What Is Man?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny assumes. There are many higher forms of mammals that survive just fine with zero self-awareness. There is absolutely no reason to assume it is, or was, necessary for the survival of any species. You are just making stuff up now.

'No shuny assumes' is not an adequate answer. post #522 is specific and accurate, and I can easily support this with science. Make your objections specific and I will back it up.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, random mutations that create biological novelty are not directed,

As you are told many times mutations are not 'random' in the layman's sense. ALL events in the Natural world follow a predictable fractal pattern within the constraints of the Laws of Nature and the envioronment which the events take place. Your misusing terminology for a religious agenda. As referred before, 'intentionality and being directed' are anthropomorphic assumptions based on 'Theistic beliefs, and of course 'NOT SCIENCE.'

. . . they have no purpose, and they do not aim towards a goal. It is only by chance that we ended up as we did. There is nothing in the laws of nature that makes it inevitable that we turn out this way - that is pure chance.

Again misusing 'chance.' We ended up the way we did, because of Natural Law and the environment within which 'abiogenesis and evolution' took place. Purpose is again a Theistic assumption and not science. Yes, the inevitability as to how we turn out is a Theist assumption, not in the realms of science, but given billions of possible worlds in our universe alone, there is no problem of some worlds turning out like ours.

Your missing the argument by proposing meaningless assumptions. The question is: 'Could humans have evolved as we are today be strictly Natural processes?' Yes it is very possible. Our physical and nature and the evolution of our intelligence most definitely has survival advantage in competing with other primates and carnivores.

[shunyadragon]

I'm referring to the syntax (i.e sentence structure) of your writing. At times it's so off the walls that trying to figure out what you mean feels more like pure guesswork than anything else.

I know full well what your referring to. Again syntax excuses are not a cover for those that misuse words such as 'accident,' 'random' and 'chance' within the context of a hostile religious agenda against the science of evolution.

[JimL]

Time Jim would not be relevant. If we are in fact dealing with an eternal being time is of no consequence.

This is what you'd call a philosophical assumption seer, not a scientifically proven fact.

This is what I don't have to believe: That this universe with its laws and parameters came about by chance. That biological life came about by chance, the the ecosystems that molded the progressive formation of higher life forms came about by chance. That non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did create something that is not inherent to their nature - consciousness and rationality, by chance.

No, of course you don't have to believe it, you can make the assumption that such a being with these attributes existed eternally and created something out of nothing that 14 billion years later evolved into what you describe in the above, including conscious rational beings. But if you believe that such things, consciousness/rationality, couldn't possibly come about naturally through the process of evolution, then why would you believe that they could exist eternally and uncaused? The latter belief it seems to me is even less believable than the former so why adopt it if all we can see is the former existence and its evolution.

BTW Jim, mutations my be random to us, they would not be random to God.

Yes, thats assuming there is a God that engineered it all. Besides, though change seems random to us, even without a God change would not be random according to the nature of existence itself as described by the Schrodinger equation which defines a world, many worlds, that unfold deterministically.

[seer]

Again misusing 'chance.' We ended up the way we did, because of Natural Law and the environment within which 'abiogenesis and evolution' took place. Purpose is again a Theistic assumption and not science. Yes, the inevitability as to how we turn out is a Theist assumption, not in the realms of science, but given billions of possible worlds in our universe alone, there is no problem of some worlds turning out like ours.

Shuny from a strictly evolutionary point of view did we have to turn out this way? If not, then it was only by chance, it was not intended nor planned.

[seer]

'No shuny assumes' is not an adequate answer. post #522 is specific and accurate, and I can easily support this with science. Make your objections specific and I will back it up.

Nonsense, nothing in science proves that self-awareness is necessary for survival.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny from a strictly evolutionary point of view did we have to turn out this way? If not, then it was only by chance, it was not intended nor planned.

Actually the question has been already answered in this thread and many many times before.

Again, intent and plan are theistic assumptions. We did not end up the way we are by the dumb layman's view of 'chance' and 'accident.' If you are trying to dialogue reasonably concerning 'science and evolution of humans use proper intelligent terminology that is appropriate.

