Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 59 of 59
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I think I was too focused on your rabbit example, I think I may see your point now.

    So at the synapse level in the brain, reactions are taking place, back and forth from electrical to chemical, chemical to electrical, all the time. Since there are a finite number of chemical reaction that can occur, thoughts are necessarily limited by these chemical reactions. If it does logically follow it is by happenstance and dumb luck.

    Am I getting closer
    Yea, as long as the ultimate reason you think X, is because of the rules that govern chemical reactions, then it is NOT the rules that govern logic. Thought x leads to thought y, not because it logically follows, but because chemicals just so happen to react that way in a given circumstance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Evolution will certainly not select that
    Successfully hiding from a predator was the thing being selected, and the limited point of the example. Your responding to a very much expanded version, which can easily be adjusted for.

    Clearly it was a short hand mican. In order to correctly understand it, you simply have to plug in thoughts that are wrong, with actions that are selected.
    Like, the male rabit is afraid of the female so he jumps on top of her and rubs his gentiles on hers in order to "get away." etc..

    The point stands that evolution chooses outcomes, not thoughts that cause them. Also there are vastly more incorrect thoughts that would also lead to the same outcome as a correct one.
    So the idea is pretty sound when you don't chop it up such that it looses context.

    Do you disagree that evolution is selecting outcomes and not the thoughts directly?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Successfully hiding from a predator was the thing being selected, and the limited point of the example. Your responding to a very much expanded version, which can easily be adjusted for.

    Clearly it was a short hand mican. In order to correctly understand it, you simply have to plug in thoughts that are wrong, with actions that are selected.
    Like, the male rabit is afraid of the female so he jumps on top of her and rubs his gentiles on hers in order to "get away." etc..
    No, you don't just put in thoughts that are wrong. You have to put in PARTICULAR wrong thoughts that, by sheer random luck, combine with the original wrong thought to create a positive outcome. And therefore you have to calculate the odds that there will be a different wrong thought that will combine with the first wrong thought to achieve the same results as a correct thought.

    So let's say the odds of having a complimentary wrong thought is a million to one (and I would say given odds that good are pretty generous). So that means that the rabbit who has the wrong thought has a million to one chance of having another thought that will counter-act the first wrong thought and it will allow it to achieve the same results as the rabbit who doesn't have a wrong thought

    So a wrong thought that requires a million to one stroke of luck to achieve the same results as a correct thought does not give a creature any reasonable advantage in survival/procreation and therefore will not likely be passed on. And even if it were passed on, what are the odds that the offspring will be fortunate enough to have both of the wrong thoughts passed on? If that doesn't happen, then the offspring are less likely to survive than correct-thinking rabbits. And even if they are fortunate enough to get them both, what about their offspring?

    Quite simply, the odds of such an incorrect thought being passed on through multiple generations is practically nil. Even if one rabbit survives and procreates despite having that thought, it will not be passed on very far. This thought will die out with the rabbits who hold it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point stands that evolution chooses outcomes, not thoughts that cause them. Also there are vastly more incorrect thoughts that would also lead to the same outcome as a correct one.
    First off, evolution does not choose outcomes. It chooses traits that are more likely to lead to the outcome of surviving/procreating and having correct and incorrect thoughts are traits.

    It is a trait to think "I should not jump off a cliff". It is a trait to think "There's nothing wrong with jumping off of a cliff". And the being who has the first trait is more likely to survive than the being who has the second trait so evolution chooses the trait of thinking one should not jump off of cliffs.

    And you can hypothetically introduce as secondary wrong thought that will fortuitously combine with the wrong thought about cliffs that will result in a positive outcome but as per the rabbit example, what are the odds of that particular wrong but fortuitous thought arising at the same time? If we go with a million to one, then the one who has the correct thought about cliffs is a million more times likely to not die than the one who has the wrong thought.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you disagree that evolution is selecting outcomes and not the thoughts directly?
    Yes, but I think it's just a semantics/term issue more than a real disagreement. So let me just spell out what I think.

    The outcome is survival and procreation. Evolution doesn't choose those things.

    Evolution chooses traits that lead to the outcome. If a species has a trait that helps it survive and/or procreate, then evolution chooses that trait to continue in the species as those who have that trait will be more likely to procreate and pass on the trait to future generations.

    And thoughts are traits. And evolution chooses those who think better than those who don't ("better thinking" being defined as having the kinds of thoughts that help one survive and/or procreate).

    -------------------------------

    And really, rabbits don't have thoughts. They have instincts. Going by evolution, the earliest creatures definitely did not think but just did what they did and those who did things that helped procreation/survival were more likely to survive and create other creatures who did the same things - so "doing those things" were the chosen traits in evolution. And when it gets to rabbits, these are just creatures who were bred by evolution to have traits that led it to do the things that helped them procreate. And of course through mutations, there were occasionally rabbits who did different things and the things that increased their odds of survival/procreation were traits that were passed on (which is why rabbits have changed over time) and those traits that didn't help weren't as likely to be passed on.

