Philosophy Discussion Forums

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Meta Island wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 7:16 pm

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

I don’t understand nihilism. Doesn’t it contradict its foundations? My understanding is that it rejects the existence of, among other things, knowledge and meaning. But doesn’t it present itself as a type of meaningful knowledge?

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 7:47 pm

Meta Island wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 7:16 pm

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

I don’t understand nihilism. Doesn’t it contradict its foundations? My understanding is that it rejects the existence of, among other things, knowledge and meaning. But doesn’t it present itself as a type of meaningful knowledge?

I mean that there’s no moral or immoral.

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 2:26 am Many claim that evolution does not have a direction. I tend towards empiricism and, as far as I can tell, evolution has very clearly shown a direction, towards ever greater complexity, sophistication and specialisation.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2022, 10:04 am

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 2:26 am Many claim that evolution does not have a direction. I tend towards empiricism and, as far as I can tell, evolution has very clearly shown a direction, towards ever greater complexity, sophistication and specialisation.

I think we sometimes tend to consider evolution as if it was a mindfully-guided process. This leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. Evolution is a mechanism whereby difference can emerge by mutation. Mindless mutation that occurs by chance, not design. Mutations are not even selected; they just happen. Most don't survive because they are, in some way, non-viable. But sometimes, a mutation occurs that confers some degree of success upon the mutated animal, and so that trait is preserved, or can be.

Evolution does tend in the direction(s) you describe, but it's never planned and always, I suppose, unexpected. We could look at it as Nature trying out different combinations, but randomly, not with a direction or purpose.

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2022, 10:04 am

Arbu123 wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 3:24 pm Evolution appears to be allowing full potential. Does this argument hold up nihilism alone? Duality says, “Yes.” Free will says, “Yes.” Even metaphysical arguments, like Heaven AND Hell say, “Yes.” What do you guys think? Adaptation—to me—seems like it’s a way species are becoming “better” according to their surroundings. Even though evolution is a priori, I think it’s correct. If evolution becomes accepted, or proven, will nihilism fall in line shortly after?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 2:26 am Many claim that evolution does not have a direction. I tend towards empiricism and, as far as I can tell, evolution has very clearly shown a direction, towards ever greater complexity, sophistication and specialisation.

I think we sometimes tend to consider evolution as if it was a mindfully-guided process. This leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. Evolution is a mechanism whereby difference can emerge by mutation. Mindless mutation that occurs by chance, not design. Mutations are not even selected; they just happen. Most don't survive because they are, in some way, non-viable. But sometimes, a mutation occurs that confers some degree of success upon the mutated animal, and so that trait is preserved, or can be.

Evolution does tend in the direction(s) you describe, but it's never planned and always, I suppose, unexpected. We could look at it as Nature trying out different combinations, but randomly, not with a direction or purpose.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 27th, 2022, 8:51 pm In terms of nature v nurture, I see DNA as "stored nurture", especially with epigenetics being found to be influential. Thus "nature" is really just the "nurture" of previous generations. DNA carries history (and pre-history) that helps to shape the present. DNA holds the unspoken life lessons of our ancestors, passing on attributes to their offspring that helped them to survive and breed.

Certainly researchers are using DNA to extract stories from ancient times about both the organism and its environment.

Meta Island wrote: ↑September 27th, 2022, 9:54 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 27th, 2022, 8:51 pm In terms of nature v nurture, I see DNA as "stored nurture", especially with epigenetics being found to be influential. Thus "nature" is really just the "nurture" of previous generations. DNA carries history (and pre-history) that helps to shape the present. DNA holds the unspoken life lessons of our ancestors, passing on attributes to their offspring that helped them to survive and breed.

Certainly researchers are using DNA to extract stories from ancient times about both the organism and its environment.

Reverse engineering DNA programming, stepping through the changes, will look eerily like DNA self-awareness. 😊

Arbu123 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2022, 3:37 pm I think what I was pondering was that evolution’s great direction was FULL POTENTIAL. To allow anything and give potential to everything. That idea gave nihilism a nest, so to speak. I’m not sure if it’s correct to evolve into full potential, though. I’d rather be able to do anything than be able to do a limited amount of things and it’s in our nature to be violent AND forgiving.

Empiricism seems right, especially when the imagination and emotions are considered senses—as if we had seven instead of five because without ideas to think up, we’re left with only a few senses guiding our advancement.

The notion that extinction is paramount to vital change is scary and crude. I think the adaptation to threats and dangers just made us stronger. There’s no way that there’s a space—a giant, complex organism—guiding rocks to preserve the life of man. There’s no interactions with it outside of presumed planned rock attacks. He never says hi, go **** yourself or anything. Meh…different discussion. Evolution still seems to be an adaptation or change into a better or more successful state. The direction that we’re changing or correcting is the debate. I think it’s full potential and that nihilism’s the root of the tree that bears fruit.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 27th, 2022, 8:51 pm In terms of nature v nurture, I see DNA as "stored nurture", especially with epigenetics being found to be influential. Thus "nature" is really just the "nurture" of previous generations. DNA carries history (and pre-history) that helps to shape the present. DNA holds the unspoken life lessons of our ancestors, passing on attributes to their offspring that helped them to survive and breed.

Certainly researchers are using DNA to extract stories from ancient times about both the organism and its environment.