human_murda
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by human_murda
-
-
23 minutes ago, 2046 said:
Pure argument by assertion.
How is that an argument by assertion? Can you explain?
-
I think transgenders attempt to fit reality (their physical characteristics, mainly how they appear to other people) to an error in cognition (error in identifying who they themselves are).
-
20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
"Non-binary" people claim to have knowledge unavailable to "binary" thinkers. They know of a third "gender." Their "gender." And their "gender" class possesses this special knowledge via feelings. They simply feel (or somehow know) it in their souls. They divine it from somewhere. They can't tell you where. It just comes to them. It's been there since childhood. They don't know why. But it's a fact.
I completely agree with this. They usually provide two (mutually contradictory) justifications for why nobody can contradict them:
1) From evolutionary psychology: the idea that this "feeling" (actually: identification) of who they are is obtained through genes or some means other than perception. Such inheritance can be random, is not derived from reality and may eventually be discovered to be in conflict with physical reality. They may claim that they are physically a man but their brain comes with the identification that they are a woman. Since the identification is obtained through means other than perception and "cannot be helped", they claim that these identifications (of themselves as male or female) are as valid as a person whose genetic consciousness is "cis" (people who get a transmitted consciousness which identifies their biological sex correctly but don't have a choice in their identification either, since that part of the consciousness [which identifies their own biological sex] is transmitted genetically and is not derived from perception).
2) The idea that gender has nothing to do with biological sex and is a social convention. Under this paradigm, gender is a man-made concept. Hence, it is arbitrary. Hence, they're all equally valid. The concepts are considered to be derived from reality but in a loose sense: through social agreement. What is considered is "normal" or correct is also part of this agreement and has no basis in reality and must be fought.
The latter argument can also be applied to all concepts: all concepts are man-made (true) and hence, arbitrary (false) but are given meaning and made "real" by society (false).
Both justifications cut off consciousness (identification) from reality (one says identifications are hereditary; other says they are arbitrary.) and they contradict each other. There are still more (less important) arguments.
Definitions: sex and gender are two different concepts but your sex determines your gender. Some heuristic definitions can be given:
sex: biological sex of all animals
gender: biological sex of humans
male sex: male & animal
female sex: female & animal
male gender = male & human
female gender = female & human
man = male & human & 18+
boy = male & human & 18-
woman = female & human & 18+
girl = female & human & 18-
For example, a cow is female but not a woman. A bull is male but not a man. This is the only distinction between sex and gender. Humans can be referred to by their sex as well as gender. Your biological sex and the fact that you are human (and hence your gender) are determined by your physiology and is not an arbitrary choice open to debate.
Note: saying something like "that female offered me candy" is a bit dehumanizing so the latter is more preferred [gender contains the implication that you are human]. But both are correct. This doesn't mean that gender has any additional special non-physiological attributes. Gender is preferred over sex (when referring to people) for the same reason that "those gay men are playing in the field" is preferred over "those gays are playing in the field". The only thing gender adds to sex (and "gay men" adds to "gays") is personhood (the fact that you are human). The addition (of personhood) makes sure that you are not reduced to your biological sex or sexual orientation while somebody else is referring to your biological sex or sexual orientation. It is a respectful way of addressing people (but it is not a title or indication of social status as some "constructionists" would want you to believe). There is no mystical undefinable element. Gender is a respectful way of referring to a person's biological sex by including the fact that they are human. The same thing happens with "gay men" or "gay person" as opposed to just "gays". Both sex and gender refer to biological sex but for different classes of species. Sometimes the word "man" refers to all humans emphasizing the personhood and getting rid of the biological sex. This is more evidence that what the words man/woman add to the table is the concept of being human, not some BS social convention.