    So really, whether hiding from what they are afraid of or trying to mate with what they are afraid of are chosen traits can be determined by observing whether rabbits do those things. The fact that they hide from predators pretty clearly indicates that that trait is chosen by evolution.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2017 at 09:00 AM.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, you don't just put in thoughts that are wrong. You have to put in PARTICULAR wrong thoughts that, by sheer random luck, combine with the original wrong thought to create a positive outcome.
    Given a logical fallacy, there doesn't need to be any particular wrong thought, because it doesn't logically follow anyway.
    The bunny could think "i want o be blue, so I will fly like a bird" as long as it is actually mating, or running away from a threat.. It will be selected.
    All of your odd's figuring is based on a fallacious assumption pointed out above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    First off, evolution does not choose outcomes. It chooses traits that are more likely to lead to the outcome of surviving/procreating and having correct and incorrect thoughts are traits.
    That is completely incorrect.
    Those "traits" you listed, are not selected specifically because they result in actual death.
    Death is a result. Any trait that actually survives is what we call "selected".

    That is why I say it chooses outcomes, because it is the actual outcomes that do the choosing.
    maybe that is the semantics you are speaking of.

    to the larger picture, I don't see how any of this contradicts my original point. Maybe you could tie that in.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And really, rabbits don't have thoughts. They have instincts. Going by evolution, the earliest creatures definitely did not think but just did what they did and those who did things that helped procreation/survival were more likely to survive and create other creatures who did the same things - so "doing those things" were the chosen traits in evolution. And when it gets to rabbits, these are just creatures who were bred by evolution to have traits that led it to do the things that helped them procreate. And of course through mutations, there were occasionally rabbits who did different things and the things that increased their odds of survival/procreation were traits that were passed on (which is why rabbits have changed over time) and those traits that didn't help weren't as likely to be passed on.
    It is a fair point to draw the distinction between instincts and actual reasoning. The point was that it must start somewhere in evolution.. the cors over I mean. and there is no grantee that it will be correct logic and thinking, only outcome.
    So if the first thought ever had was actually logical in nature.. it was quite by chance, and that is a GIANT leap of faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So really, whether hiding from what they are afraid of or trying to mate with what they are afraid of are chosen traits can be determined by observing whether rabbits do those things. The fact that they hide from predators pretty clearly indicates that that trait is chosen by evolution.
    That is question begging, and "evolution of the gaps" reasoning.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given a logical fallacy, there doesn't need to be any particular wrong thought, because it doesn't logically follow anyway.
    The bunny could think "i want o be blue, so I will fly like a bird" as long as it is actually mating, or running away from a threat.. It will be selected.
    All of your odd's figuring is based on a fallacious assumption pointed out above.
    If it's running away or mating, then it's having a thought that leads it to run away or make (Thought: "A wolf is running towards me. I better jump down a hole.") A rabbit that has such thoughts is more likely procreate than a rabbit who does not have those thoughts. Therefore those kinds of thoughts are "selected" by natural selection.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is completely incorrect.
    Those "traits" you listed, are not selected specifically because they result in actual death.
    Death is a result. Any trait that actually survives is what we call "selected".

    That is why I say it chooses outcomes, because it is the actual outcomes that do the choosing.
    maybe that is the semantics you are speaking of.
    There's a difference between "it chooses outcomes" and "outcomes do the choosing" and I disagree with the first statement but agree with the second statement.

    A rabbit who does takes the correct actions for survival will more likely be "chosen by the outcome of survival" and therefore be more likely pass on his traits (like running from wolves) to the next generation. A rabbit who takes actions that hinder its chances of survival will more likely be "chosen by the outcome of death" and therefore that rabbit will be more likely to die and the thoughts that it had the lead to its death will die with it.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    to the larger picture, I don't see how any of this contradicts my original point. Maybe you could tie that in.
    Your point, as I understand it, is that evolution does not choose thoughts. But it does. A rabbit who has thoughts that help it survive will be more likely to survive and pass its thoughts to the next generation so evolution has chosen certain thoughts to continue on and chosen other thoughts to die off (like "I should attack the wolf instead of hide from it").


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a fair point to draw the distinction between instincts and actual reasoning. The point was that it must start somewhere in evolution.. the cors over I mean. and there is no grantee that it will be correct logic and thinking, only outcome.
    So if the first thought ever had was actually logical in nature.. it was quite by chance, and that is a GIANT leap of faith.
    But then I never argued that the first thought ever had was logical. Nor is that an premise of any argument of mine.

    So I don't see a rebuttal to the argument you are responding to. It looks like your response is a straw-man but then that might because I don't understand the relevance of it.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If it's running away or mating, then it's having a thought that leads it to run away or make (Thought: "A wolf is running towards me. I better jump down a hole.") A rabbit that has such thoughts is more likely procreate than a rabbit who does not have those thoughts. Therefore those kinds of thoughts are "selected" by natural selection.
    So.. are we back to thinking rabbits have thoughts?

    Anyway.. It is the "a rabbit who doesn't have those thoughts" is where the flaw is.
    There is in fact many other thoughts that are illogical in nature and will still lead to survival.
    The fact that here are a lot more illogical thoughts than logical ones that will lead to survival is the problem.
    Evolution has no mechanism to separate them. Survival = selection no matter if the rabbit thinks it should hide to mate, or hide to survive. The rabbit could think gibberish, and conclude (illogically) to hide.

