Naturally bad

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You understand some science thanks in part to your education, but clearly that was not the sole determining factor, unless you want to stretch 'education' to encompass the entire constellation of social, cultural, biological & other influences determining your path to becoming twhitehead. Perhaps your will to learn was more important than anything else?

But the statement I made (however incorrect it may be) is giving the education the bulk of the credit. You however seem to be saying that we cannot give credit as there are always other factors and all factors are dependent on other factors ad infinitum or until some 'prime mover'.
I dispute that. There is nothing wrong with giving credit where it is due (or even where you incorrectly think it is due).

Similarly, it's questionable whether it's correct to say 'evolution is the cause of culture' ('thanks to evolution'😉.
Then question the claim. Your response of 'give chance all the credit' is a poor argument especially.

Reductionism being a Deadly Sin.
And over generalization is no better especially when you generalize to the point of saying 'its all due to chance' and especially when the logic that got you to 'chance' as the 'primary mover' is flawed.

Did the universe come into existence?
I think it is unlikely, but I certainly don't know for sure.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing wrong with giving credit where it is due (or even where you incorrectly think it is due).

[b]Reductionism being a Deadly Sin.
And over generalization is no better especially when you generalize to the point of saying 'its all due to chance' and especially when the logic that got you to 'chance' as the 'primary mover' is flawed.
...[text shortened]... se come into existence?[/b]
I think it is unlikely, but I certainly don't know for sure.[/b]

I responded to a generalisation with a generalisation to point out the absurdity of a given statement. " -- thanks to evolution!" " -- or the hand of chance?" Reductio ad absurdum, reversed.

"Chance was the prime mover" strikes me as a fantastically contradictory statement, fertile with error. Not the kind of thing I would ever say.

(We can save the conversation about Will to Power for another time).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I responded to a generalisation with a generalisation to point out the absurdity of a given statement. " -- thanks to evolution!" " -- or the hand of chance?" Reductio ad absurdum, reversed.

But I do not think scottishinnz was generalizing absurdly and your response was misleading as it seemed to imply that 'evolution' = 'chance' which was not your meaning.
As I pointed out with my example, if you think there is a main reason for something then it is perfectly correct and proper to say so. The fact that that main reason has further reasons behind it does not render the initial claim an absurd generalization.
I agree with scottishinnz that much of the patterns we see in society are a direct consequence of evolution, and the one he was referring to in particular most definitely is. What is absurd is you then trying to belittle that claim by digging into the roots of the origins of evolution.

If I tell you I found a mathematical result using calculus and you say "but surely you used addition too so don't give all the credit to calculus!"
Can you see how ridiculous that is?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I would have used the word 'random' if I meant 'random'. I don't take 'chance' to be synonymous with 'randomness'.

Anyhow. What was the probability of the universe coming into existence? And why do the forces of variation, competition and inheritance exist? What I'm getting at is that it seems the fact that evolution works the way it does is a chan ...[text shortened]... of evolution by natural selection, or does it actually present a few problems?

I would have used the word 'random' if I meant 'random'. I don't take 'chance' to be synonymous with 'randomness'.

And yet many do. For myself, I would say that "probability" does not imply complete randomness, since it implies directionality, or skew, whilst chance implies a 50/50 random set of events.


What was the probability of the universe coming into existence?

Apparently quite high. Physicist Victor Stenger suggests that "something" can exist in a multitude of ways, yet "nothing" can only exist in one form. Nothingness is very ordered, and thus very unstable. [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for.php]

What I'm getting at is that it seems the fact that evolution works the way it does is a chance operation

Evolution is a function of random (or at least semi-random) mutation, and non-random reproductive success / death. Evolution is not random. Why does probability work the way it does? Well, I guess there are answers based upon things like thermodynamics and chemistry to explain that. Why do these things work the way they do? Well, who says there has to be a "why" to that question? Maybe they just do.

What I initially picked up on, by the way, was your cute phrase "thanks to evolution". "Look at all this great stuff I got -- thanks to evolution!" "Ain't our son great, honey -- thanks to evolution!" You could so easily form a religion around it.

Go for it. And I'll be waiting to cut you down.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I agree with scottishinnz that much of the patterns we see in society are a direct consequence of evolution, and the one he was referring to in particular most definitely is.

I'm willing to be taught. How did revenge (the basis of justice) arise, from an evolutionary perspective?

As an aside, it seems that human evolution is speeding up -- thanks to culture!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I responded to a generalisation with a generalisation to point out the absurdity of a given statement. " -- thanks to evolution!" " -- or the hand of chance?" Reductio ad absurdum, reversed.

"Chance was the prime mover" strikes me as a fantastically contradictory statement, fertile with error. Not the kind of thing I would ever say.

(We can save the conversation about Will to Power for another time).