Also, English isn't my first language, but this is how I understand these words (male, female, man, boy, woman, girl). It seems extremely simple to me. But pretty much all native speakers seem to have some problems with this. I don't understand what their objections are to this (I have heard some say that since gender roles are made-up and different throughout the world [eg: marumakkathayam in Kerala], the concept of gender is false. That's faulty logic. Gender and gender roles are two separate concepts. The validity of gender roles has no implications for the validity of the concept of gender). To summarize: gender is a different concept from sex (which is broader) but if you are human, your sex determines your gender.
- intrinsicist and Grames
-
2
-
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:
No argument that I have made here applies to any particular individual, to no man in particular. Nor does any belief that I privately hold or publicly espouse. Rather, my arguments apply to any sufficiently large group of men.
The problem is that these particular men exist within these groups. So your arguments do apply to particular men. You're just not identifying them.
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:This dichotomy between the group and the individual is one that I have belabored to the point of exhaustion, [...]
There is no such explicit dichotomy. Every statement about the group is derived from individuals and every statement about an individual implies something about a group. A group doesn't have a higher, separate existence. You wouldn't be able to say that '99% of the people in this group are colour-blind, but I'm saying nothing about individual men'; by that statement, you would be saying something about individual men, but you're leaving them unidentified (i.e., you don't know which particular men fall under the 1% and which particular men fall under 99%. However, just because you don't know who they specifically are doesn't mean that you're not referring to them. You're still referring to particular, unidentified men). If you say "capitalists are evil", you're not talking about any particular men (say Amit or Dhruv). But these particular men exist. Statistics isn't exempt from this.
4 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:This dichotomy between the group and the individual is one that I have belabored to the point of exhaustion, carefully crafting my words to ensure that not even the appearance of me judging the individual based on race is present.
You are claiming that you would never judge any particular individual you encounter in real life because you don't know which part of the curve they fall on. But you're still making an important claim: that a lot of specific, particular, unidentified men have a tendency to have a low IQ, because of their race.
'Specific' and 'unidentified' aren't two mutually exclusive categories. They are related by the theory of measurement omission (that is the way statistics works too, since they are an abstraction):
"Bear firmly in mind that the term “measurements omitted” does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity".
In summary: you are referring to particular individual men. You are just not identifying who these particular individuals are. Just because you don't know them personally or are not identifying them individually doesn't mean you're not making claims about particular, individual (unidentified) men. Without reference to any particular men, what you would have is a floating abstraction. Statistics isn't a floating abstraction.
Also, at times, your "arguments" boil down to this: since we know that humans differ in their inessential characteristics (some have dyslexia; others don't), isn't it possible that humans differ in their essential characteristics (capacity of reason) as well? You are evading what a difference in such an essential characteristic would imply: they are not human. You're not saying that some humans differ in their essential characteristics by degree. You're making a categorical distinction ("unable to understand capitalism"). This is like saying that: we know chairs differ in their inessential characteristics (differences in color for example); isn't it possible that they differ in their essential characteristics as well (isn't it possible that some of them aren't made to be sat on)? This is nonsensical.
Regarding success, you are also ascribing innate guilt to some groups of people: because your ancestors haven't achieved something in the past, you're never going to achieve something in the future. This isn't how humans work. Humans don't necessarily inherit the concrete methods of functioning of their ancestors.
-
Concepts refer to actual reality, but concepts do not refer to "appearances". Right. Somebody probably possess supernatural senses to know this "actual reality".
-
And I'm sorry to say you don't understand English.
-
To sum up: concepts are abstractions which refer to "appearances". Concepts are not the actual reality. They refer to the actual reality (which you know must exist from the evidence of the senses), which you call "appearances".
Also from AR:
"The arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the “stolen concept.” "
-
The entire problem with your argument is considering the actual, the concrete to be an "appearance" while considering your abstractions to be "actual" reality (and somehow invalidates the former or relegates them into an "appearance"). This is easily resolved since abstraction, as such, do not exist.