    So your point of a "particular thought" being required is rebutted. Beyond that the lack of an explanation for our access to logic is I think accurately described.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    A rabbit who does takes the correct actions for survival will more likely be "chosen by the outcome of survival" and therefore be more likely pass on his traits (like running from wolves) to the next generation. A rabbit who takes actions that hinder its chances of survival will more likely be "chosen by the outcome of death" and therefore that rabbit will be more likely to die and the thoughts that it had the lead to its death will die with it.
    On this we agree.
    So my point is that there is a gulf between correct thoughts, and correct action, as the latter does not require the former.
    Rebut that, and my point is defeated.
    I do recognize that you have attempted a response with your line of chance reasoning. (not to be confused with he chance I address later here). I believe I have addressed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your point, as I understand it, is that evolution does not choose thoughts. But it does. A rabbit who has thoughts that help it survive will be more likely to survive and pass its thoughts to the next generation so evolution has chosen certain thoughts to continue on and chosen other thoughts to die off (like "I should attack the wolf instead of hide from it").
    Well, I agree with that. My point is that the selection is primarly the outcome. So logical thoughts have no preference to illogical ones as long as the outcome is the same.

    This is the gulf that evolution can not reach across, and why we have no justified appeal to logic.

    So, I think it stands that evolution doesn't choose thoughts, they are happenstance. The mind is a black box to evolution, which does not care for it's inner workings, only that the result be one that facilitates survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then I never argued that the first thought ever had was logical. Nor is that an premise of any argument of mine.

    So I don't see a rebuttal to the argument you are responding to. It looks like your response is a straw-man but then that might because I don't understand the relevance of it.
    The point was not about first thoughts per say.
    The point is that without an actual mechanism to distinguish logical thoughts from illogical ones with the same outcome.. all that is left is luck.

    So, if the first thought, and thus the ultimate origin of all thought (evolutionary speaking) just so happen to be a logical one.. then we have our explanation. But that is appeal to a vastly improbable event.
    Likewise the appeal that only logical thoughts survived in a sea of equal outcome illogical thoughts is also an appeal to luck.

    Not saying that is what you have done, or an argument you have made. Just making the observation of the state of an appeal to evolution without an actual mechanism.


    --
    I want to go back to traits..
    Thoughts are not traits that are passed down. You are not born with logic, or access to the thoughts of your ancestors.
    There is no thought in the DNA.

    You are welcome to offer DNA evidence that they are, I am totally ignorant of any and would count it educational.
    I consider the idea that "thoughts" are selected and passed on through evolution to be completely novel and unsupported.


    -----------------------
    Summary.

    There is no mechanism in evolution to select logical thoughts over equal outcome illogical ones.
    Thus evolution is not a sufficient explanation for our access to ideas themselves.
    No more so than if oil mixed in watter just so happened to spelled out moby dick.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Evolution will certainly not select that. If a rabbit thinks that hiding is the best way to mate then that rabbit is less likely to mate than a rabbit who thinks the best way to mate is to go out and look for other rabbits to mate with.

    In evolution, traits that help one survive and procreate are the ones that are passed to the next generation. And within the trait-passing, certain mutations occur and if the mutation is something that helps one survive/procreate better than others, then one is more likely to pass that mutation to the next generation (and bad mutations are not likely to be passed on). So the only way that a rabbit that rabbits will evolve into animals that hide because they think it's a good way to mate is if hiding actually does help them procreate better than their current method of finding mates. If that doesn't happen (and it wouldn't) then a rabbit that mutates into having that incorrect thought is not likely to pass it on to future generations.


    You two talk about evolution as if it were a "thinking thing". Evolution doesn't "select" anything. It's merely a theory that describes how populations of organisms change over time. An individual can have the best genes and "smartest brain" & whatnot, and still get a disease, or caught in a flash flood or eaten or for any number of reasons, die before passing on those genes. Beneficial genes "tend" to be passed on thru populations. Traits can be passed on that aren't particularly beneficial as well, because an individual can be superior in many ways but still inferior in others and pass on those genes as well. Trying to get evolution to speak to an individual is quite a stretch of the theory IMHO...

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea, as long as the ultimate reason you think X, is because of the rules that govern chemical reactions, then it is NOT the rules that govern logic. Thought x leads to thought y, not because it logically follows, but because chemicals just so happen to react that way in a given circumstance.
    I can get your point that since there are a finite number of chemicals involved, there are a finite number of reactions possible. Where I am still lacking understanding of your point is how the number of chemical reactions that are available to the brain can not think logically (in an "ordered, methodical fashion").

    Aren't we still using the same chemical reactions in the brain if we involve God in the thought/logic process?

    I also believe you are saying that "all" thought processes in the brain must cross this "chemical barrier". Am I correct?

    ---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On the assumption of God, a mind can explain why a physical being would be granted access to ideas.
    How does God "grant" this access, because it doesn't seem to necessarily flow to me just because he exists?

  7. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    From what I can see, my primary disagreement with your argument is the issue of "equal outcomes". I cover that plenty below but I do want to focus on this.

    So I'll say that I don't agree that using logic and illogic will result in equal outcomes. Generally speaking (which allows for occasional exceptions) using logic will aid one's survival better than illogic so the outcomes will not be equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So.. are we back to thinking rabbits have thoughts?

    Anyway.. It is the "a rabbit who doesn't have those thoughts" is where the flaw is.
    There is in fact many other thoughts that are illogical in nature and will still lead to survival.
    The fact that here are a lot more illogical thoughts than logical ones that will lead to survival is the problem.
    Evolution has no mechanism to separate them. Survival = selection no matter if the rabbit thinks it should hide to mate, or hide to survive. The rabbit could think gibberish, and conclude (illogically) to hide.

    So your point of a "particular thought" being required is rebutted. Beyond that the lack of an explanation for our access to logic is I think accurately described.
    Well, you are the one who brought rabbits into it and as I read on and yes, rabbits don't have thoughts but instincts. Since the debate is focused on actual thoughts that contain logic, we should not be discussing rabbits for examples but focus on creatures that actually have logical thoughts, such as humans.

