Ranvier wrote:Spectrum
You seem to “confuse” multiple concepts in your own rhetoric to claim “empirical evidence”. You like to use these scientific terms: “empirical”, “evidence”, “facts”, “proofs”, “evolution”, “bell curve”…etc. All these words have a specific meaning in a proper context but in a literary style anyone can use such words for “artistic” purpose to add “flavor” to own rhetoric, similar to using a medical term “myopic” to designate a narrow point of view. However, you seem to be serious in non-metaphorical use of such words to “confabulate” your own context as facts. You also seem to take bits and pieces of knowledge of other people from all over the place, which are out of context from the intellectual achievement of these individuals, to “stitch” these pieces into your own “concoction”.
One moment you’re talking about the biological evolution, and then move to the increase in “self-awareness” and the development of the “inherent moral standard”. This is “stitching” of a scientific concept of evolution with philosophical concepts of “mind” and a sociological (cultural) concept of “morality”. Obviously, the human “reality” is not isolated in anyone field of study but it requires an extraordinary mind to “merge” all these fields of knowledge into an “organic” full perspective. The absence of such mind can be easily recognized when one field of knowledge is used to “undermine” or “discredit” another field of knowledge.
I note you are making a lot of noises.
Progress is only effective from a multi-disciplinary approach. Point is, as I had always said your thinking is too shallow and narrow and you don't have the mental capacity to deal with problems from a multi-facets approach.
If you have the capacity and patience you will be able to reconcile and align all the various elements I have introduced into a common theme.
Take Lawrence Krauss for instance, a well-known theoretical physicist that “ridicules” theists at any opportunity to express his opinions. Sometimes I wonder how such people can “do science” without a clear understanding of the “purview” of the scientific method to investigate the material reality but has nothing to do with the philosophical question of “being” or “God”, since science simply isn’t charged with answering such questions. The best scientific answer is “I don’t know” or there is no scientific method to disprove “God” theory. To claim “evidence” to the contrary is neither science nor wisdom.
Don't compare me with Lawrence Krauss as I don't share his views on the finer nuances of reality.
As for your claim for the “evolutionary” visible “progress” in “self-awareness”, first you must define what “progress” means. Aside from the fact that “evolution” is observed as the genetic changes over an extended period of time that are marked by a significant “adaptation” that demarcate a “new species”. There is no reason to “believe” that any “clone” of the human genetic material within Homo sapiens species, even from 70K years ago, would grow up any differently from any modern child. There isn’t any indication of significant changes in the human brain that would support your “theory” of increase in “self-awareness”. What you’re talking about are the cultural and social changes that describe a civilization, where “progress” is relative to such definition. Just because I can’t “imagine” living without the antibiotics or pain medication 10K years ago, this doesn’t mean that we made a significant progress that someone from that time period wouldn’t be “disgusted” or terrified by our modern way of life, where people from that time period didn’t kill each other with cruel efficiency of the nerve gas or nuclear weapons.
Progress in general mean improvement from a previous state.
Evolution: any process of formation or growth; development:
I did not confine the above to only the biological perspective.
Note I mentioned:
"
the increase in knowledge in every field of knowledge, the various technological progress, etc" from 100, 200 or 2000 years ago.
I presume this is so obvious. You want me to provide examples??
Your link to the UN accord on Slavery Convention is an accurate description of our modern prison system. Times change, our technology advances, yet our human nature is quite similar to the early Homo sapiens.
Again you are thinking too shallowly.
Note Maclean's
Triune Brain [has its critics] is representative of the state of the human brain which is stacked progressively from one phase of evolution to another. According to the Triune Brain theory the human brain is stacked upon the animal [limbic] and the reptilian brain.
So the point is while we advance, the reptilian and animal nature remain permanently in the basement of the brain and their impulses are merely modulated by neural inhibitors. At our present state the neural inhibitors [being newer] are not strong enough to modulate the primal impulses effective but we are progressing.
