Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you think water has as an objective, the need to get to the ocean? The fact that something happens does not mean the expected outcome is an objective.

Please do your fellow posters the decency of reading their posts. I said gravity caused water to roll down hill. You seem to think that every debate on this site is a philosophical word game and you seem prepared to twist someones post to appear bright; but you have no facts to back up your opposition just hot philosophical air.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Please do your fellow posters the decency of reading their posts. I said gravity caused water to roll down hill. You seem to think that every debate on this site is a philosophical word game and you seem prepared to twist someones post to appear bright; but you have no facts to back up your opposition just hot philosophical air.

I did read your post. And to be honest, it wasn't very clear what you were trying to argue. Would you care to expand on it? Are you saying that it is gravity that has a motive?
I am not trying to 'appear bright' or anything like that. I just don't think you have a case. I don't need facts, because it is you that is making the claim. Without a basis for your claim, there is no need to produce facts as a counter argument.
Try it yourself. I claim that gravity has as a motive, getting water to the sea. Lets see if you can produce any facts to back up your opposition or is your opposition just hot philosophical air.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But does standing up for the Jews or the slaves really benefit your descendants? If society is transient as you say, then will behaving morally now, significantly influence those who might take advantage of your descendants later?

Sure. Laws, traditions, stare decisis are powerful. It is at least worth the gamble.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am thinking more along the lines of say an intelligent alien race (equal in intelligence to humans) shows up on earth. They cannot breed with humans. Do we grant them human rights? Do we treat them morally, or do we treat them like animals? Do we expect them to treat us morally?

Wow, another interesting hypothetical. Would definitely shake things up. An introduction of a foreign species into an environment not their natural habitat. We have seen indications of what can happen when that occurs. Let's hope they would not be overly-predatory or use more advanced technology to implement predatory tendencies.

It is interesting that science fiction writers have split on whether aliens from space would be friendly or non-friendly. The creepy stories are the ones where the aliens appear friendly and helpful, but are being deceptive, such as that Twilight Zone episode where the aliens were relocating humans to the "paradise" of their planet with humans willingly going, and in reality the aliens were collecting the humans for food.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did read your post. And to be honest, it wasn't very clear what you were trying to argue. Would you care to expand on it? Are you saying that it is gravity that has a motive?
I am not trying to 'appear bright' or anything like that. I just don't think you have a case. I don't need facts, because it is you that is making the claim. Without a basis for y ...[text shortened]... duce any facts to back up your opposition or is your opposition just hot philosophical air.

Semantics aside, evolution and its results drive human behavior today.

Originally posted by moon1969
Semantics aside, evolution and its results drive human behavior today.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean that evolution has any objective.
Or that we have any objective or purpose in an external or objective sense.

The fact that we have a survival instinct, a desire not to be dead, does not mean
that not dying is our objective or purpose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did read your post. And to be honest, it wasn't very clear what you were trying to argue. Would you care to expand on it? Are you saying that it is gravity that has a motive?
I am not trying to 'appear bright' or anything like that. I just don't think you have a case. I don't need facts, because it is you that is making the claim. Without a basis for y ...[text shortened]... duce any facts to back up your opposition or is your opposition just hot philosophical air.

I am not being funny but is English your first language, I cannot understand the confusion but I will try again; water is not like an amoeba in that it has no locomotive ability of its own, water runs down hill as a result of gravity acting upon it like the earth orbiting the sun it has no volition it is an object being acted upon by gravity, I'm sorry but I cannot make it any clearer. If you are seriously claiming that gravity has a motive in the same way that an antelope has a motive in running away from a lion I cannot help you, you need to see a specialist.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I am not being funny but is English your first language,

Yes, English is my first language.

water is not like an amoeba in that it has no locomotive ability of its own, water runs down hill as a result of gravity acting upon it like the earth orbiting the sun it has no volition it is an object being acted upon by gravity, I'm sorry but I cannot make it any clearer.
I think I understand you now. You are saying that if the cause of and activity is external, then there is no objective, if it is internal, then there might be an objective. If you go back and read your post, you might see why even someone whose first language is English might not pick that up from your very brief post.

If you are seriously claiming that gravity has a motive in the same way that an antelope has a motive in running away from a lion I cannot help you, you need to see a specialist.
So when I make a claim, I need to see a specialist, when you make a claim, you feel it is up to me to provide facts? Why the difference?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, but that still doesn't mean that evolution has any objective.
Or that we have any objective or purpose in an external or objective sense.

The fact that we have a survival instinct, a desire not to be dead, does not mean
that not dying is our objective or purpose.

Surely in terms of the evolutionary model the objective of the gene bearing machine is to survive long enough to at least reproduce and pass on the genes. I do not think that this is implying that evolution or d.n.a is sentient or conciously endeavouring to achieve the objective. would it be less controversial to call it d.n.a's raison-detre.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, English is my first language.

[b]water is not like an amoeba in that it has no locomotive ability of its own, water runs down hill as a result of gravity acting upon it like the earth orbiting the sun it has no volition it is an object being acted upon by gravity, I'm sorry but I cannot make it any clearer.
I think I understand you now. You a ...[text shortened]... pecialist, when you make a claim, you feel it is up to me to provide facts? Why the difference?[/b]

Okay the Language question was rhetorical and the result of answering a post before breakfast, slap on the wrist for me.