-
9 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
When I see a black kitty, I don't want to merely know that I see a black kitty, and I wouldn't be satisfied with merely knowing that something is causing me to see a black kitty (reality, dream, hallucination, the matrix, Descarte's Demon, or whatever) What I would really like to know is whether or not there really is indeed an actual black kitty causing the sensation of the black kitty.
When one says that the senses are "self-evident" I take that to mean that whenever it appears to me that x, it turns out that, in fact, x. This rarely happens, so I don't think that the senses are "self-evident".
Concepts do not invalidate the senses.
The notion that the sight of bent pencil in a glass of water is an "appearance" while the concept of a straight pencil is "actual" reality is completely false. The fact is that the latter is an abstraction (identification of the essential ["straight pencil"] plus identification of another essential, refraction). Reality does not "actually" exist in parts. The separation into "straight pencil" plus "refraction" is a mental isolation, an abstraction. It is man-made.
The number 5 does not invalidate the vision of 5 apples. You cannot say that the number 5 is "actually" real while the vision of 5 apples is just an "appearance".
In the same way, the concept of a straight pencil does not invalidate the vision of a bent one. The vision is the concrete, the actual. The isolation of the pencil as a straight object is done for epistemological purposes. It is an essential (but does not exist as such in reality).
To quote Ayn Rand:
"Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete".
By saying that your perception is just an appearance while your concepts are "actually" real and rises above and invalidates your senses, you'd be veering into Platonism. The "actual" reality that you speak of are abstractions. They do not exist, as such.
You got the entire concept of an actual vs. fake by coming across one concrete instance where you thought something was a specific way but later found it out to be different (this is an abstraction from abstraction. This is different from what was discussed above: abstraction from perception). Your concept of "actual vs. fake" comes from that concrete. It does not invalidate that concrete. You already know how to distinguish between actual vs. fake. It doesn't need to be "proved". If you assume it needs to be proved, you're invalidating the concrete from which you arrived at the concept "actual". You'd be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.
The "actual" kitty that you speak of, is an abstraction. You do not first have a concept of an "actual" kitty and then go searching for its existence. Reality doesn't need to conform to your abstractions. An actual kitty (as in, what you might call the "appearance of a kitty") is the root of your abstraction. It is then that you form the abstraction of kitty. You cannot form the concept of a kitty and then ask: "where does this actually exist in reality?".
From AR:
"The Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around—on the premise that the presence of any notion in man’s mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality."
Concepts do not invalidate the senses. They depend on it.
-
I really want want you to clarify something: are you really saying that percepts for chair, human, cat, rabbit, etc don't exist?
Are you really saying that something is either a sensation or a concept, with nothing in-between? What would be your definitions for sensations, percepts and concepts? How do you distinguish between percepts and concepts (for example, what would you say is the difference between the percept of a chair and the concept of a chair)?
-
On 4/7/2017 at 7:46 AM, New Buddha said:
Every rabbit that a wolf encounters is not a unique percept -- it is a generalized abstraction (i.e. a concept).
No. It is a new, unique sensation; but the same percept. Perceptions are retained. It doesn't need to be a concept.
You seem to have to blurred the distinction between percepts and concepts. It is possible to have a percept for a chair. It is also possible to have a concept for a chair. This doesn't mean that percepts are a form of concepts. Percepts aren't first level abstractions.
-
24 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
And merely stating the contradictory position doesn't make for a good argument.
That one sentence isn't the entirety of my argument. It is an opening statement.
26 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:Actually no, you are wrong, because this argument completely ignores causality. Motion that is observed in a non-inertial reference frame is, as a matter of fact, not real and therefore merely an appearance.
The difference with actual motion is that actual motion has a cause, and causal connections in Newtonian physics are mediated by (real) forces. The motion of the Earth around the sun is caused by gravity. The apparent motion of the sun around the Earth (due to the rotation of the Earth) has no actual cause.
There is no such distinction as an "actual motion" and an "appearance of motion". All motion is relative (from relativity, there's no such thing as an "absolute" motion). The distinction of causality/force is irrelevant. We're talking about motion.
31 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:The only sense in which they are correct is the wholly vacuous one in which the apparent motion that is calculated in a non-inertial reference frame will indeed be the observed motion.
And this "vacuous" notion of "I see the Sun moving" is the conceptual statement of what you perceive (this is perception by the way, not sensation). The question of what revolves around what is at an entirely different level.
35 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:In other words, saying that non-inertial reference frames are correct (in any way other than the vacuous) is like saying that, in the optical illusion with the two lines where one appears to be shorter than the other, there is no illusion at all because one of the lines in fact appears to be shorter than the other.
Exactly. The physical phenomena which produce perception is real too. There is no such thing as perception without the apparatus of perception. Some phenomena in the eye produced that illusion. To deny that would be to claim that you are blind because you have eyes. You need some means of perception before you can perceive something. You cannot perceive something "directly". That is not perception. The "illusion" is physically real (although fake). It exists.
38 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:To summarize this very briefly, you seem to be taking the "factuality" of an appearance and the undeniable certainty that what appears to be the case is what appears to be the case and ascribing this tautological certainty to the senses.
Yes
41 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:But when talking about the validity of the senses, I am not at all concerned with their ability to present to us facts about mere appearances, but facts about the actual reality behind those appearances.
You are here talking about the relation between what exists (what you call "appearances") and what you know (what you call "actual reality"). Sensations are of something which exists (whatever it is: hallucinations, simulations, etc) and you are conscious of it. Existence and consciousness are implicit in sensations. Hallucinations are real: as hallucinations. Simulations are real: as simulations. Simulations cannot be produced without the apparatus that produces it. You know that something exists. The light that hits the retina in a Virtual Reality or impulse that travels through the nervous system and finally enters the brain: some physical phenomena exists. Otherwise, you can't sense it. This is the self-evident validity of the senses.
As for the question of what something actually is, whether it is an illusion or if it is fake, etc: that is the issue of proof. It is fully at the conceptual level. This has nothing to do with the validity of the senses (something exists and you know it).
-
4 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
*****Topic Split from Do Objectivists see self evidence differently from academic philosophers?*****
It isn't at all clear to me why the senses are self-evident. My senses fool me all the time. They tell me that the sun goes around the Earth even though I know that to be false.
Senses do not fool you. Sensations involve the various colors you see, the brightness of these colors, etc as you are aware of them in the present.
There is no sensation in "Sun", "goes", "around", "the", "Earth". These are either percepts or concepts.
"Sun goes around the Earth" or vice versa is a proposition that is not present in sensation.
Secondarily, you are wrong about your concepts as well. The Sun does factually move relative to you. However, the Sun does not revolve around you. The difference is based on the gravitational force involved.
Acceleration of a body with respect to a non-inertial observer cannot be assigned actual forces. You need to introduce fictitious forces. Thus it is only in terms of forces alone that "Sun revolves around the Earth" is false while "Earth revolves around the Sun" is correct. In terms of motion alone ("goes around"), both are correct.
Non-inertial reference frames are not incorrect. They are not appearances. They are actual physical fact. No physicist would say that non-inertial frames are incorrect or exist outside reality. Just don't use them to derive forces.
-
35 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
I never made any such assumption, I just recognize (same as you), that there are some situations where a human can't realistically be expected to survive. I don't see why you think that someone can survive in the US (for example) if they remain unemployed for a long period of time.
Also, whatever implications follow from your argument, the implications are there whether you intended them or not. That's how logic works.
Of course, if that were the case. The problem is that, if you were correct, I would be wrong on my assumptions, not my conclusions/implications (you asked whether I want "employers to provide terminated employees with food until they find a new job". This is not a logical implication of my argument. You made additional assumptions. They may well be true. But you should be aware that you made those assumptions and assumed that I agree with them. Otherwise the final statement is your conclusion, not mine. No matter how much you believe them to be true or how true they are, those are your conclusions about my arguments). My conclusions are perfectly valid given my assumptions, which is what you should have attacked.