    According to evolution, humans evolved to be "thinking creatures" and therefore creatures that have proper thoughts. And when it comes to actual thoughts, logical ones do serve mankind's survival better than illogical thoughts. Again, most creatures don't use thoughts at all. So when it comes to actually using thoughts, logical ones are better and the people use use logical thoughts will be more likely to pass on their traits, including the ability to use logical thought, to their offspring.

    A primitive person who uses logic in an attempt to find food will be more successful in finding food that someone who uses illogic. So when it comes to evolving to have thoughts, logical thoughts are indeed "chosen" over illogical thoughts.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On this we agree.
    So my point is that there is a gulf between correct thoughts, and correct action, as the latter does not require the former.
    Rebut that, and my point is defeated.
    Maybe it's not absolutely required (someone can accidentally do the right thing despite not attempting to do it) but using correct thought greatly increases the odds of surviving a situation than using poor thought.

    I mean if one's house is on fire and they are trying to escape, one is clearly more likely to get out if they use correct thought to escape than if they use poor thought. Every once in a while, a bad plan can work out anyway but in general good plans are better than bad plans and one who uses good logic is more likely to survive.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I agree with that. My point is that the selection is primarly the outcome. So logical thoughts have no preference to illogical ones as long as the outcome is the same.
    But the outcome will not be the same. The person with the logical thought will do something different than the person with the illogical thought and that will greatly increase his chances of survival.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, I think it stands that evolution doesn't choose thoughts, they are happenstance. The mind is a black box to evolution, which does not care for it's inner workings, only that the result be one that facilitates survival.
    And logical thoughts facilitate survival better than illogical thoughts.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point was not about first thoughts per say.
    The point is that without an actual mechanism to distinguish logical thoughts from illogical ones with the same outcome.. all that is left is luck.

    So, if the first thought, and thus the ultimate origin of all thought (evolutionary speaking) just so happen to be a logical one.. then we have our explanation. But that is appeal to a vastly improbable event.
    Likewise the appeal that only logical thoughts survived in a sea of equal outcome illogical thoughts is also an appeal to luck.
    It's not luck. logical thoughts and illogical thoughts will not have an equal outcome when it comes to survival.

    Logical thought: "If I use this stick to knock down fruit from the tree, I will have some fruit to eat."
    Illogical thought "If I stand on my head in front of the tree, I will have some fruit to eat."

    Obviously the person using logical thought will be more likely have something to eat and therefore survive.

    And illogical thoughts could have come first. There could have been people standing on their heads before there were people using sticks. But then the people standing on their heads died out so we are descendants of the people who used sticks (and good logic).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I want to go back to traits..
    Thoughts are not traits that are passed down. You are not born with logic, or access to the thoughts of your ancestors.
    There is no thought in the DNA.
    But you are born with having the ability to use logical thought. Most creatures are not born with that. So while thoughts are not a genetic feature, being able to have logical thoughts is a genetic feature and a pretty rare one on this planet.

    The reason that both you and I use logical thought is because we are offspring of beings who used logical thought. If we were descendants of rabbits instead of humans, then we would not be using logical thought. So DNA is very much part of our ability to reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no mechanism in evolution to select logical thoughts over equal outcome illogical ones.
    But then I reject the notion that equal outcomes happen when one being uses logical thought and the other does not.

    Individual exceptions do not rebut the notion that in general, using logic is better for survival than illogic.

    If I use logic to get some food and you use illogic, odds are that I will be better fed than you in general and therefore more likely to survive.

  9. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    You two talk about evolution as if it were a "thinking thing". Evolution doesn't "select" anything. It's merely a theory that describes how populations of organisms change over time. An individual can have the best genes and "smartest brain" & whatnot, and still get a disease, or caught in a flash flood or eaten or for any number of reasons, die before passing on those genes. Beneficial genes "tend" to be passed on thru populations. Traits can be passed on that aren't particularly beneficial as well, because an individual can be superior in many ways but still inferior in others and pass on those genes as well. Trying to get evolution to speak to an individual is quite a stretch of the theory IMHO...
    I agree, and I think this point bolsters my position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I can get your point that since there are a finite number of chemicals involved, there are a finite number of reactions possible. Where I am still lacking understanding of your point is how the number of chemical reactions that are available to the brain can not think logically (in an "ordered, methodical fashion").
    The number of chemical interactions is not really the point. The point is that when you talk about "ordered thought" you certainly don't mean "ordered by chemical reaction" you mean "ordered by the abstract rules of logic".
    However, on naturalism we are limited only to "ordered by chemical reaction", everything else is happenstance. This robs naturalism from actual claims to access to logic. Because ultimately thought a doesn't follow from thought B due to the rules of logic, rather the rules of chemistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Aren't we still using the same chemical reactions in the brain if we involve God in the thought/logic process?
    Ultimately no. On theism the brain is not necessarily the originator of thoughts. Of course on naturalism it must be.
    However Christianity says that we are spirit as well as flesh. So thoughts could originate from our spirit. (which is what I hold). Basically our mind is not flesh, and not limited to chemical reactions.
    Those are just the embodiment of something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I also believe you are saying that "all" thought processes in the brain must cross this "chemical barrier". Am I correct?
    Yea I would think so. On naturalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    How does God "grant" this access, because it doesn't seem to necessarily flow to me just because he exists?
    Fair point.
    I would say that we are looking for a sufficient explanation for our access to logic. God is a sufficient explanation.
    Given that we can rule out naturalism it becomes the only available sufficient explanation.