Our thinking brain can conceive of the highest ideals while our current state of actions cannot match any ideal intentions. But humanity is striving to closer and closer toward the ideals. What wrong with forward looking and planning for the better and progress? This is exactly what humanity is doing with slavery, i.e. we are progressing and it is considered fast.
Note Kant critique [Critique of Pure Reason] the thinking brain in thinking [using Pure and Primal reason] too far ahead to the extent it jump beyond the empirical and its related elements to an illusory God.
OTOH, Kant's morality do think of absolute moral values only as a guide to the practical and not insisting such absolute exists independently like Plato's universals.
"slaves" ??? this is your rhetorical invention.
Slavery is not my invention; it’s a reality that stems from minds of the “chosen people” with a “superior intellect” and “reasoning”, as per your “twisted” bell curve of 1% vs the rest. The greatest threat to humanity is the humanity itself, where my claim is that we grew too fast for the intellectual level of
Homo sapiens. You bypassed the answer to the “trolley dilemma” with your “Kantian” approach, whatever that means, which is no different to a group mentality from 3,000 years ago and what any individual would do in protecting one’s family today. So please stop talking about the universal morality, especially since you make some “wild” claims about the “
inherent absolute moral standards” as the basis for human law and the judicial system.
It is a tedious debate, my view is the 'casuistry' approach is a cheapskate model. I suggest you research into all the known morality & ethical models and compare them.
Yes, humanity with its self-awareness and reasoning power has grew too fast but humanity is catching up. Humanity's inherent propensity to progress and deal with problems will catch up.
The fundamentals of laws and the judiciary are adapted from on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is not God given but based on the inherent absolute moral standards within humanity. The ground is linked to survival and preservation of the species. If this 'Thou Shall Not Kill' is NOT made universal then in theory the human species will go extinct thus contrary to its implicit 'purpose' [not ontological].
That absolutely makes no sense to the "trolley dilemma" nor the fact that we kill each other by millions and the fact that human life becomes even more "cheap" as the population grows.
Has humanity killed more than the number killed since WWII? This show humanity is continuously learning from the past and to progress into the future.
You keep ignoring our inherent propensity for greater and greater moral values to prevail and I have given the example of the mission on the elimination of slavery.
I ask again… where does this “absolute moral standard” come from? Is it Genetics, with “morality” being coded in our DNA? Or is it the secular superior reasoning, where you want to “tweak” human brains to remove the “zombie parasite”. Why bother, “infected” is infected and if “it” poses a threat to the greater good, let us just “nuke them”... sarcastic, of course
At present, the claim is the 'absolute moral standards' come from God [do not exists btw] via holy books. This is useful relatively but ultimately it is a sham.
The "absolute moral standard" will come from secular reasoning at the highest level and will be shared via consensus by all of humanity. There is no relative superiority when the majority has high average reasoning powers. At that point in the future the average reasoning power of humanity could be something like 100 times the present average.
As for "zombie parasite" which is inherent and unavoidable humanity will improve the strength of the neural inhibitors for the majority [hopefully all] so that one can modulate the primal impulse that enable to the "zombie parasite" to be active.
For those who are theists, pantheists and has elements of theism, unfortunately for them the 'zombie parasite' are still active and is subliminally compelling them towards the ideal of theism as driven by Pure or Primal reasoning.
-- Updated Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:49 pm to add the following --
[b]Atreyu[/b] wrote:I agree more with Belindi and Ranvier vs Spectrum. You really have to be idealistic to think we're "making progress" as a species, and even more idealistic to tie that progress exclusively to the concepts of natural selection and genetic drift.
My view is that this "new age" idealism is based on being mesmerized by all our wonderful technology and its augmentation and "progress" over time, the end result of which will be the quick, efficient, and complete obliteration of our species.
Birds of feathers, that is only natural.
Note my definition of 'progress' and 'evolution' above which is not tie solely to biological related evolution.
I suggest you strip your brain naked for some instances and think from outside the box instead of being compelled by that inherent and unavoidable "zombie parasite."
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.