Ugh, I guess I must conclude I hate politics then?

I do. It’s an awful method of expressing power between competing factions to determine what we ought to do. It only looks good compared to the alternative – expressing power through violence.

I guess lobbying for a whole set of decisions is just much easier if many decide to delegate their identity to the same banner-waver…?

Let’s say you’re a politician. Given that politics is the exercising of power, dispute resolution, how do you plan to evaluate the different viewpoints of your constituents? You will always label them into groups. Group A tends to believe X and Y and wants me to accomplish Z. Group B tends to believe U and V and wants me to accomplish W. Etc.

Ugh, I guess I must conclude I hate politics then? With dividing people up according to decisions, fine, that’s ok with me. But just because I line up with a particular “republican decision” doesn’t mean I want to be labeled with a “republican” label.

I guess lobbying for a whole set of decisions is just much easier if many decide to delegate their identity to the same banner-waver…?

Because I am not the only person with these views. Trying to decide what to do depends on both views of what ought and what is. For any decision involving more than one person, the decision is a team sport – politics. People will be divided up into teams / groups, advocating for different decisions, and the groups will be labeled.

The only way to avoid labeling is to not have multiple people.

Yea, all the anaturalists… How can we irritatingly stereotype anaturalists?

Dunno…but it puts the shoe on the other foot of trying to group together people who agree on one single question.

Q: Do you believe a God exists? (y/n)
A: No

-> atheist

Q: Do you believe there is more than the natural world? (y/n)
A: Yes

-> a-naturalist

Yea, all the anaturalists… How can we irritatingly stereotype anaturalists? But not too incorrectly. Mostly looking for good satire…

@Kenneth: thanks! I’ll check it out later.

The findings emerging from this cognitive-evolutionary approach challenge two central tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.

Take a look!

I try to come to my own conclusions, but I’m an intellectual and I like to read a lot of scientific articles

Same here. Form the conclusions, then try and find a label that fits.

From the perspective of theism being a norm, ‘atheist’ is a label that makes some sense. But it’s really pretty useless out of that context. A thorough worldview like naturalism lets you lump all the a-naturalists together for a change…maybe I’m the only one with that sense of humor.

And if you consider humans to be “meme machines” and memes to be replicators in their own right, then technology and culture can evolve in directions that are only really beneficial to the survival of particular memes/ideas, rather than to humans.

I would suggest, have already evolved…

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/dice.cfm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

Ho-hum, last paragraph of the first link points out how unresolved the matter is. (Might human decision making have some element functioning on the microphysics level?) So I’m lighter on, or even skeptical of, the “exact same decisions” kind of determinism that some people subscribe to, but maybe I’m mostly claiming the variables and environment are so incredibly sensitive, that “exact same state” is, to me, unachievable. However, the importance I attach to empathy and understanding of another’s context in determining his or her actions, makes this nitpick moot — intellectual noodling (just philosophy) rather than something with some practical implications on my ethics.

====

Nope, more commenting…

Other places to have online debates? There are many. There are forums and suchlike. But the question here is how we can facilitate interesting debates in “this blog’s community”. For now, I think these comments are fine, even if it is off-topic. Might make future access a bit complicated though?

I’m busy writing software in my spare time, every now and then, progress is going really slow though, in an effort to make it easy to provide whatever structures we feel might be useful for the way we want to communicate. (I.e. not be bound to any existing way of doing things.) Reinventing the wheel, maybe, but hopefully tailored to our use — debatable whether that is useful if it means having to wait another year for something when there’s already good-enough wheels available today. Hmm…

So, Kenneth, feel free to write as long or as short as you like, this is an old post. It’s on new posts where comments and discussion hasn’t died out where I feel upset when someone derails the discussion with a long monologue.

And yes, evolution isn’t always “beneficial” beyond adapting to survival in a particular environment. And if you consider humans to be “meme machines” and memes to be replicators in their own right, then technology and culture can evolve in directions that are only really beneficial to the survival of particular memes/ideas, rather than to humans. Which is where the warning bells go off for trans-humanistic ideas. Beware!

Suggested reading, if you’re bored:
http://thinktoomuch.net/2008/06/21/evolution-of-language-culture-technology-and-religion/

Thanks a million for that! Very nice explanations I could follow! I pretty much had all the right concepts, I might not always know the technical terms, but I more or less have a good idea of the possibilities and potential intricacies, just glad you re-affirmed it!