    It doesn't mean that Because G-d exists He MUST provide us access to logic, it only means that He can and that is what we ought to think is what happened.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I want to go back to traits..
    Thoughts are not traits that are passed down. You are not born with logic, or access to the thoughts of your ancestors.
    There is no thought in the DNA.

    This appears to be incorrect. Things that happened to your great grandparents affect "your" personality. So called "junk" DNA, may not be so junk after all (why would it be there if there were no purpose? If God exists the question gets even harder).
    Where does an animals "instinct" come from? Is instinct not "acting in a predetermined way" (if you have a brain you must have a thought to act)?
    How does a spider know how to spin a particular web when it never met its parents if thoughts are not transferred somehow?

    ---------- Post added at 07:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Fair point.
    I would say that we are looking for a sufficient explanation for our access to logic. God is a sufficient explanation.
    Given that we can rule out naturalism it becomes the only available sufficient explanation.
    And I still can't figure out this "access" point you are trying to make. God or our soul sending a thought to our brains still has to use the same chemical pathways in the brain. If the brain can process these, why can't they originate in the brain?

    Human's can think, yes?
    Correct thoughts lead to "success" more often than incorrect thoughts, yes?

    If not, you need to support why incorrect thought could really compete with correct ones.

    Again, using memory of trial and error and prediction (the only reason humans are the "top" of the food chain), logic (ordered, methodical thought) would seem almost a given.

    If you can watch others and see their mistakes and successes. Take those observations and use them to your advantage, you have just used "logic".
    This is what separates humans from other animals. I don't see any mystery here.

  11. Likes MindTrap028, mican333 liked this post
  12. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    This appears to be incorrect. Things that happened to your great grandparents affect "your" personality. So called "junk" DNA, may not be so junk after all (why would it be there if there were no purpose? If God exists the question gets even harder).
    Where does an animals "instinct" come from? Is instinct not "acting in a predetermined way" (if you have a brain you must have a thought to act)?
    How does a spider know how to spin a particular web when it never met its parents if thoughts are not transferred somehow?
    On naturalism that is a very serious problem. .. How does a spider know how to spin a web indeed. I have used that example exactly as evidence of God and why evolution can not explain such things.

    I also see no evidence that what "happened" to my great grandfather effected my knowledge on a DNA level.

    You appear to be offering "hope" rather than evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    And I still can't figure out this "access" point you are trying to make. God or our soul sending a thought to our brains still has to use the same chemical pathways in the brain. If the brain can process these, why can't they originate in the brain?
    Why does your phone recreate my voice.. but not originate it? Same reason. Just because your phone CAN reproduce my thoughts, in no way implies that it could CREATE those thoughts.
    Does that make sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Human's can think, yes?
    Correct thoughts lead to "success" more often than incorrect thoughts, yes?
    Yes to the former.. no to the later.
    In a pool of random thoughts, incorrect thoughts would lead to success more often than the singular correct thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If not, you need to support why incorrect thought could really compete with correct ones.
    First of all, you can't work backwards with thoughts.. and say well correct thought x works.. so of course we have it. That simply begs the question.
    The question is, how does a single correct thought take become dominant, when there is a sea of incorrect thoughts that would have the same outcome.
    So back to rabbits. Say there is one correct thought to run away from the wolf.. (Ie it is going to eat it). There are endless nonsequitars that would have the same result... even gibberish could. So there are far more inoccrect ones to be had and thus it out competes in prevalence.. which is what needs to be explained to begin with.

    And that only addresses the fact that the the correct idea just so happens to correspond to the chemicals. That doensn't give the chemicals access to the ideas it represents, any more than dominoes have access to the message they spell out when they fall (when set up that way).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Again, using memory of trial and error and prediction (the only reason humans are the "top" of the food chain), logic (ordered, methodical thought) would seem almost a given.

    If you can watch others and see their mistakes and successes. Take those observations and use them to your advantage, you have just used "logic".
    This is what separates humans from other animals. I don't see any mystery here.
    Sure if you assume away the point I'm making, but hat just beggs the question.
    I don't contend that people don't act as you have described, I have pointed out how evolution is not a sufficient explanation for them.
    Memory also brings up the same problem, only repeated. How is it that the chemicals that make up a memory access the ideas they represent?
    Your just skipping right to access to logic without a mechanism.

    At best you have a simulation of use of logic.. which is not the same as actually having access to it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I also see no evidence that what "happened" to my great grandfather effected my knowledge on a DNA level.

    You appear to be offering "hope" rather than evidence.
    That you do not notice, hardly attests to its truth value.


    *http://www.utaot.com/tag/dna/


    (Sorry, I am learning to add links, I need a secretary
    When I was in high school, 4 resistors fit on an IC chip, not millions, I hope this link works, it was just a quick try though, there are other reputable sources stating similar ideas)

    It doesn't take much of a search though to see that our ancestors lives may have a profound impact on our personalities today.

    ---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    On naturalism that is a very serious problem. .. How does a spider know how to spin a web indeed. I have used that example exactly as evidence of God and why evolution can not explain such things.
    I'm game. How does a spider spinning the same web thru generations imply a God?

    ---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes to the former.. no to the later.
    In a pool of random thoughts, incorrect thoughts would lead to success more often than the singular correct thought.
    ONLY in a mathematical probability model is this true. In the actual real world, you have to keep the belly full and that of your offspring (offspring feeding is common, but hardly universal, many young feed themselves from birth). (I get what you are saying, but it is not convincing enough yet). Evolution by definition generally "selects" correct decisions for survival/reproduction. That you put a "million" (or whatever number) incorrect actions in a barrel for a given situation and say they all have equal probability of continued success as compared to a correct action (over the life span of this planet) is absurd (success defined as reproducing).

    Surely, a correct action in a given situation over and over is a better strategy than an hoping an incorrect action will lead to the same positive outcome (procreating).



    ---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    At best you have a simulation of use of logic.. which is not the same as actually having access to it.
    And this differs from logic in what way?
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 13th, 2017 at 09:03 PM.

  14. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    MT,

    I think you have a misunderstanding of how what we know as thinking evolved. Let me show how thinking evolved via a story of an evolving creature that I'll call the "critter" (a stand-in for pretty much any creature that evolved to creature with thought).

    So at the earliest stages when a predator came after a critter, the critter's reaction was pretty much random and one was as likely to run towards the predator as run away from it. But those that ran away survived and passed on the "running from predators" trait to their offspring. At this point, they are not thinking but acting on the run-from-danger instinct.

    Thinking pretty much comes from self-awareness. So when that happened, the critters went from "Danger! Run!" to "I'm in danger so I better run". So the first thoughts came from being self-aware and were not some random thought. So then it went from "Im in danger so I better run" to "I should develop some techniques to help me escape better" and such thoughts increased the likelihood of a critter developing a better method of escaping predators than the critters who don't have such thoughts and therefore the thinking critter had a better chance of surviving.

    And if a critter had a thought that didn't help it survive, then it made no effective difference in whether it survived or not but still the critters who started to think had a better chance of getting away even if sometimes the thoughts weren't that helpful.

    So thinking helps creatures survive and therefore is a trait that evolution would select.
    Last edited by mican333; August 16th, 2017 at 11:17 AM.

  15. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That you do not notice, hardly attests to its truth value.


    *http://www.utaot.com/tag/dna/


    (Sorry, I am learning to add links, I need a secretary
    When I was in high school, 4 resistors fit on an IC chip, not millions, I hope this link works, it was just a quick try though, there are other reputable sources stating similar ideas)

    It doesn't take much of a search though to see that our ancestors lives may have a profound impact on our personalities today.

    ---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------



    I'm game. How does a spider spinning the same web thru generations imply a God?

    ---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------



    ONLY in a mathematical probability model is this true. In the actual real world, you have to keep the belly full and that of your offspring (offspring feeding is common, but hardly universal, many young feed themselves from birth). (I get what you are saying, but it is not convincing enough yet). Evolution by definition generally "selects" correct decisions for survival/reproduction. That you put a "million" (or whatever number) incorrect actions in a barrel for a given situation and say they all have equal probability of continued success as compared to a correct action (over the life span of this planet) is absurd (success defined as reproducing).

    Surely, a correct action in a given situation over and over is a better strategy than an hoping an incorrect action will lead to the same positive outcome (procreating).



    ---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------



    And this differs from logic in what way?

    MT?
    Still with me?

  16. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTH
    That you do not notice, hardly attests to its truth value.


    *http://www.utaot.com/tag/dna/


    (Sorry, I am learning to add links, I need a secretary
    When I was in high school, 4 resistors fit on an IC chip, not millions, I hope this link works, it was just a quick try though, there are other reputable sources stating similar ideas)

    It doesn't take much of a search though to see that our ancestors lives may have a profound impact on our personalities today.
    First, I was not arguing that because I don't know, thus there is no proof.
    I was making the point that we obsere no evidence that knowledge and thing without substance like mathmatics, have any effect on the DNA.

    Second I couldn't read your link. If it esbalishes that some bit of knowledge that you learn is passed on to your kids please quote that portion for me.

    Finally we are not discussing that our ancestor lives effect us We are discussing spicifially if one can pass on access to logic through DNA. (i guess is the best way to put it)

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTH
    I'm game. How does a spider spinning the same web thru generations imply a God?
    That isn't the point I am tring to make now, so i will put that debate off till another time.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTH
    ONLY in a mathematical probability model is this true. In the actual real world, you have to keep the belly full and that of your offspring (offspring feeding is common, but hardly universal, many young feed themselves from birth). (I get what you are saying, but it is not convincing enough yet). Evolution by definition generally "selects" correct decisions for survival/reproduction. That you put a "million" (or whatever number) incorrect actions in a barrel for a given situation and say they all have equal probability of continued success as compared to a correct action (over the life span of this planet) is absurd (success defined as reproducing).

    Surely, a correct action in a given situation over and over is a better strategy than an hoping an incorrect action will lead to the same positive outcome (procreating).
    No you miss the point entirly. It isn't about incorrect acion.. but correct action for the wrong reasons.
    So your response dose not address my point. Could you please raise your objection with the above point in mind?

    My claim is that there may be 1 correct action but there are millions of incorrect reasons that would lead to it vs a single or few correct reasonings.



    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    MT,

    I think you have a misunderstanding of how what we know as thinking evolved. Let me show how thinking evolved via a story of an evolving creature that I'll call the "critter" (a stand-in for pretty much any creature that evolved to creature with thought).

    So at the earliest stages when a predator came after a critter, the critter's reaction was pretty much random and one was as likely to run towards the predator as run away from it. But those that ran away survived and passed on the "running from predators" trait to their offspring. At this point, they are not thinking but acting on the run-from-danger instinct.

