It's a good question! The genomes of many plants are vastly more complex than animal genomes.
Does morality work without a deity?
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
It's a good question! The genomes of many plants are vastly more complex than animal genomes.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The only reason pain feels bad is that for the creatures for whom the pain network felt good didn't get as far.
When pain feels good its called bliss. The problem is that purely mechanical universe doesnt care which is which cause it makes no difference to it. Its only an intelligent agent which can and needs to discriminate.
No, they are not the same. The whole point of pain (and other unpleasant sensations like the smell of faeces) is your body (or you could say your genes, or even evolution) is trying to get you to avoid something that is detrimental to the chance of passing on your genes. Bliss and other pleasant sensations are your body trying to get you to do something that is positive to the chance of passing on your genes.
It's a good question! The genomes of many plants are vastly more complex than animal genomes.
Spoiler :
Interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder where the idea of 'junk DNA' fits into that?
The point is this an intelligent design. Which has non of the intelligent form of life we can study anything to do with. Do you think our inteligence an this design are product of the same unintelligent processes.
And yes bliss or pain are essentialy the same phenomena.
I am sorry, but I totally do not get this statement or question. If you rephrase I shall see what I can do.
I would say they are opposite phenomena, probably with some shared functional tissues. I can see the argument that they are both part of the same system, that of motivational control of the organism, with opposite outcomes. This is just a question of semantics I think.
Once you distinguish essentialy the same nervous reaction with oposite outcomes such as pain and pleasure you are entering a realm of purpose or inteligent design. And since this phenomena was developed without conscious participation of any known intelligence it would seem to point on some other secret intelligence.
The purely material nature doesnt benefit from such a sensations and has no use in them. In fact they seem to be in direct opposition to it. Again it would be rather some hidden intelligent agent who could justify existence of such a thing.
The purely material nature doesnt benefit from such a sensations and has no use in them. In fact they seem to be in direct opposition to it. Again it would be rather some hidden intelligent agent who could justify existence of such a thing.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Where are you seeing intelligent design? You just kind of threw it in there with no justification.
I am seeing it everywhere right from the subatomic structures but it becomes more apparent when certain phenomena can produce opposite values because it is close to how our mind seem to work. Our mind has capacity to see everything as relative and arbitrary which is something which may not leads as to the immediate understanding of our world but ultimately allowes our knowledge to be wider.
At some point of evolution pleasure and pain enter the picture and start playing its role by influencing the life of semiconscious creature through its nervous system. This emotional "hyperstructure" (and especialy its relativity)of material nature doesnt seem to have any justification of origin.
Perfection
The Great Head.
How hard have you looked?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
S
Though in fact secular laws and 'moral systems' originate in the same place.
Though in fact secular laws and 'moral systems' originate in the same place.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The mechanical universe doesn't care between pleasure and pain but the mechanical beings that the unintelligent process of evolution produced do.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
And yet no experts in the relevant fields here would agree with you. They don't see a designer anywhere - if they did, there would be scientific theories out there that suggest such a thing. But there aren't any at all. So what makes you think that someone who isn't trained in these fields at all knows better than they do?
Just curious why you aren't looking to the experts here. There are a lot of answers available there, and none of them seem to point to a designer.
Nope. The uncaring mechanical universe is progressing through intelligent processes producing inteligent and caring forms.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Read up on the evolution of empathy and morality. You don't need an intelligent designer or a designer at all to produce such things.
Well I am certainly looking for whatever can help me understand the problem from any point on any level. So if you feel like pointing out any particular study or theory you are welcome.
To say that no expert would have simmilar ideas is pretty bold statment.
When it comes to natural design many architects, engineers etc. need to study for years so that they can understand and use it properly. So if you need some inteligence to master something I would assume presence of some other (perhaps very different one) intelligence to be involved.
The problem with present day science is that it is almost exclusively physical. It looks for everything within wast but limited field which cant guarantee complete knowledge. Its a bit like doctor giving you pain-killers without treatment of the root cause. Knowledge offered by physical science can be correct but not complete...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In the end experts in these fields have studied these phenomena for years if not decades, and have a lot of experience with them. They are the most qualified people to listen to when asking questions about it.
You, in contrast, have no such education, no such experience, and by your own admission are basing your own hypothesis (the creator hypothesis) on nothing than a hunch. (Right? Correct me if I'm wrong)
All I'm saying is.. On what basis do we assume that your ideas have more basis in fact than the ideas of experts? Given the above, I am going to have to side with the experts, who conclude that there is no evidence of design.
If a scientist was able to find evidence of design and came up with a working scientific theory around that - he would be famous.. forever. There is plenty of incentive there. So either all the experts are blinded and you are enlightened in your opinion, or lucky in your guess, but until there is some evidence of this, I am going to have to side with the experts. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.
You, in contrast, have no such education, no such experience, and by your own admission are basing your own hypothesis (the creator hypothesis) on nothing than a hunch. (Right? Correct me if I'm wrong)
All I'm saying is.. On what basis do we assume that your ideas have more basis in fact than the ideas of experts? Given the above, I am going to have to side with the experts, who conclude that there is no evidence of design.
If a scientist was able to find evidence of design and came up with a working scientific theory around that - he would be famous.. forever. There is plenty of incentive there. So either all the experts are blinded and you are enlightened in your opinion, or lucky in your guess, but until there is some evidence of this, I am going to have to side with the experts. It's the intellectually honest thing to do.
I agree with you but consider this: even if I was a scientist I may not be able to come up with this kind of hypothesis at present to the open risking my carrier. There is already so much tough competition and heavy disagreements within the realm of physical science. The study of non-physical phenomena is going to be much more laborious thing to do becouse of its subjectivity yet I think humanity is eventually going to be on the track doing just that.
If the experts have studied certain aspects of reality and come up with solid results I am likely going to trust them and take benefit from their work but we have to remember that no knowledge is final. Becouse when we think we know the truth its the begining of our downfall. Thats when our knowledge turns into a dogma. This doesnt mean uncertainty but rather acceptance of infinity and always new adventure ahead.
If the experts have studied certain aspects of reality and come up with solid results I am likely going to trust them and take benefit from their work but we have to remember that no knowledge is final. Becouse when we think we know the truth its the begining of our downfall. Thats when our knowledge turns into a dogma. This doesnt mean uncertainty but rather acceptance of infinity and always new adventure ahead.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Mechanicalsalvation's views.
There's definitely a learning aspect to evolution. Through the relentlessly dumb and inefficient method of natural selection data about the world is incorporated into the DNA of organisms. In a sense we may consider evolution to have some semblance of intelligence. But we must remind ourselves that this interpretation evolution lacks foresight. It cannot see a disaster or oppurtunity coming and work to prepare.
There's definitely a learning aspect to evolution. Through the relentlessly dumb and inefficient method of natural selection data about the world is incorporated into the DNA of organisms. In a sense we may consider evolution to have some semblance of intelligence. But we must remind ourselves that this interpretation evolution lacks foresight. It cannot see a disaster or oppurtunity coming and work to prepare.