I am aware that I am not the most succinct poster but closed replies like 'there is no objective it is an illusion' gives the poster no idea exactly what the issue is.

I do not think I asked you for proof that gravity has an objective as clearly that would be impossible, as I have posted to googlefudge maybe the use of the word 'objective' may be wrongly implying some sort of sentient strategy which clearly would be as extraordinary as your claim regarding gravity.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I do not think I asked you for proof that gravity has an objective as clearly that would be impossible, as I have posted to googlefudge maybe the use of the word 'objective' may be wrongly implying some sort of sentient strategy which clearly would be as extraordinary as your claim regarding gravity.

You did not ask me for proof, you implied I was mentally ill for even thinking it. Yet when you make a claim, you act like you don't even have to provide an argument to support it, but that any opposing views are 'just hot philosophical air'. So far you have repeated the claim many times that there is an objective, yet have not, as far as I can see, substantiated such a claim with anything whatsoever.

This is your original claim:

...the primary objective of every organism is it's own personal survival or the survival of its identifiable gene group.

I will concede that evolution results in organisms (concious ones especially) that desire to survive. As a result much of their behaviour has as its objective, survival.
However, that most organisms are structured in such a way that they behave in such a way to to survive and pass on genes, is not equivalent to having an objective to do so any more than water flowing down hill has an objective. That's just how it works. I do not think that the gravity being external makes a difference.
Further it is not even true that all organisms behave in such a way as to survive. There is always a small percentage that does not behave that way and die as a result. This is not failing to achieve an objective. It just is.

Let me try an illustration:
Let us suppose I am a farmer who is trying to breed rabbits with brown fur. Every generation I remove all rabbits whose fur colour is furthest away from being the brown that I want. Over time, those genes that remain will be those that result in brown fur.
Now you are claiming that:
1. All the genes involved had survival as a primary objective. (despite the fact that those genes expressing white fur did not survive).
2. All the rabbits involved had survival as a primary objective. (despite the fact that many of them did not survive nor pass on their genes)
3. All the rabbits involved had getting brown fur (as it is required for survival) as an objective. (despite the fact that not one single rabbit ever changed fur colour or 'gained' brown fur.)

I want you to think long and hard about point 3. as I think you will realise that the 'objective' is an illusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did not ask me for proof, you implied I was mentally ill for even thinking it. Yet when you make a claim, you act like you don't even have to provide an argument to support it, but that any opposing views are 'just hot philosophical air'. So far you have repeated the claim many times that there is an objective, yet have not, as far as I can see, subst nd hard about point 3. as I think you will realise that the 'objective' is an illusion.

Clearly you have not read the post where I attempted to address the use of the word 'objective' so likewise I shall continue as if I have not read the part of your post addressing that matter.

As for your rabbit illustration it is rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the organism is under the control of a third party and thus already failed it's objective/ raison-detre so at least that has saved my poor weak mind from having to think too long and hard about point 3, phew.

Once Again I will direct you to my post to googlefudge and we can take it from there.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Clearly you have not read the post where I attempted to address the use of the word 'objective' so likewise I shall continue as if I have not read the part of your post addressing that matter.

Are you referring to the post where you suggest using "raison-detre" as an alternative? If so, are you withdrawing your claim that there is an objective? I would also object to "raison-detre" as I find it unsubstantiated.

As for your rabbit illustration it is rendered irrelevant due to the fact that the organism is under the control of a third party and thus already failed it's objective/ raison-detre so at least that has saved my poor weak mind from having to think too long and hard about point 3, phew.
How does the control of a third party make a difference? If the third party is 'the environment' as is the case for all life forms, would your poor weak mind give up then too?

Lets take another example:
There are some amoeba in a pond. Some have a gene (A) that protect them from excessive ultraviolet radiation. Some have another version of the gene (B) that doesn't provide protection. You are claiming that both genes have being passed on as an objective or raison-detre. Suppose the pond receives a lot of sunlight killing off type B amoeba. Type A copies of the gene survive. Did type A copies achieve their objective? Did type B copies fail in their raison-detre?
Or does your argument only work if the gene takes some positive action rather than a passive role?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you referring to the post where you suggest using "raison-detre" as an alternative? If so, are you withdrawing your claim that there is an objective? I would also object to "raison-detre" as I find it unsubstantiated.

[
Lets take another example:
There are some amoeba in a pond. Some have a gene (A) that protect them from excessive ultraviolet ra your argument only work if the gene takes some positive action rather than a passive role?

No I certainly am not withdrawing it I was trying to find a word which might open a more productive dialogue but; ho-hum


Lets take another example:
There are some amoeba in a pond.

Then the least well adapted will die/ fail the objective. This is quite basic, are you trying to argue that there is something outside of our d.n.a that is controlling an organisms ability to survive in any given environment and this 'delusion' theory of yours where did this delusion come from. What I am saying is that within the confines of the evolutionary model the objective of the individual organism is to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass on the genes which contain the instructions for the objective and the means to achieve it; this is not a conscious strategy. If you do not agree with this then give me an alternative explanation.

P.S please no more inane examples involving defenseless animals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, survival usually does. But survival is not morality. Do not confuse the two, nor assume that survival is a moral good.

But what if morality involves laying down your life, like in a Christ-like scenrio? Christ layed down his life and made the world a better place for it. Our species was ehnanced, not threatened in terms of its survival.