18 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterRead them again or find another author. Evolution is not an entity and thus can hardly be 'competitive' or 'ruthless'. You are characterizing evolution as a conscious entity which dictates the actions of all animals which is a clear misunderstanding of what evolution is.
I've read 2-3 dawkins books and other stuff on evolution and it all points to evolution being essentially competitive and quite ruthless in discarding life's losers.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe alternative behaviors cannot all be based on having a conscience. Actually most of our highly complex behavior is a result of inteligence and not a conscience.
Yes they are , they have a conscience which hints at different alternative behaviours that might be taken.
How many animals wrestle with their conscience?
Quite a lot I think but most cannot communicate such complex thoughts to us. There is no reason to believe that they don't.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh come on , I may be personifying evolution as an entity as an expression of an idea but really whitey , the principle is clear. You are just being pedantic. I no more think of evolution as an entity than you do . This is an side issue. Call it what you like , express it how you like nature , evolution (whatever) is competitive and ruthless.
Read them again or find another author. Evolution is not an entity and thus can hardly be 'competitive' or 'ruthless'. You are characterizing evolution as a conscious entity which dictates the actions of all animals which is a clear misunderstanding of what evolution is.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow many animals wrestle with their conscience?
The alternative behaviors cannot all be based on having a conscience. Actually most of our highly complex behavior is a result of inteligence and not a conscience.
[b]How many animals wrestle with their conscience?
Quite a lot I think but most cannot communicate such complex thoughts to us. There is no reason to believe that they don't.[/b]
Quite a lot I think but most cannot communicate such complex thoughts to us. There is no reason to believe that they don't.WHITEY
As you say so often ....evidence please!
There's no reason to think that some animals aren't brilliant chess players either. Pity they just can't let us us know eh?
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is a difference between 'nature' and 'evolution' you can't simply try to equate the two and pretend it is a 'side issue'. You have been making the claim that something be it evolution or nature is dictating to all animals (and to us humans if God didn't intervene) that they must be competitive and ruthless. That is totally false. What evolution is about is the fact that those that don't compete usually loose. It does not force anyone to compete nor even encourage anyone to try to compete or win. As far as free will is concerned it is therefore irrelevant as it is not in any way a deciding factor in choices of men or animals.
Oh come on , I may be personifying evolution as an entity as an expression of an idea but really whitey , the principle is clear. You are just being pedantic. I no more think of evolution as an entity than you do . This is an side issue. Call it what you like , express it how you like nature , evolution (whatever) is competitive and ruthless.
18 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs I said, it is for you to prove otherwise since your argument is based on an unconfirmed statement.
How many animals wrestle with their conscience?
Quite a lot I think but most cannot communicate such complex thoughts to us. There is no reason to believe that they don't.WHITEY
As you say so often ....evidence please!
There's no reason to think that some animals aren't brilliant chess players either. Pity they just can't let us us know eh?
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that animals are not brilliant chess players. There is to my knowledge no proof that no animals other than humans can play chess. A chipanzee could probably learn some of the mooves.
I have often seen a guilty look on a cats face but that is not really self guilt so I cant directly 'observe' its conscience. Maybe you could suggest an experiment that would highlight whether animals have a conscience?
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat evolution is about is the fact that those that don't compete usually loose. It does not force anyone to compete nor even encourage anyone to try to compete or win--- whitey
There is a difference between 'nature' and 'evolution' you can't simply try to equate the two and pretend it is a 'side issue'. You have been making the claim that something be it evolution or nature is dictating to all animals (and to us humans if God didn't intervene) that they must be competitive and ruthless. That is totally false. What evolution is a ...[text shortened]... fore irrelevant as it is not in any way a deciding factor in choices of men or animals.
I see the distinction that you are making but nevertheless it's a bit 6 of one and half a dozen of the other is it not? Animals are ofrced to compete due to powerful instincts of self preservation and fight or flight. Scarcity of food for example plays another role. Chimps attack other troops and are incredibly violent in doing so to establish their "territory" . Males of many species compete for mating rights.
I mean what's your explanation for territorialism in animals? How do you explain the violence in nature ?
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have often seen a guilty look on a cats face but that is not really self guilt so I cant directly 'observe' its conscience. Maybe you could suggest an experiment that would highlight whether animals have a conscience? WHITEY
As I said, it is for you to prove otherwise since your argument is based on an unconfirmed statement.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that animals are not brilliant chess players. There is to my knowledge no proof that no animals other than humans can play chess. A chipanzee could probably learn some of the mooves.
I have often seen a guilty ...[text shortened]... Maybe you could suggest an experiment that would highlight whether animals have a conscience?
I thought something like this was on it's way. I think psychologists might suggest that what actually happens is that we humans are projecting human values on to animals. For example , you see your cat recoil in fear because it hears your voice raised. You have raised your voice because it has **** on your sofa. You see it slope off in a submissive way (which is a survival mechanism which many animals show when they know they are in a fight they can't win). You interpret this with human values of guilt and conscience. Does the cat try and make it up to you? Do you really think the cat goes round thinking "ooh I was a bit thoughtless . I should have gone in the garden"???
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterEvolution means that the successful survive. So we see the survivors which are successful animals. But at no point ever is an animal being forced or even encouraged to be successful by evolution or nature.
I mean what's your explanation for territorialism in animals? How do you explain the violence in nature ?
For example:
Throw 100 modified dice that have random numbers 1 - 6 painted on their sides. take away all dice that show a number less than 3. repeat 5 times. You will start seeing more dice with 4,5 or 6 on. But on any given throw no dice is more likely to land with a particular side face up.
Your claim is equivalent to saying that a dice that remains which happens to have a 2 on one side is less likely to land with the 2 on top because of the 'force of evolution'.
Animals are often violent and territorial but they are not being forced to be so by evolution. Yes they have evolved that way and yes their genes, instincts etc tell them to be that way but evolution is not making them do anything.
You are also totally overlooking the fact that many animals are also communal as are humans and so display many characteristics that benefit the community. You implications in your earlier posts were that only 'bad' characteristics would ever be displayed under the 'forces of evolution' which is total nonsense.
19 Jun 07
I realize I have been doing more mind reading than is fair so let me take the trouble to try and find out more about what your position /belief actually is.
If you are given a gun and a stranger who is no threat to you is placed in front of you and I say "shoot him". Will you do it?
If I repeat the experiment 100 or 1000 times will you do it?
You have stated in the past that you 'could' do it that there is nothing in your brain/mind/programming that will stop you from doing it. You have stated that the final tipping point that makes the ultimate decision comes from and uncaused piece of God which essentially generates random decisions for you. So does this mean that out of a given number of tries you will shoot the stranger a certain percentage of times?
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterDeath is not ruthless. Death just is.
Oh come on , I may be personifying evolution as an entity as an expression of an idea but really whitey , the principle is clear. You are just being pedantic. I no more think of evolution as an entity than you do . This is an side issue. Call it what you like , express it how you like nature , evolution (whatever) is competitive and ruthless.
19 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnimals are often violent and territorial but they are not being forced to be so by evolution. Yes they have evolved that way and yes their genes, instincts etc tell them to be that way but evolution is not making them do anything.
Evolution means that the successful survive. So we see the survivors which are successful animals. But at no point ever is an animal being forced or even encouraged to be successful by evolution or nature.
For example:
Throw 100 modified dice that have random numbers 1 - 6 painted on their sides. take away all dice that show a number less than 3. repe ...[text shortened]... teristics would ever be displayed under the 'forces of evolution' which is total nonsense.
RESPONSE---
Yes yes I know it's genes and instinct that cause animals to be competitive and violent and the process of evolution usually means the less strong and violent get weeded out . Do you really think I don't know this? It's the process as a whole that I am refering to , the process of natural evolution and what the implications are for animal behaviour.