Originally posted by FreakyKBHthe physicality of your hands relates to the reality of God's creation.
[b]Take my statement that I have hands, which expresses a truth. Me, I always thought it expresses a truth because the propositional content corresponds to a fact about the world. You say that it's because it bears some sort of relation to God's character. What do you mean?
Although your statement is one more of presumed fact than truth, the physic ...[text shortened]... he moral truths thusly connected to His character are necessarily objective as well.[/b]
Okay, so you think my hands serve as "testimony" to God's acts of creation – maybe similar to a way in which we might say a stroke of paint on a painting serves as manifestation of the artist. Still, that doesn't mean that the truth value of the proposition 'I possess hands' depends now on God's character. However they came into being, it is simply a fact about the world that I possess hands; and it is the correspondence between this fact and the content of the above proposition that constitutes the truth of the proposition.
I think maybe I see what you mean now. If, for example, God had inclined and acted otherwise; or if simply God had not acted at all; then perhaps now it would not be true that I possess hands. In that sense, you say that truth "depends" on God. Is this what you mean? If so, I find this sort of "dependence" completely uninteresting.
By the way, you say here that God has acted in time. How does God carry out any intended actions if He doesn't hold any propositional attitudes?
It is an obvious moral truth that man desires freedom
How does 'man desires freedom' express a moral truth? That's simply a descriptive proposition, not a moral one.
I would say that depends upon your definition of 'propositional attitudes.' I am under the impression that most PA's are emotionally-based.
Not all PAs are emotive. It may be easier to work from a set of what we both agree are examples of PAs rather than to work out a definition (see, e.g., ** for examples of PAs). For instance, I thought it's purported to be the case that your God knows a bunch of stuff – which would imply that He holds beliefs about a bunch of stuff. To believe a proposition is also to hold a PA. For example, does your God believe that it is wrong to physically torture babies? If so, then that indicates a PA. Don't such PAs constitute part of what you're taking to be His character?
Or, in other words, obectivity is based upon an unswaying reality totally independent of perspective.
But I still don't understand how a character can be "totally independent of perspective". In particular, how could something be an agent's character if this something were totally independent of perspective (problem being that this would entail that this something is independent of even that agent's own perspective and attitudes, too)?
-------------------------
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, it didn't start off any different than those natural pressures that encouraged lionesses or wolves
Nice post Nem, but I disagree about the "group selectionism" that you are indulging in. Of course, a slight group selectionism could operate, but only if the rule "someone in my group is probably related to me" was operating. The other rule, "someone that I meet is probably in my group, and if I do something nice for them it raises my standing in the group and they may do something nice for me in the future" is reciprocal altruism. \
to hunt in packs; humans did far better in groups than alone. And, since the original group units,
which would have been small in scale, they would indeed have been familial in nature. As they
got larger, a single alpha couldn't dominate 25 women (oh, that he could............) so there had
to be a system (which evolved) of sharing, with tribal units with a leader and then chiefdoms with
a hierarchy.
Still, these units would have been comprised of cousins in any event until the population explosion
which outpaced genetic change.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIndeed. I agree.
Well, it didn't start off any different than those natural pressures that encouraged lionesses or wolves
to hunt in packs; humans did far better in groups than alone. And, since the original group units,
which would have been small in scale, they would indeed have been familial in nature. As they
got larger, a single alpha couldn't dominate 25 women ( ...[text shortened]... usins in any event until the population explosion
which outpaced genetic change.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioGee, how does a gene inside a person know that another person is a cousin who contains supposedly similar genes?
Well, it didn't start off any different than those natural pressures that encouraged lionesses or wolves
to hunt in packs; humans did far better in groups than alone. And, since the original group units,
which would have been small in scale, they would indeed have been familial in nature. As they
got larger, a single alpha couldn't dominate 25 women ( ...[text shortened]... usins in any event until the population explosion
which outpaced genetic change.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderYou want an answer? Okay, families tend to live close to each other. Consider the rule in birds - if something hatches in the same nest as you, it's a relation. Of course, this rule is subject to manipulation - for example cuckoos, which put their eggs in other birds nests. In humans? Well, we have social groups and speech.
