tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115210435357463647..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Ashamed of Their AncestryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152367816503402272006-07-08T10:10:00.000-04:002006-07-08T10:10:00.000-04:00Steve has yet another response. Geez, I can't kee...Steve has <A HREF="triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/evolutionary-epistemology.html#comments" REL="nofollow">yet another response</A>. Geez, I can't keep up with this guy.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152267849295961972006-07-07T06:24:00.000-04:002006-07-07T06:24:00.000-04:00PS: See Steve's comment herePS: See Steve's comment <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/monkeys-uncle.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152267824181446822006-07-07T06:23:00.000-04:002006-07-07T06:23:00.000-04:00Poor little Danny never gets the point of the argu...<I>Poor little Danny never gets the point of the argument.</I><BR/>And poor little Steve should note that I laid aside the question of soul/spirit (and thus whether or not God was involved) to make this simpler. The point is -- what part of "poof" is more reason-conferring than descent with modification (if telic)?<BR/><BR/><I>We rely on our minds to construct a philosophy of mind. But what if our philosophy of mind undermines rationality?</I><BR/><BR/>The origin of our mind is not the same thing as a philosophy of mind.<BR/><BR/><I>If our minds are reliable, then a philosophy of mind that undermines rationality is a self-refuting philosophy.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine. So now, it is time to present a "philosophy of mind" which undermines rationality as an example, rather than simply leaving an open and presumed connection between evolution and some reason-nullifying philosophy of mind that <I>necessarily</I> follows.<BR/><BR/><I>The fact that Darwin was rational doesn’t prove that Darwinism is rational. Evolutionary epistemology would well be self-refuting.</I><BR/>But if Darwin's mind, and all of ours, are rendered by their creative process irrational, then it <B>does</B> prove that every "conviction" / theory we have developed with our minds are indeed irrational as well. No product of a completely irrational mind can be rational, can it? You seem to be looking into the barrel of the gun when you consider the converse.<BR/><BR/><I>That’s something of a red herring. The real issue is whether an unreliable process can yield a reliable result.</I><BR/>Is it? The trainability of dogs and other mammals is quite reliable. Their minds are the result of solely natural processes (versus a soul, or spirit, right?). If their minds perform reliably, how is that a red herring to insist that evolution need not produce unreliable minds?<BR/><BR/>How can a process which solely confers selective advantage for survival be considered "unreliable"? The mechanism of random mutation isn't "reliable" in the sense that "you never know what you'll get", but natural selection certainly is -- you'll always get populations of organisms which confer survival-advantageous traits to their offspring.<BR/><BR/><I>If natural selection was never designed to select for rationality, then why should we assume that a brain which is the incidental byproduct of natural selection enjoy a reliable purchase on the truth?</I><BR/>You're taking this a bit far. The "convictions" in the quote only refer to a degree of reliability in their perceptions. I admitted "degree" when I said skepticism is warranted.<BR/><BR/>The issue here is not whether the mind can be trusted. It must be. It's how far.<BR/><BR/>Part of how this ties into survival is in whether or not our sense perception, and how our minds interpret our senses, function in a "trustworthy" manner or not. We develop convictions from these most basic of mental functions. Survival certainly depends upon them. So it really isn't a question of whether or not we can trust our minds...but "how far?"<BR/><BR/><I>Coach roaches survive just fine without higher cortical functions.<BR/>So what makes Morgan think that intelligence confers a survival advantage when so many species lack higher consciousness?</I><BR/>I didn't say that survival depends on intelligence in all organisms, but certainly in those which have little or no natural defense capability, and whose offspring are extremely fragile, and who only reproduce at about 1/1000th the rate of cockroaches, must develop some offsetting survival mechanisms. Ours were tool-making and socialization, just like the other apes.<BR/><BR/><I>Do material properties “give rise” to minds? Perhaps Danny can show us a slide set of material properties “giving rise” to mental properties.</I><BR/>The rest of this is bunk. I simply meant that we know the brain, and we know that [in this universe] without a brain, there is no mind. Even you don't disagree with that as a dualist. We can point to neurons and watch them fire off and correlate that to mental activity. I'm <B>not saying</B> that this is "all there is to mind". I made it clear that I was trying to ignore the question of the existence of the soul/spirit, and focus on the <B>process</B> by which mind exists -- whether by divine fiat / poof, or by evolutionary processes. You have expended a lot of energy in ignoring this.<BR/><BR/><I>Let’s see: why would we trust a mind that’s the artifact of rational designer? Gee, I’m stumped.</I><BR/>Poor Steve. He's like a man who thinks he's lost his glasses, but has them on top of his head. It need not rule out a Creator to conclude that apes are our ancestors. Poor little Steve only sees things his way -- God "poofed" or God is not. Minds are "only matter" and evolved, or minds are "poofed" and divinely created in an instant. <BR/><BR/>The creation myth may be leveled, but you must never take your eyes off of the big picture, Steve -- your God is not a creation myth...right?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1152121951152603742006-07-05T13:52:00.000-04:002006-07-05T13:52:00.000-04:00Funny, we don't have a problem with trusting the c...Funny, we don't have a problem with trusting the cognition of dogs when we've trained them to herd sheep, hunt, guard valuables or sniff out explosives, drugs, corpses and fugitives, even though they acquired these abilities through co-evolution with humans.Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.com