    Thinking pretty much comes from self-awareness. So when that happened, the critters went from "Danger! Run!" to "I'm in danger so I better run". So the first thoughts came from being self-aware and were not some random thought. So then it went from "Im in danger so I better run" to "I should develop some techniques to help me escape better" and such thoughts increased the likelihood of a critter developing a better method of escaping predators than the critters who don't have such thoughts and therefore the thinking critter had a better chance of surviving.

    And if a critter had a thought that didn't help it survive, then it made no effective difference in whether it survived or not but still the critters who started to think had a better chance of getting away even if sometimes the thoughts weren't that helpful.

    So thinking helps creatures survive and therefore is a trait that evolution would select.
    I first object to your "just so story" of how thought evovlved. In that I do not accept that it is the "official" theory.
    Second, your approach does nothing to address the pont that faulty logic will lead to correct action more than correct logic will and that evolution will.

    Third, "thinking" as you portray it is nothing more than a cascade of chemicals in the brain, apparently dictated by our DNA in some way so as to account for built in knowledge such as spiders and spinning webs.
    So no it is not fro some etheral "self awarness", but actual chemical reactions.
    So I don't think your portrayal is consistent with a purely physical description and rather sounds lot like you are bringing in something akin to a "spirit".

    Finally, I am interested to see how evolution weeds out correct action that is the result of faulty logic (IE non-sequentulars).
    As I assume (maybe wrongly) that the "self awarness" is built upon evolution selected base thoughts.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, I was not arguing that because I don't know, thus there is no proof.
    Umm,... ok....?????

    ---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally we are not discussing that our ancestor lives effect us We are discussing spicifially if one can pass on access to logic through DNA. (i guess is the best way to put it)
    We are?
    You just have not sufficiently addressed this "access" you keep talking about. Logic is not a thing. If you have the ability to learn from your mistakes, I believe you can think in a logical way. I just don't see this "access" as necessary to "think in an ordered manner".

    ---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second I couldn't read your link. If it esbalishes that some bit of knowledge that you learn is passed on to your kids please quote that portion for me.
    Odd, I just tried it and it worked ok, but no matter since you don't seem interested in the possibility anyway. We have enough points of contention at the moment to keep us busy.

    ---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No you miss the point entirly. It isn't about incorrect acion.. but correct action for the wrong reasons.
    So your response dose not address my point. Could you please raise your objection with the above point in mind?

    My claim is that there may be 1 correct action but there are millions of incorrect reasons that would lead to it vs a single or few correct reasonings.
    I totally get what you are saying (this time and I am directly addressing your point!

    In a given situation you think there are a "lot" of possibilities that in general would be "wrong", but in this situation, it still worked out in your favor and you lived to procreate (kinda the definition of evolution). What you totally fail to support is that, over "your" lifetime, making wrong decisions will still equally give "you" a chance to live and reproduce on the same level as other "you's" who chose correctly in the same situations time after time.
    Last edited by Belthazor; August 26th, 2017 at 06:35 PM.

  18. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    We are?
    You just have not sufficiently addressed this "access" you keep talking about. Logic is not a thing. If you have the ability to learn from your mistakes, I believe you can think in a logical way. I just don't see this "access" as necessary to "think in an ordered manner".
    Let me try to clarify what I mean by "access".

    So you are referring to "ordered" thought. When I think of that, I think ordered by logic or according to the rules of logic for the sake of logic.
    IE you order one thought after another because the intangable meaning of the thought logically follows.

    Evolution is not doing that. The order of the thoughts are happenstance based on outcome. (IE survival of fittest).
    Even if evolution produced a thought chain that was completly logical, it would not be "caused" by the logical laws, it would be caused by a lucky chemical cascade.


    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Odd, I just tried it and it worked ok, but no matter since you don't seem interested in the possibility anyway. We have enough points of contention at the moment to keep us busy.
    May be my watchdog.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    In a given situation you think there are a "lot" of possibilities that in general would be "wrong", but in this situation, it still worked out in your favor and you lived to procreate (kinda the definition of evolution). What you totally fail to support is that, over "your" lifetime, making wrong decisions will still equally give "you" a chance to live and reproduce on the same level as other "you's" who chose correctly in the same situations time after time.
    Once you recognize that there are more illogical chains for lasting survival, then logical ones, then the burden is on evolution(theory) to produce a mechanism to seperate them.

    So some set up to a thought exeriment.

    1) Are the bases of thought created in the DNA so that future thoughts would be laid down before any "self awarness" arose?
    This is a line that has been brought up, but it is important to any application to your appeal to "chance".

    -To me it would seem that if thoughts are based on our chemicals, then it would be the former and not the latter, as the latter has to do with the imatterial.

    2) assuming the former, The first problem. ..thought is not inherently connected to action. Ie there is no reason to think that the chemical reaction, that represents the thought "I will run away", is not necissarily connected to the chemical reaction that results in actually running away.
    3) The second problem is that assuming the chemical processes are connected, there is still the problem of non-sequentular logic.
    So, the infinite number of nonsequentulars that result in the same action as the single correct (or few) correct thoughts that lead to the same action.
    - To that point your question is, is a long chain of those likely compared to correct thinking.

