Biological Evolution (part 2 of ?)

Certainty is the culprit.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• philosophy

[Ripley747]

Did I miss something? It sounds like your beef is with amateur "evolutionists." Professional evolutionary biologists and biologists are about as certain about evolution as physicists are with gravity. They know it's there but they NEVER said they know everything about it. What they do know is that there is no evidence for biblical creation (there is even evidence against) and there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. They have a good picture but will never say it's complete.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"this universe IS a human universe"

*lol* How do you figure that? Obvious, the only Universe we can directly experience is a heavily cooked model presented to perception based on limited sensory apparatus (which is why navel gazing is such an ineffective investigation method) -- I supposed you could call THAT the "human Universe" -- but the Universe *outside* our heads is not ours or "of us", it existed long before us and will after us, and the vast majority is not directly accessible to us.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"It is important to stay cognizant of projection, but at the end of the day, how can we understand how we came out of this universe without anthropomorphizing it?"

More semantic confusion. Do you know what the word means? Anthropomorphication is an example of cognitive bias, it is an ERROR of perception, by definition. When we project human traits onto non-humans (animals, machines, natural phenomena, etc.) it is a MISTAKE, the brain's misapplication of a normally adaptive trait (empathy).

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"There is a middle path here"

Between what? A middle ground between bullshit and truth is still bullshit.

"It is just as ignorant to entirely separate human consciousness from nature as to naively identify it with nature."

Huh? Who's trying to separate it? Human consciousness is part of nature, but that doesn't mean nature is created by consciousness.

"it is not merely a collection of dead atoms"

What evidence do you have for that, other than wanting it to be so?

[0ThouArtThat0]

There is a middle path here. Nature is not lacking a subjective component; it is not merely a collection of dead atoms. We just have to be able to recognize the various ways subjectivity manifests itself in relation to the physical organization it is associated with. Atoms are less experiential than molecules, which are less experiential than cells, which are less " than animals, etc. Awareness deepens as evolution progresses.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't disagree that scientific study has revealed to us a cosmic story far more awe inspiring than any to come before it. But you have to keep in mind that this universe IS a human universe. We grew out of it. It is important to stay cognizant of projection, but at the end of the day, how can we understand how we came out of this universe without anthropomorphizing it? It is just as ignorant to entirely separate human consciousness from nature as to naively identify it with nature.

[0ThouArtThat0]

There is no filling in gaps with something supernatural here. Wholeness is a natural phenomenon. The emergence of global states of order capable of influencing local states has been modeled mathematically by neuroscientists to help them better understand the phase synchrony observed in different regions of the brain during certain cognitive tasks, to take one example. I recently uploaded a lecture by E. Thompson speaking at Colombia U where he discusses this.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"It has shown it in any complex phenomena, from living cells to ant colonies. See Emergence."

What evidence is there that an ant colony's behavior is "more than the sum of it's parts"? And how could you even demonstrate such a thing, given how little we know about how ant brains work? This is more "god of the gaps" bullshit, AFAIK -- filling in knowledge gaps with unexplained magic, for no good reason.

[ReductioAdAbsurdum]

"But I think pre-modern people literally experienced the world in a different way than we do today. They didn't believe in gods, they felt their presence in the weather and the night sky, etc. I wouldn't call this ignorant"

If anthropomorphizing nature isn't ignorance, what IS? *lol*

"I'd say we moderns need to cultivate this sense for the sacred in nature"

The Universe revealed by science is FAR more awe inspiring and glorious than anything conceived by a primate brain out of ignorance.

[0ThouArtThat0]

It has shown it in any complex phenomena, from living cells to ant colonies. See Emergence.