seem to want to anthropomorphise even without intention.

e: As I told HR, I don't have the slightest clue as to why you would think I am attempting to anthropomorphise evolution. Absolutely nothing in anything I wrote suggested that in any way, shape, or form. Creatures on this earth display a host of very similar traits that lead towards reproduction. If you look at something an animal or plant is doing, it is almost certainly doing it to survive or reproduce to the exclusion of virtually all else. When we're referring to a purpose that life has, it's as close as we can get and once again I'm absolutely comfortable labeling that as a goal.

M: Animals and plants are not 'doing' anything to survive. What we seeing and should be careful calling them doing is observing them expressing how they are adapted to survive. You can't really do anything without a capacity to intend. Some higher animals like us can do things. I believe you don't think you anthropomorphise evolution, but as I said in the beginning I think you are a bit off with the works you use to express the above opinions and the anthropomorphism of evolution is a problem we see all the time. I brought where I thought you were off a bit to your attention. Better not to label it a goal.

e: Oh, and last thing you're wrong on... life most certainly does care if it goes extinct or not. Nearly every species has a strong instinct for self preservation and reproduction, two activities that specifically ward off extinction. This is no surprise, as no species would survive long without these two traits.

M: Life does not care. You have to be aware to care. What we see is how life adapted to survive acts when life is challenged. It is a response not an intention.

e: So anyways Moonie, quit with the crap. You know what I meant as well as I do

Again, I told you in the beginning I know what you mean. I just don't think that the way you say what you mean says what you mean. It is anthropomorphic by ascribing words that require intelligence to apply to phenomenon where none exists.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: Surely you don't believe human evolution has ceased.

M: I think it a widely held belief that human evolution is at an end because we can now direct our own destiny and adapt our environment to us, but I believe that evolution is still happening and recent scientific theories support this.

So I don't really know the level of sophistication of your question.

The highest conceivable level of sophistication, of course.

You know, I assume, that evolution is presumed to work only on isolated pocket populations and not in large groups like humans now live in because all recessive changes to the gene pool will not find great difficulty of expression there. This is another reason to think that modern people are not undergoing evolution.

Additionally, if you are arguing that religion may once have had advantage and does not now, I really don't know. But it is not the religion that is important in my mind, it is the cooperative spirit it confers were I see the adaptive advantage.

Yes, I think the tendency toward religion is becoming increasingly UN-beneficial as we become more and more technological. Witness the major schisms on evolution and cosmology between the religious and scientific communities. At some point, science may dictate one major direction for humanity to follow, whereas religion may dictate a different direction. That could lead to a very, very large "stress" that induces natural selection.

As to your last point: I believe cooperation is a product of perceived shared goals. That might be a common religious goal, or it could be something else. That is, I don't see the human tendency toward religious belief as being the genesis of the human cooperative spirit.

 

[fskimospy]

Moonie, not sure why you're doing this, and many of the things you're expressing as certainties are impossible to know and/or simply wrong. You think you need to be sentient to care about survival? For what possible reason? Maybe you're using some sort of human style caring, but to have consideration for your survival is an instinct shared by all life. You're not going to get anywhere with that one. You need to be sentient to 'do' something? On what planet? Neither of these words require intelligence of the type that you are describing, and even if they did you lack the knowledge of other animals' thought processes to make the statements you have.

I'm only anthropomorphizing evolution if I were advancing the wrong arguments that you keep trying to make for me. Since I'm not your sock puppet, I'll stand by my original statement. I used some words for the ease of understanding and you continue to ascribe things that you know I didn't intend to them for some inexplicable reason. Stop it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Would the ultimate, final journey of evolution be Pure Consciousness. An entity of zero rest mass?

Some think the universe is a computational devise. Others think it is a dream of God in which He discovers who He is via reflection. These needn't be mutually exclusive I think.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
s: Surely you don't believe human evolution has ceased.

M: I think it a widely held belief that human evolution is at an end because we can now direct our own destiny and adapt our environment to us, but I believe that evolution is still happening and recent scientific theories support this.

So I don't really know the level of sophistication of your question.

The highest conceivable level of sophistication, of course.

You know, I assume, that evolution is presumed to work only on isolated pocket populations and not in large groups like humans now live in because all recessive changes to the gene pool will not find great difficulty of expression there. This is another reason to think that modern people are not undergoing evolution.

Additionally, if you are arguing that religion may once have had advantage and does not now, I really don't know. But it is not the religion that is important in my mind, it is the cooperative spirit it confers were I see the adaptive advantage.

Yes, I think the tendency toward religion is becoming increasingly UN-beneficial as we become more and more technological. Witness the major schisms on evolution and cosmology between the religious and scientific communities. At some point, science may dictate one major direction for humanity to follow, whereas religion may dictate a different direction. That could lead to a very, very large "stress" that induces natural selection.

As to your last point: I believe cooperation is a product of perceived shared goals. That might be a common religious goal, or it could be something else. That is, I don't see the human tendency toward religious belief as being the genesis of the human cooperative spirit.

It definitely isn't the genesis of human cooperation. Altruism and the cooperative spirit are seen in quite a few animals such as vampire bats. (I presume they are not particularly religious) I don't think he was mentioning religion as the root or sole cause though, just A cause.