    I honestly do see a reason why not. Both chains are random, and evolution is just picking the ones that succeed.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say that we are looking for a sufficient explanation for our access to logic. God is a sufficient explanation.
    Given that we can rule out naturalism it becomes the only available sufficient explanation.
    Can't believe I missed this gem! Two things wrong here:
    Your "access to logic" has already been refuted in your Technological Singularity thread - you really should start taking note of these.
    Further, explanations of causality don't only require that you demonstrate sufficiency, but also necessity. Saying "God is a sufficient explanation" is therefore not an explanation at all, since we could posit any explanation which is merely sufficient: Magic invisible nerve tethers between our perineums and the One True Logic Source. There you are, "access to logic" explained!

  20. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I first object to your "just so story" of how thought evovlved. In that I do not accept that it is the "official" theory.
    I didn't say that it was the theory. I'm saying that it's consistent with the theory and is a valid evolutionary explanation on how thought evolved. And if you think it's not consistent with the theory, then explain how it's not. You can't just say "Nope". You have to have a basis for rejection.

    And my point is that YOUR explanation is not consistent with evolution. Natural selection favors traits (like the ability to think logically) for continuation in a species. Thoughts are not trait. So evolution would not select thoughts for continuation. So your whole criticism of evolution is apparently based on a misunderstanding of evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, your approach does nothing to address the pont that faulty logic will lead to correct action more than correct logic will and that evolution will.
    Then I will challenge your assertion by asking you to support that faulty logic will lead to correct action more than correct logic will.

    And again, thoughts are not trait. But logical thinking and illogical thinking are traits.

    So let's say we have two men, one who thinks logically and another who thinks illogically and they have the same problem to solve - how to get fruit from a tree that neither is capable of climbing. A solution is to throw rocks at the fruit to knock it off the tree. I forward that the man who thinks logically is more likely to come up with that solution than the men who thinks illogically. It seems pretty obvious to me. But if you are saying that the man who does not think logically is more likely to come up with that solution (or a better solution), please explain way.

    And just coming up with a scenario where illogic leads him to throw rocks at fruit is not enough. You have to show that this illogic will make it more likely that rocks will be thrown than if one comes up with a logical reason to throw rocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Third, "thinking" as you portray it is nothing more than a cascade of chemicals in the brain, apparently dictated by our DNA in some way so as to account for built in knowledge such as spiders and spinning webs.
    So no it is not fro some etheral "self awarness", but actual chemical reactions.
    So I don't think your portrayal is consistent with a purely physical description and rather sounds lot like you are bringing in something akin to a "spirit".
    I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I didn't portray anything outside of natural law and therefore did not invoke something akin to a "spirit".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, I am interested to see how evolution weeds out correct action that is the result of faulty logic (IE non-sequentulars).
    It doesn't weed out actions. It would weed out traits that hinder survival, such as having faulty logic. Sure, a person who uses faulty logic can luck into correct actions now and then (such as jumping off a cliff for no good reason and not only being lucky enough to survive the fall by landing in a river but also finding a great fishing location) but more often using bad logic instead of good logic will get one killed (like pretty much all of the other times that the person jumps off a cliff).

    Logical thinking is "don't jump off the cliff"
    Illogical thinking is "There's nothing wrong with jumping off the cliff".

    Obviously evolution will favor those who think logically regarding jumping off cliffs (and pretty much every other situation where correct action increases the odds of survival).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As I assume (maybe wrongly) that the "self awarness" is built upon evolution selected base thoughts.
    Again, evolution does not favor thoughts. It favors thinking. So if you mean that evolution has favored intelligence in humans and the increase in intelligence eventually lead to self-awareness, then yes.
    Last edited by mican333; August 29th, 2017 at 09:04 AM.

  21. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Let me try to clarify what I mean by "access".
    thank you, but I still just don't get it...

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So you are referring to "ordered" thought. When I think of that,
    I said "ordered thought" because sometime ago Apok was discussing logic and that was what he used as a definition. No one objected at the time.

    Again, it seems to me, if you can learn from your mistakes (a point you leave out in your "lots of bad reasoning can still yield a positive outcome argument) it seems you can think in an ordered manner or "logically". This "access" idea assumes that logic is a "thing", as apposed to an idea.

    I watched a young osprey at my house trying to catch his breakfast. He made a few attempts at a group of little birds but missed. He/she is still around a few months later, so obviously, he/she has learned how to be successful. Logic in action is it not?

    ---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Evolution is not doing that. The order of the thoughts are happenstance based on outcome. (IE survival of fittest).
    Even if evolution produced a thought chain that was completly logical, it would not be "caused" by the logical laws, it would be caused by a lucky chemical cascade.
    Evolution discusses changes in populations over time.

    It is not a "thing". It does not "select" anything. The fittest sometimes die before the less fit. Evolution doesn't speak of an individual, it describes populations. It helps show that life has gotten more complex over time and how all known life can share some of the same DNA sequence. It's much more of a description of life, than a rule book life has to fallow.....

    ---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Once you recognize that there are more illogical chains for lasting survival, then logical ones, then the burden is on evolution(theory) to produce a mechanism to seperate them.
    This really is just a math probability idea. It just doesn't represent actual life. That you can conceive X number of incorrect reasoning's coming to a positive outcome doesn't give all equal weight.

    Animals use instinct (that which is passed down thru generations by DNA or similar mechanism) and trial/error to stay alive. You have just not given any reason to believe that using bad reasoning is going to lead to positive outcomes over time. Bad reasoning might get you by sometimes, but generally, over time it is going to lead to bad outcomes. This seams self evident.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. The gods that came before god.
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2011, 11:47 AM
  2. Aliens are gods?
    By Oh snap in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
  3. American Gods.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Book Club Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 13th, 2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Jesus, was he gods son?
    By Bf55 in forum Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •