You are the grand cosmetologist

Actually, I was trying to ask the exact same question you asked vivalargo with "truth value of belief" replacing the phrase "spirtitual realites" so you could illustrate to us what a correct answer to your question would look like.

What you're yammering on about "evolving" is not Darwinism in the fundamentalist vein, rather what's called Darwin Absolutism, where (as mentioned before) Darwin and his doctrine is basically asked to replace old testiment God and doctrine, in terms of explaining how "everything" got here. The reason I suggested you read that Gopnick piece in the New Yorker is for you to bring yourself up to speed on these issues.

Your mistake is that you expect Darwinism to explain everything, and then jump to the conclusion that anything that falls outside of a absolutist evolutionary model is "spew."

So I guess the question becomes: Do you have an inner prohibition against exploring something you don't presently know?

No faith, belief, ...

You'll never make "sense" out of the stuff I'm talking about before you have some feel for the terrain, and you'll never get that sense of the terrain from thinking, since thinking is based on you past experiences.

You must not have understood why I was asking, then. John is claiming that humans have some sort of magical, mystical spirtual experiences called "boundary experiences". If that is true, the ability to have those experiences must have evolved.

The abilty to have (true or false) beliefs had to have evolved, too. But in contrast to John's religious spew, there's nothing about that ability that requires some sort of magical step that natural selection is incapable of. Yes the brain is complex (so are a lot of organs, like eyes), and it is difficult to know for sure how it did in fact evolve, but there is nothing in principle preventing it from being a product of evolution.

I don't expect Darwinism to explain everything about life, but I require any defensible explanation of the behavior of living organisms to be compatible in principle with Darwinism. That is, no magical hand-waving is allowed in a candidate explanation.

Wow. What kind of "science" is this exactly?

I can't speak for vivalargo, but I can't see any problem with asserting that "the abillity to feel the presence of God" or "the ability to have religious experience" or "the ability to experience the spirtual nature reality" must have evolved.

I really don't see how that's so different from what you're saying about about the abilty of human beings (as distinct from all other known objects in the universe) to posses the truth is something that evolved in nature.

Obviously, if vivlargo believes in evolution, to be consistent, he must hold that his abilities evolved.

[..]
For example, if you are saying your beliefs are true and religious people's beliefs are false, from the material/natural viewpoint, perhaps all you really mean is that you have different behaviors than religious people, or maybe all you mean is that the electrical impulses in your brain are different than theirs?

I suppose vivalargo could agree with that.

For example, if religion is such a crock, why are religious beliefs so prevelant? How can you explain that in terms of Darwin's law of natural selection?

Is there a scientific law predicting true beliefs will replace false ones? I could go on and on with this, but I hope you're getting getting some idea what I meant.

If you can answer all these questions great. If not, I really don't see how your faith in the existence of true and false beliefs is so less magical than vivalargo's faith that he experiences God in the world around him.

Hmmm.

So if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, you don't question whether the theory is right, you just dismiss the evidence?

Wow. What kind of "science" is this exactly?

Hint: we are not debating whether Darwinism is true. Largo has already said he believes Darwinism is true (in both this and previous threads).

What does "possess the truth" mean? It's sounds like you're saying something totally magical (and unlike anything I believe).

"The ability to feel the presense of God" presupposes that a God exists, which is incompatible with any coherent post-1859 philosophy. If you changed that to say, "the ability to feel like you feel the presense of God", we'd be in complete agreement---it's plain fact that many people feel like they feel like that, and there are a variety of possible ways those behaviors can fit into an evolutionary framework.

Truth is a property of an abstract representation of reality. An idea realized on the hardware of my brain, or on the hardware of a sheet of notebook paper, may or may not be true (and it exists either way), depending on whether it represents something about reality accurately---but there was nothing that could be said to have the property of being "true" before there were these sorts of representational things.

Obviously, if vivlargo believes in evolution, to be consistent, he must hold that his abilities evolved.


Exactly the same can be said for your claims about true and false beliefs.

I suppose vivalargo could agree with that.

I seriously doubt it. In some earlier threads about Mind, largo rejected the concept of a non-dualistic, brain-based theory of Mind as being "reductionist". (As if that were a bad thing.)

For example, if religion is such a crock, why are religious beliefs so prevelant? How can you explain that in terms of Darwin's law of natural selection?

Daniel Dennett actually just wrote a book about this (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon). I haven't read it yet---but supposedly it tackles this exact question.

Anyway, regardless of what the answer really is, there's little bearing on the discussion here, because we would all (presumably) readily admit that an answer is possible in principle.

Is there a scientific law predicting true beliefs will replace false ones? I could go on and on with this, but I hope you're getting getting some idea what I meant.

No, I still don't really get what you meant. A good example is that last question in the above quote: wtf does that have to do with anything? (And the answer, of course, is a resounding "no".)

If you can answer all these questions great. If not, I really don't see how your faith in the existence of true and false beliefs is so less magical than vivalargo's faith that he experiences God in the world around him.

It's less magical because it's completely naturalistic. If you believe in beliefs, and you also believe in reality, you basically have to admit the coherence of a concept of truth as a property of those beliefs. Relativism is trivially self-refuting, and for that matter, no one in this conversation has even been arguing for it---so I really can't figure out what you're on about.

Well, well.

Looks like somebody likes to hand it out but can't take it in return.

:lol:


No, but it's no more surprising to see anti-religious sentiment from an atheist these days than it is to see anti-semitism from a neo-nazi or racism from a klansman.

I think it's sad that guys like Dawkins and Harris have made "atheist" synonymous with "anti-religion". Atheism isn't necessarily about hatred, bigotry and intolerance, so it's unfortunate to see what I presume is a small minority even of that small minority drag its values down to that.

We only very recently realized the world wasn't flat. Religion is a similar example of mass insanity.