It’s amazing for me to think that there are more complex species here, many have certain levels of intelligence, but as you say, intelligence isn’t the goal of evolution. I think that’s probably my main mis-conception, or at least, usually when I think of things evolving, I think of the creatures becoming more intelligent. Of course they don’t have to do it right away, but I kind of always thought it was the goal. But, alas, I should have thought about it more before jumping to the conclusion!

Thanks a mil!

Anyway, I basically gathered that there were possibly types of DNA that are not inherited (or not fully inherited). Dunno if that’s called RNA or rDNA or something.

OK. You are on the right track, although RNA is not a type of DNA. Although they are made of very similar building blocks, RNA has several differences. One of the most important is that RNA isn’t made of two strands that twine around one another: it consists of a single strand only. Secondly: RNA serves different functions in the cell. DNA serves as the long term storage unit for information, particularly (but not only) proteins. This information is transferred, via RNA, to the factories of the cell that actually make proteins. So the information in DNA cannot be used directly: it must be transferred using RNA. RNA is also unique in other ways. Like DNA, it carries information, but it is also capable of doing some protein-like jobs as well. This makes it very important in current ideas of the origin of life, because it can do things that both proteins and DNA can do.

You are right that RNA is not the main hereditary material, although there are exceptions.

I would like to know, if a creature evolves, lets take a scorpion for example. Their poison becomes more venomous, can the scorpion DNA become more complex

It can, but it doesn’t have to. Sometimes organisms adapt by becoming simpler, not more complex. Internal parasites are a very good example of this. To use your example, sometimes better venom proteins can be made by losing parts of the DNA that code for them.

the impression I get is from the movies (which is probably your nightmare), like these interlinking chains, can new strands be added, or does it only have the links it currently has to work with.

Much as I love them, if there is one thing that superhero movies always, always, always get wrong, it is evolution. New strands can be added. More often, the subunits already present on the strand mutate. It is also possible to lose a piece of the strand, as I mentioned above.

How does DNA become more complex, surely new strands/links must be able to be created, and surely this will have huge implications for that species allowing it to become more complex.

Primarily by subunit mutation and poor copying. Think of it using this sentence as an analogy:

the cat sat on the pig

Occasionally you will get subunit, or nucleotide mutations:

the cat sat in the pig

Occasionally you will get delete button errors:

the cat sat he pig

Occasionally you will get copy and paste errors:

the cat sat on the pig on the pig

Occasionally you will get cut and paste errors:

the sat on the pig cat

And occasionally you will get pieces of other sentences mixed in by mistake:

the cat sat on the methinks it is like a weasel pig

All of these errors have counterparts in DNA evolution.

Do humans have the most complex DNA?

Depends what you mean. If you mean the most DNA per cell, then no. If you mean the most genes, then no as well. If you mean the most chromosomes…nope! The latter record, by the way, is held by a fern, with several hundred chromosomes. Humans are very unremarkable when it comes to our DNA.

Could other animals like pigs, whales, snakes, spiders, insects for example eventually evolve into self aware creatures with the ability to use tools and have complex communication like humans?

OK. Evolution isn’t goal-oriented. No species is striving for intelligence or tool-using. There is no direction to evolution. These aren’t the ultimate goal of any organism. Although it is possible, I would say it is very unlikely.

Sorry about the length Hugo. Delete/truncate if appropriate.

Well, hmmm … this is going to be tough for me because it’s not my field and I can’t always remember what I read, mainly because there are gaps in my knowledge, but I hope I can make some sense for you to work out what I meant.

I read many Wiki articles on different species (for a personal project I’m on) and their evolution. I read a lot of articles on the relationship between animals, how one animal can evolve into another, including humanity. Anyway, I basically gathered that there were possibly types of DNA that are not inherited (or not fully inherited). Dunno if that’s called RNA or rDNA or something. I think I read that it was like a basic version of DNA or an early version or the beginning of DNA (maybe shorter strands?). Anyway, because it wasn’t (fully) hereditary, it created a wide diversity of basic life forms to begin their evolution. With each generation, you could possibly have a completely new species. Anyway, I just thought that was an interesting idea for a possible explanation for a good way to start seeding diversification. My understanding is that DNA has also evolved.

But creatures also evolved because of different circumstances, you can’t generalize on how evoltion works. Sometimes it was because a niche was opened due to some other species dying out (which is what I believe is a common thought on how mammals and humans (homo) could start their evolution after the dinosaurs suffered major losses). Sometimes, it’s natural selection, environment, atmosphere, climate change, habitat, evolving a body part to perform a specific task etc.

I would like to know, if a creature evolves, lets take a scorpion for example. Their poison becomes more venomous, can the scorpion DNA become more complex and can that complexity include new strands of DNA, I’m not sure exactly how it works, the impression I get is from the movies (which is probably your nightmare), like these interlinking chains, can new strands be added, or does it only have the links it currently has to work with. How does DNA become more complex, surely new strands/links must be able to be created, and surely this will have huge implications for that species allowing it to become more complex. Do humans have the most complex DNA? Could other animals like pigs, whales, snakes, spiders, insects for example eventually evolve into self aware creatures with the ability to use tools and have complex communication like humans?

I don’t usually go too deep into things like Genetics because there are a lot of terms I don’t understand, like the different kinds of DNA, I didn’t even know there different kinds until recently.

Sigh. The bane of my field. Too many long words! Biology (including genetics) is challenging, to be true, but very much worthwhile attempting to understand.

Different kinds of DNA? Are you referring to the topology of DNA, or the function?

Naturalism is not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe and that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand.

Personally, I agree 100%. Science and technology is constantly evolving, so we need to be open to new scientific views, evidence, findings and possibilities. That also doesn’t mean we need to accept them … just be open to them.

I believe all “supernatural” agents/events can be worked out using the scientific model. Thousands of years ago, humans believed that the sun, moon and stars where supernatural beings or Gods. Science has proven them not to be. Things like thunder and lighning were also considered supernatural phenomenon. Now we understand a lot more about that ball of light in the sky, everyday we add new understanding to ourselves and the world around us.

In the Philosophy of Mind here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
I view myself primarily as a Physicalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Which is a monistic form of Naturalism. I believe the mind (as an abstract term for thought, conciesness and emotion) is purely physical in that it’s simply a set of mental states which are a result of electrochemical processes. Believing in dualism in one way or the other for me, would be similar to accepting a form of supernaturalism, because they view the mind as a separate entity to the body/brain, which I do not.
The electrochemical processes and properties of the mind in turn support my deterministic views, that we have no “true” free-will, all decision making in the mind/brain are subject to the electrochemical properties of our individual brains. And because it’s made up of various chemicals/substances, it can be in different states at different times. Think of water, yesterday the water was vapour, today the water is liquid, tomorrow it’s frozen into ice, still the same water, but because of outside forces, pressure or temperature etc. it’s in a different state at different times. These states of our mind affect our moods, thought, emotions etc. Since I don’t believe we have a “spirit”, I therefore also don’t believe that our “spirit” governs our free-will as Christians do.

I think it’s fair to say that I’m not “Anti-Christianity”. I might be wrong, but when I was a believer, I had the view that atheists were (often hard-core) anti-christians and also anti-christ. By this I mean that I personally believed that atheists spoke out openly against christians and the church (another pre-conceived idea). I think I was largely taught this idea in Church, and by other Christians, like family and bible study groups. Now being on the other side of the fence, I doubt I would have been able to relate to myself (my chrisitian self would not have been able to relate to my atheist self) and I would probably not have been open to what I now believe. I say this only from my personal experience so I might be wrong since I was only 1 of millions of believers.
For me, there’s a big difference in my heart and mind to what I thought an atheist was, I don’t feel I’m anti-christianity or anti-christ. I would like to raise my children as I was raised. As you said, there’s probably not much of a support structure for atheists, if there are, then I don’t know about them because I’m not active in the atheist community. Also, I find many Christians with a “personal relationship” are probably more balaced ethically than an atheist (I know more Christians than atheists, this is just my impression and a big generalization). I only say this because there are so many kinds of atheists, and you don’t always know the atheists background. I would rather leave my child in the care of a loving Sunday school teacher with a passion for life and Christ, than an atheist (in general). Probably from a Baptist or Methodist church. I say this because I have a reasonable assurance on what the teacher will be teaching (mainly from an ethical & moral point of view). I don’t believe a child will ask the “big questions” like “do you believe in God” for a while, and fully comprehend the implications of my answer. When asked this question, I will say “yes I believe” in the early years, and when I feel the child is ready to comprehend my answer (probably mid to late teens), I will explain myself. I wouldn’t want to create confusion or contradiction at that level in the childs early life. Also, I would even go so far as to encourage prayer on a daily basis, or even to pray WITH the child. Also, it might become apparent to the child that I don’t attend the church but I would however attend any church plays that the child is in, in support of my child. I feel raising a child this way can have some advantages, hopefully making them more balanced and more tollerent. But I believe the child should get a good theist background/foundation to begin with. I wouldn’t try to sway the child in either direction, especially in the pre-teen and even mid-teen years. But I would try to get as solid a theist background for the child especially in the early years as I could, with as little contradiction as possible. Now, that probably brings me back to another topic. “The fear of God”. For me personally, I feel that this has kept me on the morally straight and narrow more often than not. I don’t have a fear of God now, but I lean on many principles I was taught during my time as a Christian. I believe in “corporal punishment”, but not in the extreme. There’s a line between hitting a child for discipline and the child knowing he/she shouldn’t do it again or they will be punished, and going overboard. I believe that when you punish a child, it should be controlled and you should NEVER do it out of rage or anger! Punishment should suite the “crime”. I believe this as part of the psycological development of the child. As for the “Fear of God” as I was taught, I feel for me it was a good thing (the fear of God’s punishment, especially in death, and thus trying to lead a life on the straight and narrow).

I’m not really a person that is entirely pro-transhumanism, because I believe there will be many transhumanistic ideals that could be bad for individuals and humanity in general. We need to find the balance between technology and ourselves, this might require us to make some mistakes (especially in the field of Genetics and Genetic engineering). However, I 100% believe various forms of Transhumanism are comming like Nano-technology, and many forms are already here, like Cybernetics, or maybe I should say we are on the eve of cybernetics. Various types of implants (like heart implants) and artificial limbs are the dawn of Cybernetics. We are experimenting with the limits of our bodies. Transhumanism is innevitable, because it has already started!

And finally, THANK YOU for your observation that many of my statements and ideas are “deterministic”, I never knew that before, never even heard of it! Yes, I have many deterministic ideas, I’m still trying to figure out which one is closest to my belief. Probably Compatibilism as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Ben-JamminThanks a LOT for the link to Naturalism. I also share MANY Naturalistic ideals (as you pointed out), which I believe influences and ties into my deterministic ideas and shows the relationship. I tried to find an idea that corresponds to my own, and followed the wikipedia link from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_naturalism
and read “Industry and technology are enemies to naturalism.” If that is the case, then I’m not a 100% naturalist. I’m not a hard-core advocate of technology, there are both good and bad technologies, we need to find the balance!

I don’t always know the philosophical “label” of my ideas. I try to come to my own conclusions, but I’m an intellectual and I like to read a lot of scientific articles (only if I can understand them and they interest me), but I don’t usually go too deep into things like Genetics because there are a lot of terms I don’t understand, like the different kinds of DNA, I didn’t even know there different kinds until recently. I don’t have a strong biology background, only a few topics interest me. I try to get the overall picture of a wide variety of topics. How deep I go into those topics depends on how much I currently understand and how much they interest me, like Astonomy, when I was younger I read all the articles in the Encyclopaedia Britanica on every topic of Astronomy, from all the planets in the solar system, to all the stars etc. But that was a 1977 edition, through the years I’ve tried to keep my knowledge up to date by reading Microsoft Encarta through the 90′s and early century, but now I use Wikipedia mostly. I enjoy reading on Astonomy, Evolution, Technology and a bit of Genetics, Theology etc.

The reason I believe all this is, that decisions and decision making is simply a chemical process in our brain.

That’s straight naturalism, possibly the most empathetic view of what is around, and the foundation for humanism.

You say you would not raise your child as an atheist but as a Christian…The ‘not an atheist’ part means you would try to raise them as a theist who believes in a Christian God? Why not naturalism / humanism?