Thanks for the answer, Mr. Expert - you're sooooooooooooooo incredibly well-informed!
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem you are having marauder is that you are offering no real reasoned explanation of why human nature is the way it is. So although you dispute scottishnz's version of how gene selection and evolution has produced morality and altruism you are not offering any alternatives really. This has put you on the back foot from the start. Where does morality and altruism come from ?
Gee, how does a gene inside a person know that another person is a cousin who contains supposedly similar genes?
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually, marauder lost the debate when he gave altruistic behaviour a genetic and evolutionary basis. Any gene which causes or modifies a behaviour which promotes the copying of the gene which encodes it is acting selfishly!
The problem you are having marauder is that you are offering no real reasoned explanation of why human nature is the way it is. So although you dispute scottishnz's version of how gene selection and evolution has produced morality and altruism you are not offering any alternatives really. This has put you on the back foot from the start. Where does morality and altruism come from ?
True altruism, the type marauder is trying to tell us that humans have, is the type where I chop my legs off so you can have two more kids. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how silly that is! It does the leg chopping off gene no good to help non-leg chopping genes.
Originally posted by no1marauderGenes don't 'know' anything, #1. Genes influence behavior. Those genes which influence behaviors
Gee, how does a gene inside a person know that another person is a cousin who contains supposedly similar genes?
which result in survival get passed on. Those genes which influence behaviors which result in dying
do not get passed on.
Those genes which influenced group-oriented behavior in humans resulted in a greater survival rate
for those individuals when compared with the genes which influenced lone behaviors. It should be
patent that the most obvious group composition is a familial one, comprising siblings and cousins.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioGenes influence behavior.
Genes don't 'know' anything, #1. Genes influence behavior. Those genes which influence behaviors
which result in survival get passed on. Those genes which influence behaviors which result in dying
do not get passed on.
Those genes which influenced group-oriented behavior in humans resulted in a greater survival rate
for those individuals when compar ...[text shortened]... most obvious group composition is a familial one, comprising siblings and cousins.
Nemesio
Flesh that out a bit. Is behavior strictly genetic? If not, what other factors contribute?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGenes build brains and neural networks. Those brains determine behaviour. For example, a recent study was done looking at people who are unable to control their temper. The study showed that the part of the brain which allows them to repress their anger was actually smaller in these individuals. That's not to say that with sufficient training they couldn't repress their anger, just that they have a pre-disposition to blow their lid. Others will have a pre-disposition to work in groups, or a pre-disposition to train their children to work in groups, to be a successful cooperator.
[b]Genes influence behavior.
Flesh that out a bit. Is behavior strictly genetic? If not, what other factors contribute?[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzAwesome. Now, answer the questions.
Genes build brains and neural networks. Those brains determine behaviour. For example, a recent study was done looking at people who are unable to control their temper. The study showed that the part of the brain which allows them to repress their anger was actually smaller in these individuals. That's not to say that with sufficient training they c ...[text shortened]... or a pre-disposition to train their children to work in groups, to be a successful cooperator.
Originally posted by scottishinnzKeep telling yourself that, idiot. Just because you are using the word "selfish" in a non-standard manner to refer to things that cannot possibly be selfish doesn't mean that anybody else has to accept it.
Actually, marauder lost the debate when he gave altruistic behaviour a genetic and evolutionary basis. Any gene which causes or modifies a behaviour which promotes the copying of the gene which encodes it is acting selfishly!
True altruism, the type marauder is trying to tell us that humans have, is the type where I chop my legs off so you can hav ...[text shortened]... how silly that is! It does the leg chopping off gene no good to help non-leg chopping genes.
Moronic analogy. Tell us again about the firemen going in to the buildings hoping that in the future it will help them get laid! Moron.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI can't help it if you can't read. Human altruism comes from evolution like any other attribute of human nature. But Scott's radical gene centered view is contrary to the evidence specifically the persistance and pervasiveness of human altrustic behavior.
The problem you are having marauder is that you are offering no real reasoned explanation of why human nature is the way it is. So although you dispute scottishnz's version of how gene selection and evolution has produced morality and altruism you are not offering any alternatives really. This has put you on the back foot from the start. Where does morality and altruism come from ?