Do you have another reason why we see moralitic behaviour in many,many species? In the great apes, and in fact, pretty much any social creature capable of remembering good and bad deeds by others. We evolved to live in groups.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

[b]What was the probability of the universe coming into existence?

Apparently quite high. Physicist Victor Stenger suggests that "something" can exist in a multitude of ways, yet "nothing" can only exist in one form. Nothingness is very ordered, and thus very unstable. [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/34_unconvincing_arguments_for ...[text shortened]... orm a religion around it.[/b]

Go for it. And I'll be waiting to cut you down.[/b]

Nothing can exist in only one form ... Fascinating! I must inquire more deeply into the form of nothingness ...

'Maybe they just do'. Can't say I wasn't expecting that!

'I'll be waiting to cut you down'. Your self-assessment is an unexpected bonus.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm willing to be taught. How did revenge (the basis of justice) arise, from an evolutionary perspective?

As an aside, it seems that human evolution is speeding up -- thanks to culture!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

Revenge is easy. You you need is a group of individuals trying to exploit each other for their own gain. Do remember though, that cooperation is a form of exploitation. Revenge is simply witholding cooperation in its mildest form, but punishing offenders, presumably with the intention of "making an example" of the offender to others, in a more extreme form. "Don't cross me, or I'll make you pay".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Nothing can exist in only one form ... Fascinating! I must inquire more deeply into the form of nothingness ...

'Maybe they just do'. Can't say I wasn't expecting that!

'I'll be waiting to cut you down'. Your self-assessment is an unexpected bonus.

Well? How many different flavours of nothing can you imagine?

Sometimes there are no reasons. What is the reason for the letter "e", pray tell?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do you have another reason why we see moralitic behaviour in many,many species? In the great apes, and in fact, pretty much any social creature capable of remembering good and bad deeds by others. We evolved to live in groups.

Could you develop this line of thought a little further, please. I don't quite get what you're saying.

The fact that we (mostly) live in groups is attributable to our being mammals. Yet norms differ wildly across the human species (human rights, revenge killings, cannibalism) let alone other mammals (lions killing cubs outside their own bloodline; elephants adopting orphans).

As it happens, I think evolution and culture are mutually reinforcing.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm willing to be taught. How did revenge (the basis of justice) arise, from an evolutionary perspective?

Revenge is not the basis of justice, but a tendency towards revenge is a direct outcome of evolution.
You'd probably have to look into a bit of game theory to understand it. Basically, both individual benefits (selfishness) and societal benefits contribute to the continuation of genes. There is a balance to be found in between selfish and altruistic behavior which works. If you get too altruistic then some individuals will benefit from selfish behavior, if you get too selfish then the society suffers. The result is that societies evolve such that there are some deterrents to selfish behavior.

Justice systems are rarely ever about revenge, they are usually about two main things:
1. Deterrent (fear of punishment)
2. Prevention or deterrent of repeat behavior (incarceration, death penalty or punishment).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Revenge is easy. You you need is a group of individuals trying to exploit each other for their own gain. Do remember though, that cooperation is a form of exploitation. Revenge is simply witholding cooperation in its mildest form, but punishing offenders, presumably with the intention of "making an example" of the offender to others, in a more extreme form. "Don't cross me, or I'll make you pay".

A murders B because A thinks B has bewitched him. C, B's cousin, murders A in revenge. D, the headman of the tribe, expels C from the tribe in accordance with custom, which is applied automatically. C perishes in the wilderness. C's clan vows revenge on A's clan. The tribe is weakened by the struggle, to be ultimately absorbed by some other tribe. The evolutionary rationale?

At what point does custom / culture take over the show and affect the pace of evolution?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well? How many different flavours of nothing can you imagine?

Sometimes there are no reasons. What is the reason for the letter "e", pray tell?

The idea that nothing has a form is flatly absurd. Say it out loud a few times; laughter is healthy.

The form of the letter 'e' is tied to ancient Mesopotamian economics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Revenge is not the basis of justice, but a tendency towards revenge is a direct outcome of evolution.

Lex talionis: 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. Basis of Hammurabi's code, the oldest known legal system.

revenge Look up revenge at Dictionary.com
1375, from O.Fr. revengier, from re-, intensive prefix, + vengier "take revenge," from L. vindicare "to lay claim to, avenge, punish" (see vindicate).

When you vindicate a claim, you are avenging a wrong done to you.

Now, Hammurabi's law, like Moses', and others, was supposed to have been revealed by God. Which is perhaps a good point to ask how natural selection gave rise to groups, law & God alike.

Originally posted by twhitehead

You'd probably have to look into a bit of game theory to understand it. Basically, both individual benefits (selfishness) and societal benefits contribute to the continuation of genes. There is a balance to be found in between selfish and altruistic behavior which works. If you get too altruistic then some individuals will benefit from selfish behavior, ...[text shortened]... s. The result is that societies evolve such that there are some deterrents to selfish behavior.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp. Real world application (to an actual society)?