So think of this all not in terms of "claims" you can't get your head around, or square with evolution, or that seem "dishonest," or any of that. Simply consider it all in terms of quieting your mind, "bringing all the wild horses to rest."

By "posses the truth" I simply meant what you refer to when you are saying that some people have true beliefs.

I really was curious how you might relate this to Darwinian evolution or something "non magical".

I didn't mean to predicate the existence of anything in my statement, outside of what seems to be a sincerely religious person's response to the universe. What I'm really interested in is the way you assign a value property to that response. In particular, I was trying to understand the physical/material nature of this value you assign (if there is one) in the context of Darwinian evolution. I was hoping you could help me with that. But you seem to have avoided the topic.

What is "an abstract representation" or an "idea"?

What do you mean by this in terms of physical reality?

How can ideas be seperate from their realization?

What is the physical manefistation of an idea when it's not realized?

I really have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here or how I could use it as a criteria to judge the truth value of beliefs.

At any any rate NONE of the claims you make has anything to do with relating this to Darwinian evolution.

Exactly the same can be said for your claims about true and false beliefs.

As far as I can tell, you seem to have rejected a brain-based theory of mind as whole-heartedly as vivalargo has. At least in practice, if not yet in spirit.

I haven't seen anything close to a brain-based characterisization that helps me distinguish the true believers from the false ones.

This has everything to do with the question I asked (in three sperate posts), and which you seem to be avoiding with a remarkable persistence.

As I understand it, in so far as it's science, Darwinian evolution makes predictions about what characteristic traits develop in species. So I'm asking about the "true believers" as a characteristic of the activity of the human species in evolution. Again this has to do with my original question. I want to know what Darwinian evolution has to say about the "true believers". How does it explain who they are, how they came about, what kinds of behaviors they do and, in particular: does it make any predictions for the future?

You were the one who suggested to vivavlargo that the human experience should be dealt with in this context. So I'm looking to see how you would do it.

I was interested in how you would repond to the question you asked vivalargo. Now I see. What I don't see is how vivalargo's God is so different from your "reality". In fact, outside of a few words you use without precision, e.g. "naturalistic", your "reality" seems to be almost indistinguishable from vivalargo's God.

But I agree with you about one point: deep down we all imagine that we are the true believers.

Again, I don't know the answer to that. I'm not going to invent some Just So story about the adaptive function of religious beliefs just because you are apparently demanding that I do so. And again: it's completely irrelevant, because such an explanation is possible in principle. The problem I have with John's view (on this spiritual nonsense, and I brought up this same issue regarding his quasi-dualist claims on the nature of Mind, if you read back in some earlier threads) is that it is not apparent how the phenomena he believes in could have evolved. (And again, this is just a fancy way of saying that his claims are not naturalistic.)

For example, if religion is such a crock, why are religious beliefs so prevelant? How can you explain that in terms of Darwin's law of natural selection?

That's rediculous, when was the last time you read about an atheist murdering, injuring, yelling epithets, or anything else at a religious person.

Think about it for a second... Why were all religions created by man ??? Seriously think about all the religions and superstitions thatpredated the current "revisions" of the worlds monotheistic religions, and why they were created. What questions did they answer ???

Now as for explaining this in terms of Dawinism or Natural Selection...

The obvious would be that "the poor, the uneducated, the peasants, the victims of social injustice" are easily the vast majority of the world's population, and tend to be more prolific at producing offspring...

Although I personally view natural selection as a process regarding "physical traits" not emotional or metaphysical ones, so I will say that its really apples and oranges trying to make religion fit that process.

Not to mention that many religions have strong traditions of questions. John's religion is probably an extreme example, but slogans like "God works in mysterious ways" aren't about answering questions---they're about preserving questions, and preventing you from thinking about possible answers.

Tradman, you're out of your element.

There is no apparent contradiction between the idea of truth and the idea of Darwinian evolution. So I really have no idea what you are trying to ask me about---perhaps you can illustrate where you think the contradiction is, assuming you think there is one...

If you're asking how brains form ideas, I wish I could help you with it beyond some very vague hand-waving---I'm not a neuroscientist. (And they only have vague ideas on the topic, also.)

I was thinking of any sort of substrate-neutral data structure, interpreted in a relevant way.

Well, for one example, bits stored on a hard disk.

This is probably because I wasn't saying anything remotely like what you appear to think I was saying.

The problem is you still have failed to explain what the hell you are asking (hint: it does not appear at all analagous to what I asked John). Unless you are asking how the ability to have ideas, in principle, could have evolved? I don't think it is hard to see how the ability to predict your environment could be adaptive...

What claims are you talking about? Prior to you chiming in, I believe the only claim I made about the nature of beliefs was to say that "knowledge" is simply a term that describes a belief which the speaker happens to also believe is true.

I seriously doubt it. In some earlier threads about Mind, largo rejected the concept of a non-dualistic, brain-based theory of Mind as being "reductionist". (As if that were a bad thing.)

I have no clue what you are talking about (again). Perhaps you'd like to explain what has given you this strange misconception of my position on this issue (which hasn't even been a topic in this thread until now, by the way).

I can't help you distinguish "true believers" from false ones. I don't even really know what that is supposed to mean. Presumably there is no person who only believes things which are true....

If you explain what "true believers" means, and why you think this has anything to do with my conversation with largo, I'll be happy to tell you why you're confused.

Perhaps you can ask a coherent question, if you want to see an example of that. Or much better, just go buy yourself a copy of a book like The Selfish Gene or The Red Queen if you want to see some nice summaries of what people who are interested in evolutionary explanations of various human behaviors are coming up with.

Ironic, but very illustrative of your last few posts: the one point you say you "agree with" me about is a point I have not made in this thread.

:roll: