> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Jan Coffey
... > >The second part (altruism is an outcome > > of > > evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are > > derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. > > There is no reason for it to be exclusive. That's exactly my point. > > Even if true, it begs the > > question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like > everything > > else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental > physics of the > > universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about > altruism, does it? > > In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it? > > No, our behaviors, or at least our tendencies for certain behaviors are > genetic. Sorry, that is just the way it is. Not sure why you are apologizing for this, nor what your point is. What does this imply regarding morality and selfishness? > You might want to silence this > idea becouse a few idiots might try and use this in an atempt to > lagitimize > raceism, but that will not change the reality of it (or the wrongness of > racesism). We are what we are -in part- becouse we evolved that > way. What are the other parts? Do they explain morality or selfishness? > Yes you can. In the extream it is of course rediculous. Of course > we do have > free will. No one is saying we don't. And yes religion, and the > propencity to > be spiritual have been shown to increase ~some~ individuals happyness. What does happiness have to do with evolution, genetics, morality and ethics? Seems to me that an unhappy species that survives "wins" relative to a happy one that doesn't. I don't see what you're saying the relationship is. > > > I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. > > I se no logical problems above other than your own. (pardon me for saying) If you were trying to show that my understanding of the arguments is flawed, I didn't get it. Did I state the arguments incorrectly? > But is that craving from a desire to make things better, and being an > instramental part of that betterment a sens of reward, or is it mearly the > simple attention, bad or good? Is that a rhetorical question? I hope so, since the point I was making is that that's the sort of thing we don't know, because much of it arises from our subconscious minds. > > > I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While > > evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic > behavior, none of us > > has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will > > contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, > such decisions > > cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic. > > I agree with that. I wonder how many here do? > > > For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. > > Why have faith at all? Shouldnt a state of not knowing be the appropriate > response to imperfect knowledge? Paralysis! Is it even possible to limit oneself to those things that can be perfectly known? > Of course I am not talking about > the kind of > faith you have in your own abilities or the abilities in others. I am not > talking about the kind of wishful thinking faith when you make a decision > based on incomplete data, but the kind of faith in a god or some > extra-ordinary spiritualism. There are big differences in these kinds of > faith. One is social group forming and confidence building, another allows > you to stay focused and actually make decisions rather than spinning in an > indecisive state. The last however makes no sense to be so I do > not know what > purpose it might serve. That's quite a leap you made to "spinning in an indecisive state." I can't figure out where you even leapt from. What's the basis of that statement? > >Although I'd > > like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well > > enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only > > found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own > > motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to > > stick with). > > Why not simply accept that you do not ~yet~ understand, and the > possibility > and probability that you will never completely, but to continue > to strive for > that knowledge? But I have. Still, human nature being what it is, I easily forget. Part of nature, like most people I know, is to demand that things be different, that I can control that which I really cannot. > That is a lot of faith, putting your phone number out there like that. It's true -- my knowledge of who will call is imperfect. However, that number goes to voicemail, always. I have other numbers, too. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
