Is evolution correct?

For the record, I do not embrace your form of hard determinism. I have attempted to correct the inaccurate projection of your unrealistic perception of determinism onto others' stated philosophies. All in an attempt to demonstrate you have assembled a strawman to dismantle. I believe most have grasped my intent.

Clearly you, Canadianslidewinder, have not grasped my intent. You are convinced that I believe in your misguided form of hard determinism. I do not.

As I touched upon earlier, no single philosophy captures everything in our chaotic world. No philosophy, regardless of its truthiness. negates another philosophy.

I am slightly pleased to see you are baffled by your perception that I and others embrace your warped view of hard determinism. You recognize that something is wrong. One day you might find where that fault lies.

Sam Harris is the hard determinist of hard determinists, and TINAC posted a Sam Harris video on free will/determinism. He or someone else I think posted a second Sam Harris video (I don't feel like looking for it among 400+ posts). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that TINAC shares Harris's views, which are so rigid that there is no room for any moral evaluation of human actions, for the ameliorating influence of compatibilism. If you disagree with Harris's philosophy, you could have made that clear by commenting on the posted video, but you didn't. In any case, why should your views interest me? Your participation in the discussion has been from the sidelines - singing praises for everything TINAC writes, and flinging insults at me.

Yeah, it's all about you.

An 'evaluation of human actions' is still necessary even if not based on your morals.

Comisserate consequences for certain actions is one thing that can shape the 'decisions' made by individuals. The part you fail to understand is that individuals are not free to make free decisions. Those 'choices' are actually the culmination of genetics, epigenetic influences, conditioning and current understanding of the environment. You can no more make a free choice than you can decide to like or dislike rum raisin icecream. You might be compelled to pretend you like or dislike it, but that is also not a free choice.

I am familiar with Sam Harris's position, which you are parroting. On the spectrum of free will to determinism, he is a hard determinist, and so apparently, are you. There are problems with that position which you refuse to acknowledge, so there is nothing to gain in continuing this discussion. I suggest you read other views on this unsettled question.

You wrote in your previous #424 post that you missed where I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning, and asked if I could direct you to them. Gladly. Please refer to posts #398, 402, 407, 413.

Your problem with a lack of free will interfering with the application of your moral judgment is not an argument that offers any support for the existence of free will. At all. It is a problem with your ideas about how your morals should be applied.

The remainder of your comments only repeatedly state that there is no judgment of animal behavior because, in your mind animals don't make choices but people do. There are multiple reasons that this is not a valid argument about free will in people or animals, but there is no need to go further than realizing that your premise is false. People do judge animals for their behavior. In fact. Animals that kill people are regularly executed. People are also executed for killing people. Bears, alligators, crocs, sharks, leopards, elephants, and other animals are regularly executed for killing or injuring humans.

However you want to spin that, the fact is we punishment animals that behave badly. We also do this for people. Our treatment of animals or people had no bearing on if their actions result from free will or not. Treatment is after the fact.

Animals make choices all the time, maybe driven by evolved instincts. Sometimes we imagine the choices because we like the idea, but many things don't matter for them (a lesson we humans can learn). I once made hamburgers for my dog, one with ketchup, one with mustard, one with soy sauce, and one with nothing He ate them all, nearest first, certainly could smell the difference, but the amounts I put in didn't matter.

As for humans and free will, consider the insanity defense, to be used by teen-ager Crumbley in defense of his killing students with parent-provided gun.

And the legends of Eve and Pandora where curiosity led to our mortality and many evils, but is also responsible for our ability to deal with them. Legends don't stay around for long if they don't ring our bells.

Your reference to the insanity defence is interesting. Our legal system is predicated on the belief in free will, that people are able to choose between right and wrong, and therefore are responsible for their actions. An insanity defence asserts that the defendant, because of mental derangement, does not have free will, lacks the capacity to choose between right and wrong, and is therefore not responsible for his actions.

If our legal system were instead predicated on a belief in determinism, particularly hard determinism of the type espoused by TINAC, an insanity defence would no longer be possible, because all defendants would already be in the category we now reserve for the insane - individuals deemed not responsible for their actions.

What would be insane would be to eschew empirical methods for understanding what is actually occuring in the world and instead prognosticate about what reality must surely be by inference from the rules and regulations used by a large bureaucratic institution, as if you were reading tea leaved from US Code.

Your cart is well in front of your thoroughly beaten dead horse.

Your quote: "Your cart is well in front of your thoroughly beaten dead horse."

Surely, I do not need to point out that it is you, not I, who continues to re-open this discussion after days of silence.

It is simple reasoning that if our legal system were predicated on a belief in determinism instead of free will, an insanity defence would not be possible because it would place all plaintiffs into the category now reserved for the insane - the category of individuals who have no responsibility for their actions. Nothing in your post refutes this.

It is also you, not I, "who eschews empirical methods " and accepts as fact the untestable hypothesis of determinism. From my recent #436 post:

Determinists assert that all of a person's genetics, life experiences, and current state of the universe combine to form a 'cause', which produces an 'effect', the effect being the person's action at that particular moment. There is only one possible action as a result of the cause, the determinist says, so therefore there is no choice. If that is the case, then if we were to thoroughly know all of the factors that comprise the 'cause', then we could predict exactly what the person's next action will be - just as we can predict the movement of a struck billiard ball. We can accurately predict the movement of physical objects because in the past we formulated hypotheses, tested those hypothesis, and determined empirically what was true and what wasn't, but we cannot conceivably, in any imagined world, thoroughly know all of the 'cause' factors that determinists hypothetically relate to any and all human actions, so the determinism hypothesis cannot be tested. It is irrelevant that it 'makes sense'. Before the Michelson/Morley experiment the hypothesis of an interstellar medium to carry light also made sense. But again, that was an hypothesis that could be tested. The determinism hypothesis cannot be tested and therefore will remain an unprovable mental construct.

No matter how many times you demonstrate that his strawman argument proves nothing he's going to come back and set up his scarecrow until he can do a victory dance.

I find there are two significant problems with all of the logical fallacies.

The first problem is that they actually do not prove or disprove anything. Thus whether one approves or disapproves of the proffered fallacy the truth of the situation is still unproven. Many unrelated truths have been used by logical fallacies to support all sorts of false and sometimes evil premises. Sometimes the premise is also true but the logical fallacy does not actually support that truth.

The second problem is far more insidious. Logical fallacies subductively resemble thoughtful, valid proofs. Thoughtful, valid proofs are difficult to craft and usually require a team of individuals to craft an accurate proof after many iterations. In contrast, logical fallacies thrive all around us. Just look closely at any advertising campaign.

Getting back to the original discussion, free will is an illusion for every choice taken has constraints. These constraints vary from individual to individual but all individuals have some constraint on every choice they make. There is an uncertain grey area in this discussion. Once one accepts that one's choices are limited but one does have choices to choose from (wisely or foolishly) then how does man or beast choose? In many games (D&D) this is answered by a random value generator (dice). People are notoriously bad at making truly random choices. Many mentalists, illusionists, magicians, and many less noble charlatans regularly demonstrate how people can be unknowingly influenced to make a preferred choice.

I hope canadianslidewinder will thoughtfully consider what I've written here.

Yes, if an animal kills a person, that animal is usually shot if it can be found, but this is done without moral judgement of the animal's behaviour. We mourn a hiker who is killed by a grizzly but we feel no contempt for the bear. We understand that the bear was just acting in accordance with its nature. We do however feel contempt for a person who murders another. You are either unable or unwilling to grasp this simple distinction between an animal killing a human, and a human killing a human, and are either unable or unwilling to grasp why there is this distinction.

A determinist, who asserts that humans, just like animals, do not have free will and are therefore unaccountable for their actions, should view the murderer of a child as simply an "agent of bad behaviour" (to use your words), with no moral judgement attached. There should be no contempt for the perpetrator, just as there is no contempt for a bear that kills a hiker. But a determinist's reaction is the same as the reaction of someone who believes in free will. He reacts with outrage and contempt. Why? Because he believes the perpetrator could have acted differently, that he had a choice. Therefore the determinist's reaction of contempt reveals a belief in free will beneath his deterministic facade.

In my post #407 I specifically state that this is not presented as a proof of free will, nor a disproof of determinism, since no proof on either side has yet been made, but it is evidence that most humans react as if they believe in free will, regardless of what they profess.

You need to tone down your angry certainty that you and Sam Harris have ended the free will/determinism debate. The most cursory review of the literature shows that the debate is very much alive.

I see no anger in TINAC's or my own reply to your statements. You might be projecting your own anger then. Even though I predicted you would continue to erect your strawman, I do feel some frustration that you continue to cling to this ploy.

Let me make offer one last thought experiment for you to consider. Instead of showing "moral outrage" towards the murder of a child, why doesn't the one with free will just resurrect the murdered child?

"..., do not have free will and are therefore unaccountable for their actions..."

.

Free will in someone is not a necessary condition for justifying the need for consequences for their behavior.

.

You assume everyone feels as you do, but some feel contempt for a murderous animal and others do not feel contempt for a murderous human (yet still understand the need to hold murderers accountable). When someone acts heinously it is not uncommon for some to lable the person an "animal".

Contempt is not even a necessary component of a penal system, much less some telltale of free will nor a sense of self. RedFred is right, red herrings and strawmen all around.

"..., do not have free will and are therefore unaccountable for their actions..." (my quote)

This is why your earlier two analogies - one of a baboon, the other of a malfunctioning robot - fell apart, and you abandoned them. We all accept that neither animals nor robots have free will and are therefore unaccountable for their actions. That is why we feel no contempt for marauding animals and malfunctioning robots. This is not "assuming everyone feels as I do". It is irrational to feel contempt for a creature that can only act in accordance with its nature, or for a machine that can only act in accordance with its programming.

Speaking of straw man arguments: My point is not that a feeling of contempt is a necessary component of a penal system. Nowhere in my post do I refer to a penal system. My point is twofold: 1) That since we feel no contempt for a malfunctioning robot that has no free will, then if we believe humans also have no free will, it is irrational to feel contempt for a person who commits a heinous act (as an aside, it would also be irrational to feel admiration for a person for some achievement). But we do feel contempt. Determinists and free will believers alike feel contempt. 2) The determinist's reaction of outrage and contempt tells the world (and himself if he is honest) that he doesn't believe his own determinist philosophy. He labels the perpetrator an 'animal' because he believes the perpetrator chose to forfeit his humanity.

You are wrong about contempt. People do feel contempt for nonhuman things.

If a dog at the dog park kills your dog, it would not be strange to feel contempt for the dog.

People do not generally have the illusion of control over steong emotions like contempt.

If you see a video playing with someone giving a lecture (you feel unfairly) about how you are a bad person, how you scam others and hurt the weak and dishonor elderly heroes, you will likely feel contempt for them, when you hear their name. If this goes on with regularity for an extended time you will likely have a bad reaction everytime you see their likeness or hear then slandering you. When you later find out that the personality that has been your continual nemesis is in fact an AI generated virtual person and not someone flesh, you are unlikely to shed that contempt for the virtual personality

.

I did not abandon my previous analogies out of any fault therein. I haven't repeated those because they are already written down for those who might choose to consider. I don't need to keep trotting those around. They didn't reach you and it wouldn't help to repeat. If you want to try again, they are still in the comments where you originally found them.

Ho hum.

If one feels contempt for a dog because of some action of the dog, it is because of a belief that the dog chose to act as it did. This is attributing free will to the dog.

If one mistakenly thinks that AI slanders against oneself are coming from an actual person, there will be a mistaken feeling of contempt, but if it is learned that the utterances are AI generated, any thinking person will transfer their contempt to the AI programmer, because we attribute to the programmer that which we do not attribute to an AI machine - free will.

But let us suppose, as you assert, that in the AI case you, TINAC, bizarrely continue to feel contempt for the virtual personality even after you learn that it is a virtual personality; and let us also suppose that, equally bizarrely you do not transfer or feel any contempt for the programmer. The only reason for these reactions is because you believe the AI generated personality chose to slander you; and you believe the programmer did not choose to slander you. If we include your dog illustration, you therefore hold the odd (and humorous) determinist position that both a dog and a robot have free will, but people don't.

I am beginning to think a dog or a robot might be able to better (than you) understand the straight forward explanatjon I have been giving you that does not involve a reality in which dogs and robots hqv3 free will but that human do not. Your mischaracterization is without merrit and your repetition of it suggests a lack of creativity on your own part.

A dog may harbor an illusion of free will, much as you apparently do. I'm uncertain as I haven't been in either of those two heads.

What is your favorite color? Do you like the taste of pepper? What is your first language and do you think having that as your first language affects the way you experience the world? Do you have light colored eyes or dark and does this affect your choice to wear sunglasses or not? Are you male or female and does this affect any of your daily decisions?

How much of the above were conscious choices made by you?

Your quote: "Your mischaracterization is without merrit and your repetition of it suggests a lack of creativity on your own part."

It is you, not I, who repeatedly uses illustrations involving animals and robots to argue that it is rational to feel contempt for marauding animals and malfunctioning robots. Only if we attached moral responsibility to the actions of animals and robots would we feel contempt for the described behaviour. It is only humans we deem morally responsible, and thus, it is only humans who elicit our contempt if they choose to act in certain ways.

Your quote: "What is your favourite colour? Do you like the taste of pepper? ...etc." Does the colour of your eyes "affect your choice...etc."

Typical of the hard determinist, to avoid the problem of moral responsibility inherent to your position you use examples that are empty of moral content. Of course biology (genetics) and language (environment) affects one's choices, but that is not the determinist's position. The determinist's position is that genetics and environment dictate one's actions - that there is no choice, that at any given moment only one action is possible. If you presented this as an hypothesis, I would have no objection, but you present it as established fact. Even as an hypothesis, it is weak, because it is untestable. I make this argument in a recent post, and you have not refuted it.

"... I make this argument in a recent post, and you have not refuted it...."

You do your own self in here.

If you claim that the position (you claim is mine) is weak because you have decided it is untestable and you further claim that your own position stands in stark contrast to the position (you claim is mine) thus defining the positions as the opposites (either being the noncondition of the other) then you are calling out your own argument as weak.

If what you claim I am saying is untestable and defining it as the noncondition of your own argument, hen your own position has the same untestable quality you find so damning of the position you are so despirately trying to convince everyone that I believe.

The difference is that I have never presented free will as proven fact, whereas that is how you have presented determinism.

When I wrote recently that our legal system is predicated on a belief in free will, it was a simple observation. I did not add "and therefore it is true". You, in your own mind, added those words. Search my posts. Nowhere do I present free will as fact. I have stated several times that there is no proof on either side of the question. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly and insultingly suggested that I am too dim witted to accept the established fact of determinism. Shall I return the insult? Are you unable or unwilling to understand that it is an untestable hypothesis?

A day has passed, TINAC. It is time to abandon your religious belief in determinism. Of your own free will, write: Determinism is an untestable hypothesis.

Some lessons can only be learned by picking a cat up by the tail! ...Mark Twain

contempt

1: a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approvalHe feels that wealthy people view/regard him with contempt because he is poor.He spoke with contempt in his voice.See More Examples

2: a lack of respect for or fear of something that is usually respected or fearedThey have acted with contempt for public safety. [=they have completely ignored public safety]He has a contempt for danger. [=he ignores danger; he is not afraid of doing things that other people are afraid to do]

3law : speech or behavior that does not show proper respect to a court or judge

Merriam Webster appears to show that contempt is not something exclusively felt toward people nor exclusive felt toward things that might allegedly have free will.

Thus I am free to understand my contempt for your meritless argument without needing to experience contempt for you, yourself.

Definition meaning #1 is the one that applies. "A feeling that someone or something is not worthy of respect or approval." (underlining added)

That definition was written under the presupposition in Western civilization that we have free will. Understandably, none of the given examples refer to animals or robots. It is irrational of you, as a hard determinist, to accept that definition. Necessary components of your determinist belief are that animals, robots, and humans have no choice, that all are compelled in their actions. If all are compelled to act in a particular way, it is irrational to feel contempt for any action or for the agent of any action, even if the action causes human injury or death. Contempt, that is, disrespect or disapproval of an action or for the agent of an action, is only possible if the capacity to make a choice is recognized, and as a consequence of that, the moral responsibility of the actor is accepted. Under your hard determinism, moral responsibility does not exist, and therefore neither does contempt.

I am still waiting for your response to my assertion that you are presenting the untestable hypothesis of determinism as fact.

Bulletin ------- Bulletin ------- Bulletin ------- Bulletin -------- Bulletin

This just in. Any word found in the dictionary with multiple definitions can be used to mean any of those definitions. The reader must use the rest of the sentence and possibly the paragraph to determine which definition applies. If a word has only one unique definition then only one unique definition will be found in the dictionary.

This lesson in reading comprehension is brought to us by an old public television favorite.

You overlooked your fractional quote of definition #1 states "A feeling that someone or something is not worthy of respect or approval." (Bold and italics highlighting added by me.) Do all things have free will? They do not all have free will, particularly many things not part of the set labeled "someone."

You have some serious reading comprehension problems. While this does explain your frequent assembly of strawman arguments this does not validate those arguments.

"A feeling that someone or something is not worthy of respect or approval." (Bold and italics highlighting added by me) - from your post

If 'someone' pushes an old lady to the ground and steals her purse, then the behaviour is something most people would find contemptible.

I appreciate redfred, that you, like TINAC, would probably feel an irrational contempt for a robot that injures someone, rather than feeling a rational contempt for the person who chose to programme the robot to cause that injury. After all, here we have a 'something' (the robot) and a 'someone' (the programmer), and by the dictionary definition you can feel contempt for "someone or something" (underlining added), with no considerations of rationality - and irrationality is in accord with TINAC's position.

Last week at the LA-SFO football game, in the parking lot, an LA fan punched an SFO fan in the face, and the punchee fell to the ground seriously injured. Later, they found the puncher and videos that show the punchee "started it."

"Free will" has constraints. If you are "free," on what do your choices depend? The constraints are bases for choices within a multidimensional spectrum of behaviors, and a balance of past, present and future. Even in plants and chickens the activity is response to genetics, recent experience and immediate circumstances.

Defining the extremes may draw attention away from the space between them, which may be more uncomfortable but also more real.

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. {Here "abysmal" means extremely poor or bad.} I've repeatedly tried to get you to understand the meanings of the words I and others have posted. Instead, you have repeatedly made leaps of confusion. (That brief Scientific American article is behind a paywall but for those with a subscription it is worth the few minutes to read it.) Nowhere in the comment to which you are replying have I mentioned anything about a robot or how a robot gets programmed. You are just fabricating another strawman argument in your long lineage of strawman arguments.

I am not a determinist, hard-line or otherwise. I have only tried to correct your misunderstandings of presented determinism ideas, particularly that determinism does not preclude morality or penal codes. I've repeatedly pointed out how many different philosophies clash with each other but no philosophy prevents the existence of another philosophy. I have also pleaded with you to take this philosophical argument to a philosophy forum but unless you improve your reading comprehension or at the very least acknowledge when you might misunderstand a presented concept you might find the philosophy forums much less tolerant than here. They certainly won't accept fundamental misunderstandings of boolean logic.

Lastly, did you notice that nobody has come to your defense? That should tell you something.

No, you did not mention anything about a robot or how a robot gets programmed. That was part of an analogy TINAC posted some time ago in which he tried to make the case that one could reasonably feel contempt for a non-human entity. Thus my reference to TINAC's thinking and how your readiness to ignore the irrationality of contempt for a non-human entity aligns with his. My reply was germane (germane: relevant to the subject under discussion).

Your quote: "I have only tried to correct your misunderstandings of presented determinism ideas, particularly that determinism does not preclude morality or penal codes." You have done no such thing. Your sole participation has been shout insults at me from the sidelines, and to sing praises for everything TINAC writes.

Well, at least you admit you cannot maintain a cohesive discussion. By that I mean your reply to an entry may not have anything to do with that immediately preceding entry, not some subject decades of entries earlier.

The reason why many of my replies agree with TINAC is I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding of his words or the link he provided.

My attempts to show when you or anyone is presenting a logical fallacy are not intended to insult. I just see the premise presented is superfluous and possibly misleading to a discussion.

I have been harsh when you impose your perspective onto other people's thoughts. You have no right to speak for others' views and thoughts solely because your perspective makes sense to you. You might be right, you might be wrong. You don't know.

Your quote: "Well, at least you admit you cannot maintain a cohesive discussion. By that I mean your reply to an entry may not have anything to do with that immediately preceding entry, not some subject decades of entries earlier."

I referred to TINAC's robot analogy, which he originally presented some days ago, but it has remained in the forefront of our exchange. Yesterday (Feb.5) in post #448 he included a robot reference. That was a couple of hours before I replied to you. I reasonably expected that you, as TINAC's self-appointed one man cheering squad, would not be confused by my cohesive reference to the subject on which he had wrote earlier the same day.

We are the intersection of our genetics, our upbringing (including cultures, belonging), the things that happen to us, and our choices. Other animals too, but proportions vary.

It's clear that evolution "works." I would be handicapped if I needed perfection to sanctify an opinion. The original question was why did it work so well for humans, to which I'd add why the resistance? Denial or limiting evolution serves a function, too. See the bottom of Pandora's box.

"The original question was why did it work so well for humans, to which I'd add why the resistance?"

Define "work so well": This is a breakdown of "Carbon biomass" on the planet; note that the square on the right is a zoom of the tiny little grey corner labelled animals in the bottom right hand corner of the square on the left.

From https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

There are only 7 billion humans on earth. The minimum guess at the number of ants is 1,000,000,000,000,000 (a million billion).

There are lots of things about this graphics which surprised me: look at bacteria (70 Gt C) compared to animals (2 Gt C); look at fungi compared to animals.

I was shocked at the comparison of livestock to wild animals.

In fact livestock outweigh us by nearly double (5:3), and given the difference in lifespan, you could easily argue that being the favourite food of another successful species which cultivates (is that the correct word for growing livestock?) its food is a better strategy. We think we are manipulating the genes of cattle and chicken, but, maybe there genes are manipulating us?

Maybe Douglas Adam's cow at the restaurant at the end of the universe wasn't far from the mark. On the other hand maybe his Dolphins "So long and thanks for all the fish" could be replaced with cattle "So long and thanks for all the grass" or chickens "So long and thanks for all the grain"?

I'd like to define "work so well" but each of us might see differently. I don't want to overlook my other question of why the resistance, as this is what I see in the world and in this thread. There is even resistance to discussing the resistance.

"There is even resistance to discussing the resistance"

I thought I was discussing it by pointing out that it's difficult to define "work so well" in a way which results in <evolution> working so well for humans.

Apart from the rather obvious difference in numerical and mass numbers, I have pointed out in several other posts in this thread that very many creatures have much bigger differential changes due to evolution than the changes which we have experienced to our brains. (Elephant's trunks, giraffe's necks, spider's ability to make a material stronger than steel, electric eels ability, and, many more.)

I know that the livestock argument is a bit trite, but, even if you forget animals we raise for their meat: consider laying hens. The planet produces about 4 billion chicken eggs every day; laying hens produce on average less than 1 egg per day over a working life of about 5 to 6 years; that means that at current rates there will be about 40 billion laying hens alive during a human lifetime of 60 years. Think about it from the selfish gene's point of view. I wonder how many wheat or rice plants are grown in a year.

Maybe I wasn't clear or I misunderstood. I see that spiders and other self-reproducing things have specialized and evolved properties. I was reacting to the polarized "determinism vs free will" arguments that have dominated this thread, and the reluctance to see the spectrum of opinions and even laws in-between. It's an example of the comfort of commitment to an extreme which like the real poles of the earth, help us function and navigate, but (almost) nobody lives there. It's a proxy war between creation and evolution, argued for centuries, but formerly with a need for the unexplainable (miracles) in almost everyone, as we didn't understand disease and genetics and chemistry as we do today.

It's the same game on a different field. It relates to the appeal of belonging to a group, the communications "revolution" (internet, satellites, social media, etc.), and the current world rivalries. And the survival advantage of interhuman cooperation and kindness.

The species with considerably shorter generation cycle times and with more prolific offsprings will always out evolve those species with fewer generations. Evolution is a numbers game.

I apologize to one and all for my part in this off-topic hijacking of this thread over determinism versus free will. I said this before but I truly hope to not be lured into it again.

Holy Moley! There are a huge number of nematodes!

If nematodes have a mass around 4 micrograms per individual (roughly the average for the average mass of individuals in the various families http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/Ecology/nematode_weights.htm ) then 0.02 Gt of nematodes is about 5 quintillion individual nematodes, 5×10^18 nematodes.

That is a little under a billion nematode individuals for each individual human.

In light of those numbers and an estimated one million species of nematode that have adapted to almost everywhere we have looked on (or in) Earth (as long as the temperature is below a little the boiling point of water and the chemistry and radiation levels aren't egregiously unfriendly); I nominate nematodes as the phylum in the animal kingdom for which evolution has worked the best.

Every human on the planet could be placed in a 1 mile square cube,with plenty of elbow room.(5280^3).

^{We are not that significant,except in the amount of non-recyclable waste we produce.}

The premise of determinism is derived from the physical sciences, on cause and effect. We can predict, for example, what will happen when one billiard ball strikes another. We can design a complex mechanism and precisely predict the action of that mechanism. We can design a building and predict whether it will stand up or fall down. The value of our knowledge of the physical world is that it enables accurate cause and effect predictions.

Determinists assert that all of a person's genetics, life experiences, and current state of the universe combine to form a 'cause', which produces an 'effect', the effect being the person's action at that particular moment. There is only one possible action as a result of the cause, the determinist says, so therefore there is no choice. If that is the case, then if we were to thoroughly know all of the factors that comprise the 'cause', then we could predict exactly what the person's next action will be - just as we can predict the movement of a struck billiard ball. We can accurately predict the movement of physical objects because in the past we formulated hypotheses, tested those hypothesis, and determined empirically what was true and what wasn't, but we cannot conceivably, in any imagined world, thoroughly know all of the 'cause' factors that determinists hypothetically relate to any and all human actions, so the determinism hypothesis cannot be tested. It is irrelevant that it 'makes sense'. Before the Michelson/Morley experiment the hypothesis of an interstellar medium to carry light also made sense. But again, that was an hypothesis that could be tested. The determinism hypothesis cannot be tested and therefore will remain an unprovable mental construct.

"... and when I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning ..."

I missed that. Perhaps you could point those out.

Well, there isn't much to rebut in your #406 post is there? You are making the same error in reasoning as you made with your earlier story of a baboon that injures a family member. We never feel contempt towards either robots or animals because we accept that they do not have free will. Animals act in accordance with their nature; robots act in accordance with their programming.

However, by my life experience, everyone reacts with contempt toward a human perpetrator of a heinous act, and since the reaction of contempt is in accord with a belief in free will, I conclude that everyone I have ever known believes in free will (regardless of what they profess).

Maybe you are different. You assert that a man who commits a heinous act is analogous to a robot with faulty programming. In that case your reaction to say, the murder of a child, if it is rational and in accord with your robot analogy, and your philosophy, and if you are made of stone, would exclude feeling any contempt for the perpetrator. Nevertheless, if there were a contempt meter we could connect to your brain, I hypothesize that contempt is what we would see, and the free will believer inside your determinist exterior, would be plainly exposed. We would see that, as evidenced by your contempt, you believe that the child murderer could have acted differently, should have acted differently, that he had the freedom to choose.

Your egomaniacal solipsism is showing again. Your life experiences are different from others. The world does not exist just for you.

You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated one thing about libertarian, free will. Nothing outside of this individual, from the present or the past, can influence their free will. They are incapable of ever learning anything without renouncing their philosophy.

You repeatedly demonstrate binary thinking that is a cognitive distortion. You also project this binary thinking onto others for reasons that baffle me. Possibly your ego demands winning this unwinnable discussion.

Add to this the repeated demonstration of inaccurate writing and reading comprehension accuracy by many here and a perpetual thread fails to end.

Enough is enough. Please, end this.

All of Harris's examples are morally neutral. Choosing which city to visit has no moral dimension. The denial of free will argument does not fare so well when actions that can be judged as good or evil are considered, as illustrated in my previous post #337.

You demonstrate nothing in your post #337. You only restate the conclusion you came in with.

'CR4 is supposed to be an Engineering forum'. Let me apologize for all the non engineers who have made your life hell. And have dared to share insights of lesser knowledge that has not satisfied your plateau of understanding and advanced knowledge.

It is clear that IQ's question was far greater than could be attributed too. Pompousness is not evolution. Perhaps IQ is correct, evolution has stopped and is no longer correct. Devolution, more appropriately, does seem to fit our everyday lives.

Your apology is not needed but acknowledged and accepted. I enjoy interacting with people of all trades that respond to inquiries with reasoned thought. In this case, I bristled at unreferenced opinions proffered as edicts in response to my referenced comments. Forcing one's opinion on another is one of the tell-tale signs of a charlatan.

I apologize to the CR4 community for dragging this disagreement far beyond any usefulness. Long ago I believe I made my point well enough that reasoned people understood it. I foolishly thought I could get somebody to thoughtfully reflect on their bias.

"What is it that is so threatening to you about nonhumans being capable of self awareness and perhaps introspection?"

It's because it threatens his belief that we are somehow special or different from all other creatures (on earth).

Threatened? I am waiting for a definitive test of self-awareness in other species. For good reason I am not persuaded by the Mirror Test (see my post #190 reply to redfred). Declaring in a mocking tone, that I believe we are somehow special or different from all other creatures, is not an argument that we aren't.

You are obviously threatened with the idea that humans are not special, whether you admit it or not. In your relentless grandstanding of your irrational opinion over multiple experimental and observational citations I don't recall you ever proposing an experiment or observation that you agree would support the idea that some other species are also self-aware or introspective. You just irrationally dismiss any and all examples offered here.

You are also a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

You are entitled to having these opinions. I'm just getting very tired of you trying to ram them down our throats.

You nor anyone else here has referenced "multiple experimental and observational citations" showing evidence of self-awareness in other species. The only reference has been to the Mirror Test. I have rationally explained why I find that test unpersuasive. I leave it to investigators in this field to design a better experiment to test their hypothesis that other species possess self-awareness indistinguishable from that of humans. In the current absence of such a test it is unscientific of you to reject the possibility that humans are special. It shows a lack of (heh,heh) self-aware introspection.

Your fears have erased any reference to Alex in your mind. (May he rest in peace.)

As I expected, you refuse to propose an experiment or observation to show your definition of self-aware in animals just in case one already exists meeting that proposal.

I'm tired of your irrational, unsubstantiated opinions. The blatant lie that you will leave things up "...to investigators in this field to design a better experiment" is frankly shameful. Investigators have made multiple experiments where they even talk with animals but you dismiss them all.

OK,you asked for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGifKRV8Wys

REEDUMANDWEEP!

That's great. Now would you kindly explain why gorillas, despite of hundreds of hours of seeing their reflections in mirrors do not exhibit any behaviour that indicates they understand that it is their own image.

I gave you what you asked for, but there will never be enough to ghet you to think outside of your self-imposed prison of ignorance.

Now show proof of your claim.

Raise or call or fold..your move.

Remember,your answer is the product of all previous reactions going back to the BB.

"... My computer is not self-aware ...."

.

How do you know? Why are you so certain of the lack of something you may not be able to readily detect?

Please focus for a moment. I'm not saying your computer IS self-aware. I'm just asking where your high level of certaintly arises for something you claim doesn't exist yet for which you lack complete purview.

Your overreach is even more extreme when you claim to know what the thoughts of all reasonable people must surely be.

If you would verbally hedge your statements with words like 'probably' or 'likely' or 'could' to acknowledge that your claims are not infallable/that your understanding is not omniscience.

Hitekrednek2, in post #477, states with respect to the gorilla "the fact that she was self-aware". I note that you do not chastise him for not using qualifiers such as 'probably' or 'likely' or 'could' be self-aware, to "acknowledge that (his) claims are not infallable/that (his) understanding is not omniscience."

Hitekrednek2 provides nothing to support his claim that the gorilla is self-aware. He does mention that the gorilla is able to use gestures to communicate (ie: symbol recognition), so I assume that is his argument for the gorilla's self-awareness. My computer analogy is a refutation of what I reasonably assume to be his argument. Symbol recognition cannot be taken as evidence of self-awareness.

Your quote: "Your overreach is even more extreme when you claim to know what the thoughts of all reasonable people must surely be." You are of course referring to my assertion in our determinism/free will discussion that a reasonable person does not feel contempt for an entity with no capacity for choice, such as a robot, that malfunctions and causes human injury or death. You call this assertion extreme overreach? In my youth I worked one summer in the foundry/die casting department of Outboard Marine. A man lost his arm as the result of a malfunctioning machine. After the machine was returned to service, its operators remained understandably nervous for some time, but I assure you that no one expressed contempt for the machine. Expressing one's nervousness was accepted by others as understandable and rational. Had you been there, and after that accident had expressed contempt for the machine, as if the machine had deliberately crushed the poor man's arm, you would have been ridiculed.

Contempt is not reserved exclusively for humans. That is why the definition specifies ''someone or something'. Something is not a word we use when we mean humans.

One could understandably feel contempt for hidden unexploded bombs or hidden unexploded landmines from wars. One might understand that the people that released the bombs or buried the landmines did so out of a sense of necessity in order to win the fight for which they were putting their life ar risk and so may not deserve contempt. Yet the maiming and killing of innocent civilians years later could be reason to feel contempt for the unexploded unmarked bombs and landmines.

Some people feel contempt for cigarrettes or tobacco. Some people feel contempt for cancer, others for motorcycles.

Maybe you can find examples of contempt for "something" other than humans. So what? Nothing in the dictionary definition states that the feeling of contempt must be rational. Go ahead and feel contempt for a malfunctioning robot. It is irrational, but you are allowed to feel that way. The dictionary definition also allows you to feel irrational contempt for humans. So go ahead and feel contempt for a child murderer. For a hard determinist like yourself it is irrational to feel that way because according to your philosophy the murderer had no choice. It is rational for someone who believes in free will to feel contempt for a child murderer. But you are also allowed to feel that way. As a hard determinist you are allowed your cognitive dissonance.

Nice try Htrn2 but this guy will never accept animals are self-aware. Remember, his refusal to accept this idea includes changing the definition of self-aware to suit his purposes. He even deflected the discussion into the excessive philosophical tangent discussion of determinism/free will. He also cannot remember that I didn't shout him down on anything and once tried to help him make a point. (I've only used capital letters in accordance with proper grammar.)

I especially like that your Koko link includes the incident where the chimpanzee, Washoe, spontaneously showed empathy for her caretaker that had a miscarriage.

Ironically something in this guy's past determines that he cannot use free will to consider some animals are self-aware.

So many of the posts deal with the poster more than the message. This avoids the question of the validity of evolution, still doubted by many who need the polarization we ourselves have shown and are politically important both nationally and internationally.

Physical evolution may be a numbers (and time) game, but I'm talking about cultural evolution, not always zero-sum and not always separate from the physical. Even if a culture or a species goes extinct, how does that matter in seeing that evolution is "correct"?

From my post 460 with [additions]:

"a proxy war between creation and evolution, argued for centuries, but formerly with more need for the unexplainable (miracles) in almost everyone, as we didn't understand disease and genetics and chemistry as we do today. It's the same game on a different field. It relates to the appeal [and reward] of belonging to a group, [the comfort of miracles that explain death,] the communications "revolution" (internet, satellites, social media, etc.) and the current world rivalries. And the survival advantage of interhuman cooperation and kindness."

As far as cultural evolution, I wonder which cultural groups should be compared to say one group is more evolved than another? It is debatable if any other species other than humanity presently has a culture let alone a cultural lineage to compare progress. Limiting this discussion to within the range of humanity are the groups for comparison delineated by geography, political philosophy, hairstyle, musical complexity, or what? How do we characterize cultural evolution progress?

The concept of cultural evolution has been too academized but it works for everyone. Think of the effects of printing, the railroad, understanding pathogens and digestion, much of today's "tech," and the need for impossibles to support religions. We can categorize by description, but "more evolved" and "progress" are problems to me as I'm observing not comparing. I see people's behavior changing as we interact with our genetics/childhood/uncontrollables/controllables. When group-reinforced it becomes "a culture," and doesn't have to be precisely defined to feel a part of.

There can be many subcultures within a larger one. In fact, deviations act like mutations in biology, reasonable "experiments" which if successful the rest of us can follow to react to changing surroundings. Not everyone follows. My mother wouldn't use a push-button phone; she grew up with nothing, then had to learn to dial, and that was enough.

Age matters; the time from physical maturity to mating/family creation is a good time for such experimentation. Older people are often comforted by ritual/sameness.

What's allowed matters; it's like an elastic container, we can push and stretch it from inside, but if pushed too hard or too sharply it will break and the pusher is now outside and unprotected by the group (and vice versa).

About 100 years ago Finns herded reindeer on skis. Snowmobiles were more efficient than the ski-men, and the money to get one replaced the physical strength of the ski-men as primary. Likewise, access to money has joined physical strength in varying amounts as desirable in our less-wintry worlds. Protection and security depend on where one lives and with whom, belonging, government, policies, and more.

Most of the 500 posts (!) have dealt with physical evolution, which I accept as obvious, so I'll bow out of the big "proxy war." But because it affects us so much and can happen so much faster, I thought I'd add a little on the cultural side.

I agree that cultural evolution exists. I was bringing to the discussion the need for careful consideration of not just which cultures to review for evolution but what metrics determine an evolutionary change.

This is an enormous topic one can discuss that deserves its own space. I agree that this discussion has already drifted far and wide from the original intent.

Canadian Slidewinder, in reply to your post number 200,and others:

This is a link to Koko,the gorilla with a 1000+ word sign language vocabulary that obviously is self aware,shows emotions and demonstrates the IQ equivalent of a human 4 year old.There are other cases in this video also.

Let go of your ego and accept the possibility that we are not unique among all creatures,great and small.

The most intelligent species,IMHO,is the one that survives the longest.

Viruses,bacteria,insects, reptiles all are better than humans at survival.

Humans are merely passing through,like the other 99% of species on this planet that are now extinct.

The "Ancient ones" will still be around after we are long gone.

Yes, he had a large sign language vocabulary but was unable to comprehend, when looking in a mirror, that the image was of himself. At an average age of 18 months a human child can recognize him/herself in a mirror. Draw your own conclusion about self-awareness.

"... a human child can recognize him/herself in a mirror..."

.

Wait. So now self recognition in the mirror now is a reliable sign of a sense of self? Wow! Your beliefs are remarkably fluid when the need to back your current argument arises.

Researchers are still in agreement about the mirror test as it relates to mammals, but as I have previously written, many are not convinced in the case of the wrasse fish. They hypothesize other explanations for its observed behaviour. My response here is in accord with the current position of researchers in this field.

...and now researchers are in agreement about some portion of the mirror test!?!?!

The agility with which dance from positilon to opposing position is remarkable! All the while remaining free of any pesky details supporting such a shift, like say, sighting sources in support of your claim du jour.

Or, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you can provide a link to the Declaration of Agreement regarding the implications of the mirror test as it applies to animals, signed by the vast majority researchers involved in this or related research.

Search recent peer reviewed papers on the mirror test (you know how to do this) and you will see that interpretations of the wrasse fish behaviour as it relates to the mirror test remain very much in dispute. There is no current active dispute with respect to mammal behaviour and the mirror test, although some in the past have offered explanations other than the explanation of self-recognition for behaviour that is deemed a 'pass'.

We know what the reaction of an 18 month old human child to his/her mirror image means because we are humans. We have inside information.

Gorillas consistently act with aggression to their mirror image, even after days and weeks of exposure. Interpretation: After one exposure to their mirror image they are unable to understand that the image is not another gorilla. After numerous exposures to their mirror image the conclusion is that they are incapable of understanding that the image is not another gorilla. Gorillas do not fail the mirror test in a passive manner (ie: by ignoring their image, like my cats). They fail actively, dramatically, and indisputably. The claim in hitekrednek2's linked video of an IQ of 85 for gorillas is laughable. Every human with an IQ of 85 knows that their image in a mirror is themself, not another person.

As I pointed out before IQ and intelligence are very difficult things to quantify accurately: you would probably need dozens of dimensions. Our inability to hide 3000 nuts in different places, and remember where they are for retrieval at a later date would would seem like gross incompetence to a squirrel.

You stand much less chance of understanding how a gorilla thinks about certain problems than the rest of us do of understanding how you think.

In the same way as you, as an intelligent person, fail miserably to "see" what is blindingly obvious to the rest of us; a gorilla fails to see what is blindingly obvious to a human with a similar IQ.

Your quote: "In the same way as you, as an intelligent person, fail miserably to "see" what is blindingly obvious to the rest of us; a gorilla fails to see what is blindingly obvious to a human with a similar IQ."

I expected better from you. Burying an insult inside a compliment, is still an insult.

How then do you reconcile a gorilla's capacity for symbol recognition with its incapacity for recognizing itself in a mirror? I have trouble with that, but apparently for you (and others here) it is "blindingly obvious" what conclusion to draw.

"I expected better from you. Burying an insult inside a compliment, is still an insult."

How can stating the facts be an insult?

"How then do you reconcile a gorilla's capacity for symbol recognition with its incapacity for recognizing itself in a mirror? I have trouble with that, but apparently for you (and others here) it is "blindingly obvious" what conclusion to draw."

As I thought I had already made clear, I reconcile it by acknowledging that although we can deduce a huge amount, there are some aspects about the way that a gorilla thinks, that are still a complete mystery to us. A dog must be completely dumbfounded by the fact that humans do not know that someone else is in a room unless they can see or hear them: for the dog of course, the smell makes it blindingly obvious. (Maybe I'm being unfair to dogs here, perhaps they realise that we are almost completely nose blind.)

As you felt insulted I thought I'd point out that there's another equally valid interpretation of my comment.

Imagine a bunch of gorillas discussing the gateway they've just discovered to another universe, with a similar bunch on the other side.

A chimpannzee wanders up, and says that he thinks they'll find it's just a mirror, and what they see is just a reflection of themselves. The gorillas who have read a lot of science fantasy, but, have no idea about how light works tell him he's stupid because it's blindingly obvious to them that it's a gateway.

My point is that it's very difficult for us to understand everything about the way others, especially those from another species think.

Incidentally the "if you're holding eye contact, and not looking down submissively: you're challenging my authority" is an incredibly strong instinct with gorillas, and, must be very difficult to overcome.

I like your example of a squirrel being able to remember all the places it stored its winter nuts. But because a squirrel can do this, and the average human can't remember where he put his glasses five minutes ago, we don't then conclude that a squirrel has an IQ of 180. That is what we are doing in the case of the gorilla. A bit of symbol manipulation: Conclusion: must have an 85 IQ.

I know about the aggressive message of eye contact with gorillas, and I accept this as a good explanation why gorillas initially respond with aggression to their mirror image. They perceive the image as another gorilla challenging them. But they never get past this. Why, with their purported intelligence, can they not eventually comprehend that the 'other' gorilla is exactly matching their own movements, and must therefore not be another gorilla?

Your quote: "My point is that it's very difficult for us to understand everything about the way others, especially those from another species think." I agree, and that is why I think we should be open to alternative interpretations, other than self-awareness, of a mirror test 'pass' (rubbing a mark placed on the animal's forehead). It has been postulated that the animal might perceive the image in the mirror as some kind of odd entity that the animal can control through its own movements. After all, if otherwise cognitively high functioning gorillas, repeatedly and continuously display behaviour that can reasonably be interpreted as a perception that the mirror image is another animal, then it is reasonable to interpret the reaction of other animals also within that framework, as per the suggested alternative interpretation. If so, what has previously been deemed a 'pass', and evidence of a sense of self, could be an incorrect interpretation. As more and more creatures are added to the list of 'passes' (ants! and fish!) , researchers are struggling to understand what a 'pass' actually means.

ADMIN: Deleted Content

This post was deleted because it was an attack on another user. Please review the Site FAQ and the Rules of Conduct.

This, coming after your equally insulting post #487.

Prince Philip was once asked what constituted a gentleman. He replied without hesitation, "Education and manners."

I don't know hitekrednek2, anything about your education, but I do know that you have no manners.

I have manners appropriate to the situation,but I always have a sense of humor,and it is nearly impossible for anyone to insult me.

When someone tries to insult me,I merely reply:"Sticks and stones may break my bones,---but whips and chains excite me."

That usually elicits a laugh and ends without conflict.

You did notice that I said in my comment that it was meant as a joke?

I suggest that you look on the light side of life.

If two people know each other well, and are friends, they can exchange good-natured insults with no offence intended or taken. I don't know you, and you are not my friend. Your post #487 was a blatant insult, followed by another in post #494. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread on the concept of 'contempt'. Contempt is how I view your smarmy, "Lighten up pal, it was meant as a joke."

IF I wished to insult you and your philosophy,I have the knowledge,skill and ability to do so in a very direct manner,or in a very obtuse way.

For instance,I could say you are dim witted,ignorant,stupid,(there is a difference),dogmatic,obnoxious,egotistical,illegitimate offspring of two vultures and your egg was left on a rock and hatched by the sun ,but I will not say that,or anything of the like.

I will consider the source it and allow for ignorance.

Good luck and best wishes to you and yours.

<unsubscribe>

That cannot be right. All of his opinions were made straight out of his own mind. His mind wouldn't lie to him. His mind has never been influenced by any obvious or concealed information from outside. (He has free will.) That's why he cannot post any links for others to mock.

{PS In Chrome a right-click on a highlighted web address provides the option to go directly to that page without copying or pasting.}

(Sorry but I couldn't resist a little mockery. It's all meant in fun. We should all be a little frivolous from time to time.)

Your little band of cheerleaders have given you a mindless, sycophantic round of applause. I remember reading about gorillas responding aggressively to their mirror image. I am unable to find the article. It doesn't matter. That wasn't my main point, which is consistent with the research:

"Gorillas appeared unable to correctly decipher mirrored information about themselves" - Journal of Human Evolution Feb. 1981

"After nearly 400 hours of mirror exposure these negative findings suggest that the gorilla lacks the conceptual ability necessary for self-recognition." - American Journal of Primatology 1982

"The gorillas did not show compelling evidence of self-recognition, even after 4 years of mirror exposure." - Animal Behaviour May 1999

Two of your references predate by just a few years the murder of Dian Fossey for presumably defending gorillas from poachers. I wonder if she ever commented on that research. Your last reference is nearly twenty-three years old. The video TINAC provides is but five years old and shows multiple peaceful encounters of gorillas with a mirror in the bush. I particularly found amusing the gorilla spontaneously using the mirror to examine their anus for cleaning. If that doesn't demonstrate self-awareness to you I don't know what will. Possibly a parrot that speaks English. He even spontaneously assembles words to say that he is tired of being questioned. He knows who he is.

The studies I referenced do not have a "good to" date. Stating they were done decades ago is not an argument against their validity. The video of gorillas encountering the mirror in the bush tells us that gorillas can react non-aggressively to a mirror image of themselves. That is all it tells us. From multiple studies, independent researchers have concluded that gorillas "lack the conceptual ability necessary for self-recognition". Within that peer reviewed interpretive framework the gorillas in the video are peacefully encountering other gorillas, not themselves, in the mirror. One gorilla is intrigued that when it lifts its leg, so does the 'other' gorilla in the mirror. When it touches its anus, so does the 'other' gorilla in the mirror.

In addition to smart parrots, there have also been smart horses that could do any number of arithmetic calculations and give correct answers - provided the horse's owner was present. Unbeknownst even to the owners, they were communicating to the horse. The hyper-sensitive horse could detect some subtle change in its owners posture, tension level - who knows - that communicated to it when to stop its hoof tap counting. When the owner was placed behind a screen some distance away, the horse lost all of its amazing computational ability. As for the parrot communicating that it was tired of a particular activity... My cats also communicate very well, through cat vocalizations, many cat wishes. This ability can be explained as adaptive behaviour without invoking consciousness or a sense of self.

Canadianslidewinder, it is interesting to learn you have a cat. When you were growing up, were there cats around? Did you ever have to clean up cat litter as a child or to your recollection, were you in close proximity to a cat litter box as a child?