The meaningful question here when you are asking the question 'What is Hu(man)? is not: 'Could things be different?' but more appropriately: 'Could humans have evolved as we are today be strictly Natural processes?' Yes it is very possible. Our physical and nature and the evolution of our intelligence most definitely has survival advantage in competing with other primates and carnivores.

If you want start another thread: What could hu(mans) could have been? it may be relevant.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, nothing in science proves that self-awareness is necessary for survival.

Nonsense, double nonsense. Nothing is considered necessary in evolution nor science except except that all events be within the constraints of Natural Law. Has science shown that self awareness and intelligence have survival value? Yes they have. Just simply follow the evolutionary development of primates and the development of the family and community structure, which as well as self awareness in other primates, and its role in complex cooperative activities of society. Without self awareness and identity awareness of others less intelligent species are not capable of this complex relationships.

The problem remains that you assume a hostile negative posture toward science, use hostile misleading terminology and fail to do your own research to understand science.

[JimL]

Shuny from a strictly evolutionary point of view did we have to turn out this way? If not, then it was only by chance, it was not intended nor planned.

"Not by chance" does not necessarily mean "intended or planned" unless, as you assume, a mind with free will is involved. "Not by chance" in an uncreated universe would simply mean "determined." So, from a strictly evolutionary point of view, yes, we were determined to turn out this way even though it appears to us to be the result of chance.

[Sir]

"Not by chance" does not necessarily mean "intended or planned" unless, as you assume, a mind with free will is involved. "Not by chance" in an uncreated universe would simply mean "determined." So, from a strictly evolutionary point of view, yes, we were determined to turn out this way even though it appears to us to be the result of chance.

I'm entering the discussion very late, so forgive me if I miss a lot.

My point is simple: determinism and chance are both a bit of a chimera. We are as we are, presently. Determinism is an attempt at predicting the future, and the notion of chance is a fancy word that suggests "I have no idea what happened in the past, but here we are."

Somewhat shallow thoughts, I'm sure. But I don't see any point in dickering over terms that elude actual appreciation.

[JimL]

I'm entering the discussion very late, so forgive me if I miss a lot.

My point is simple: determinism and chance are both a bit of a chimera. We are as we are, presently. Determinism is an attempt at predicting the future, and the notion of chance is a fancy word that suggests "I have no idea what happened in the past, but here we are."

Somewhat shallow thoughts, I'm sure. But I don't see any point in dickering over terms that elude actual appreciation.

My point was in answer to seer's its either the one or the other, mindful intention or chance. Its not, the third alternative is that the universe itself is not created, not intended, nor is it by chance, but it could be eternal and determined by its own nature, which from our perspective looks like chance.

[seer]

Its not, the third alternative is that the universe itself is not created, not intended, nor is it by chance, but it could be eternal and determined by its own nature, which from our perspective looks like chance.

Where is the evidence that this universe is eternal or had to be this way?

[seer]

Nonsense, double nonsense. Nothing is considered necessary in evolution nor science except except that all events be within the constraints of Natural Law. Has science shown that self awareness and intelligence have survival value? Yes they have. Just simply follow the evolutionary development of primates and the development of the family and community structure, which as well as self awareness in other primates, and its role in complex cooperative activities of society. Without self awareness and identity awareness of others less intelligent species are not capable of this complex relationships.

Again Shuny, this is pure speculation. There are only about ten creatures that we know of that have some level of self-awareness. Yet many other species have intelligence (to degrees) with family and community structures. As a matter of fact there is no evidence that all primates have self awareness - and they survive just fine, with community and family structure, like the stump-tailed macaque. So your point is completely bogus!

[seer]

The meaningful question here when you are asking the question 'What is Hu(man)? is not: 'Could things be different?' but more appropriately: 'Could humans have evolved as we are today be strictly Natural processes?' Yes it is very possible. Our physical and nature and the evolution of our intelligence most definitely has survival advantage in competing with other primates and carnivores.

No, the appropriate question at hand is could humans have evolved differently or not at all? Well?

[shunyadragon]

No, the appropriate question at hand is could humans have evolved differently or not at all? Well?

Not as you presented the question in this thread.