Does morality work without a deity?

[Valka D'Ur]

So humans where not created?

Humans evolved, and continue to evolve.

By saying evolution doesnt work towards goal you are ignoring lot of evidence.

What evidence?

Because that's just what evolution is. There is no plan. It's one of the fundamental axioms of the theory of evolution in a way - if you don't see that or don't understand it, then I would read up on what evolution actually is - because maybe you're misinformed in some way. I don't mean to say this in a snarky tone, it's just that.. Once you understand the basics of evolution, you would understand that there is no plan. It'd be like saying that tectonic plate movements follow a plan - they don't, they just follow natural forces. There is no design or plan to get the continents to look this way or that. Things just happen and you get what you get.

Yep. Evolution and plate tectonics aren't like constructing new Civ maps and scenarios. Those may be planned and have end goals. Real life doesn't.

We sometimes speak of "Mother Nature" but that's just an anthropomorphized version of "nature" itself. Nature does not care what kind of life evolves on Earth, or if any life evolves here at all. Nature doesn't even care if Earth itself exists.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There is no way that all possible scenarios are tried, because mutations are in many ways random. It's not even close. There are far too many limiting factors for anything approaching to that to be true.

Just couple examples. You get species which can regenerare any part of their body. Species which can change sex. In same cases female gives its egg to the male who then gives birth and takes care of the babies etc. No rules...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Humans evolved, and continue to evolve.

O.K. but itsnt conscious evolution. And itsnt purely mechanical process either. If it was only the mechanical side of our existence would be developed. How does consciousness fits into that? In fact what can inconscience gain by developing consciousness its opposite? Its like people producing robots who then take over humanity and enslaving it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Just couple examples. You get species which can regenerare any part of their body. Species which can change sex. In same cases female gives its egg to the male who then gives birth and takes care of the babies etc. No rules...

Both very useful and advantageous attributes for a species to possess.

If there are no rules then can't you give some examples of species with mind blowing physical traits that are totally useless and pointless for reproduction and survival?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Both very useful and advantageous attributes for a species to possess.

If there are no rules then can't you give some examples of species with mind blowing physical traits that are totally useless and pointless for reproduction and survival?

There is this specie. Its called home sapiens with his gay version...

 

[warpus]

O.K. but itsnt conscious evolution.

Evolution is never conscious. You can't just think really hard and force your child to mutate in a certain way when it's conceived. That never happens.

 

[Flying Pig]

To be fair, you can (effectively) do that to other animals' offspring - witness selective breeding, which often produces results that natural selection would have filtered out, frequently to the detriment of the animal in question, as in many pedigree dogs.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Evolution is never conscious. You can't just think really hard and force your child to mutate in a certain way when it's conceived. That never happens.

Evolution is bound to become conscious as it progresses on. Or you think sentinent beings are going to wait billions of years for something they have possibility to achieve in couple generations? Its the increased sentinence/consciouness/ intelligence which will allow this. Something which so far was done mainly on unconscious level but not without inteligence.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

There is this specie. Its called home sapiens with his gay version...

Bad example.

First of all: Homosexuality doesn't make you sterile.

Second: A childless aunt or uncle is a big advantage for the family. Same as grandparents.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Regarded the wider inteligence. Instincts are clearly example of such a thing. Many species depend on this for its mere survival. How come insects are superior in this respect to most mamals? Clearly again its so that the conscious inteligence can be developed.

 

[El_Machinae]

I gave an example of instincts etc. Or take example with pain. Not to feel pain is undoubtedly superior state of being than otherwise yet with advancing evolution the capacity for pain increases. Why? The lower on scale of evolution the more mechanical/instinctive processes are. Why is evolution moving from that to more sentiment and unbalanced forms?

You need to get past this idea of 'advancing evolution'. Your understanding of the theory is incorrect, and so you're going to continue to make nonsensical statements.

The majority of the lifeforms and the majority of the biomass on this planet don't feel pain. They're each just as 'evolved' as any sentient organism.

Now, it's true that humans are removing habitat for low-sentience organisms and replacing their biomass with higher sentience organisms (i.e., we're destroying frog habitat to raise more cows), but I don't think there's any way to suggest that this is an 'intentional' component of evolution. We're also destroying frog habitats in order to grow more corn. It's simple luck that cows are tastier than frog, and more efficient to raise as livestock.

There's also the chance that we'll move to a more insect-based diet, which will be the opposite trend.

 

[warpus]

To be fair, you can (effectively) do that to other animals' offspring - witness selective breeding, which often produces results that natural selection would have filtered out, frequently to the detriment of the animal in question, as in many pedigree dogs.

Fair.

Evolution is bound to become conscious as it progresses on. Or you think sentinent beings are going to wait billions of years for something they have possibility to achieve in couple generations? Its the increased sentinence/consciouness/ intelligence which will allow this. Something which so far was done mainly on unconscious level but not without inteligence.

I don't disagree with anything here, except the first sentence. It isn't a given.

Genetic engineering and "custom selection" is something I'd expect (to a degree) from a civilization capable of space travel of some sort... and even well before that.

We were discussing evolution as a whole though - there is no conscious plan until.. well, until some scientists (or whoever) sit down and start planning stuff in a lab. Generally speaking there isn't a plan, it just happens.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

O.K. but itsnt conscious evolution.

That's what we've been telling you.

To be fair, you can (effectively) do that to other animals' offspring - witness selective breeding, which often produces results that natural selection would have filtered out, frequently to the detriment of the animal in question, as in many pedigree dogs.

Selective breeding does have some unfortunate consequences. There was a CBC news story just this morning about dog breeders, puppy mills, and the sad case of a cute little 3-month-old French bulldog puppy who had to be euthanized.

Evolution is bound to become conscious as it progresses on. Or you think sentinent beings are going to wait billions of years for something they have possibility to achieve in couple generations? Its the increased sentinence/consciouness/ intelligence which will allow this. Something which so far was done mainly on unconscious level but not without inteligence.

Once humans start getting involved and making choices, it's no longer natural selection. It's artificial selection, and while it might work out, it's also possible that there may be completely unforeseen and unintended consequences later.

Second: A childless aunt or uncle is a big advantage for the family. Same as grandparents.

Childless grandparents?

(yeah, I know you really mean that childless aunts/uncles, or grandparents are commonly considered as readily-available babysitters)

 

[Perfection]

Yes this world is very dangerous. In fact the more sentinent you are the more danger there is. What a paradox! The explanation could be simple though. Sentinence is the goal and the danger and pain serves as an excelator. Otherwise we could have stayed on the level of virus and inhabit all universe from there. What is it that drives life into taking such a risks? I believe its something which takes pleasure from that process and that is manifested through that process as well.

Sentience being the goal isn't a simple explanation! You need a goal setter (what is it and how did it come about) and a mechanism by which it is fullfilled (how is this goal implemented) without that your explanation doesn't do the work of explaining!

I don't think pain requires special theory. Even the most rudimentary nervous systems provoke reactions to potentially damaging stimuli. As some organisms got more complex so did the corresponding reactions to said stimuli until eventually you reach the human perception of pain.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think pain requires special theory. Even the most rudimentary nervous systems provoke reactions to potentially damaging stimuli. As some organisms got more complex so did the corresponding reactions to said stimuli until eventually you reach the human perception of pain.

Even in this case I don't think it's a perfect ladder - one could imagine, for example, an extremely complex but immobile organism, which might not feel pain simply because it would be unable to do anything about a painful stimulus. Similarly you could argue that cows feel less pain than humans simply because they're harder to damage: the 'best' sensitivity to pain depends on the organism's circumstances.

 

[Perfection]

Evolution is bound to become conscious as it progresses on.

This is a little tricky. One thing to remember is evolutionary mechanisms are unconscious even if concious beings are involved.

Evolution can make organisms simpler or more complex. There's no particular direction it needs to go. There are many cases where organisms simplify and lose features rather than get more complex.

Now of course you note that if we look at human evolutionary history we see more or less "progress" from simple single-celled organisms. That's merely one path evolution can take. There's other conditions where this wouldn't develop.

The core principles of evolution don't mandate any ascent to intelligence. They do however provide the framework for discovering the conditions in which it might occur.

 

[Borachio]

What's the name of that little animal that loses its brain at a certain stage in its development. It's one of those with a sedentary phase, I think. Brains are expensive things to maintain, and if you don't move around, you've really no need for one.

 

[Perfection]

Even in this case I don't think it's a perfect ladder - one could imagine, for example, an extremely complex but immobile organism, which might not feel pain simply because it would be unable to do anything about a painful stimulus. Similarly you could argue that cows feel less pain than humans simply because they're harder to damage: the 'best' sensitivity to pain depends on the organism's circumstances.

Well if the organism is immobile and cannot actively defend itself, why is it so complex?
In the cow case I would note that you're making the wrong comparisons. If you punch a 6'5" muscle bound guy in the stomache he'll experience less pain then if you did the same to 5'6" scrawny ass me but it would be silly to say from that he in general experiences less pain. After all there are some forces he could experience that would cause him severe pain that I couldn't experience (because I'd be dead).

Anyways those are amusing asides. The point still stands that pain isn't in lockstep with complexity (which I never said it was).

 

[Perfection]

What's the name of that little animal that loses its brain at a certain stage in its development. It's one of those with a sedentary phase, I think. Brains are expensive things to maintain, and if you don't move around, you've really no need for one.

[Wiki]Tunicates[/wiki]

 

[Flying Pig]

Well if the organism is immobile and cannot actively defend itself, why is it so complex?

Perhaps because it's very hard to destroy - I had in mind an extremely large tree, or a colony of fungi.

In the cow case I would note that you're making the wrong comparisons. If you punch a 6'5" muscle bound guy in the stomache he'll experience less pain then if you did the same to 5'6" scrawny ass me but it would be silly to say from that he in general experiences less pain. After all there are some forces he could experience that would cause him severe pain that I couldn't experience (because I'd be dead).

Not quite the same - for example, the same stimulus on your back will hurt less than the same stimulus on the palm of your hands, regardless of what it is, because of the concentration of nerve endings. It's less that the cow is strong and more that it actually has less capacity to feel pain

General point noted, I wasn't quite sure if you were saying that human pain sensitivity was objectively 'the best', but thought it worth clarifying.