Also: implications do not exist without intention (of course, you can be wrong in logic, but implications do not exist "out there" in nature. An authorship is necessary). Without accounting for intention, you can make whatever implications you want out of the arguments of another using assumptions you made about reality (forgetting that these are your own arguments).
The notion is so bad because even arguments are true or false in reality.
For example, you can ask a Flat Earther: "Are you saying that everything you say is bullshit?". Of course, they're not actually saying that but by your arguments, they are. According to you, that would be that intrinsic implication of their arguments ("implied" by nature), without authorship. You can say that you think they are talking bullshit, but you cannot ascribe authorship to them. You cannot say that they think they are saying bullshit. That is your conclusion. Not theirs.
For the same reason, you can't say I want "employers to provide terminated employees with food until they find a new job". That is your conclusion using additional assumptions you made.
To say that the implications are there whether or not you know it is to claim special knowledge. It is the argument that "you are so stupid you don't even know it". That shows how much respect have for the people you're arguing with.
-
There is a difference between being incapable of survival in a specific instance and being incapable generally (and this issue was ignored in all the other threads concerning the morality of suicide as well as the life-boat scenarios. But that's a discussion for another thread).
-
Humans aren't fundamentally incapable of survival. Thus they don't need to employ you to keep you alive.
But in the specific instance of being in space, you are incapable of survival (to some extend). Thus, they have to bring you back. They don't have to employ you afterwards (because humans aren't fundamentally incapable of survival).
-
5 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
Just because they fired you on a habitable portion of the surface of the Earth, does not mean that you can survive there.
I don't know what definition of "habitable" you are using.
You are conflating two issues. It is not fundamentally impossible for human beings to survive. Therefore, other people don't have to help you.
However, there are specific situations in which you are unable to survive. If other people caused this, they have initiated force.
The first implies that employers are not required to employ you. The second implies that the space corporation is required to bring you back to safety, but (by the first reason) is not required to keep you employed afterwards.
The assumption that humans are fundamentally incapable of survival always leads to altruism (whether that be a statement that "reason is limited" or "universe is malevolent" or "universe is incomprehensible" or "humans are evil"). That is your assumption, not mine. Hence my argument does not lead to the conclusion that employers are required to keep you employed. That is your conclusion. Don't insert your arguments into mine and say that I'm being contradictory.
-
Just now, SpookyKitty said:
You could say the same about being terminated from a job. Humans can't live without eating either. Are you going to require employers to provide terminated employees with food until they find a new job?
Well, humans did survive and evolve on the surface of Planet Earth. Besides, it is an issue of cause and effect. Employers aren't directly responsible for your death from starvation is they fired you on a habitable portion of the surface of the Earth...
The issue is not one of employment. The space corporation doesn't have to employ you. They are well within their rights to fire you. However, they can't leave you in space (or at 1000ft under the sea).
-
22 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:
The company contract allows it to change the terms of the contract unilaterally at will.
If you don't like the new terms, you are "free to leave".
No, you are not free to leave.
The captain of a submarine ship cannot kick you out at 1000ft depth under the ocean because they didn't like you. If you were a fish that could survive at that depth, perhaps that would be legal.
The pilot of a helicopter cannot kick you out at 10,000ft altitude because they don't like you. If you were a bird that can fly at that altitude, perhaps it would be legal.
The problem is that humans can't fly, nor can they breathe and survive at that depth. So it is illegal if you have the body of a human. The issue is similar concerning survival in space.
In situations like these, it is assumed that the trip is not "one-way". It doesn't matter if they have to pay for it or if it costs them millions of dollars. -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Changing the conditions of your work in a way that is different from your contract could be construed as an initiation of force/fraud (and a contract is definitely needed in situations like these).
And there would be legal issues associated with holding you ransom. You might say that the corporation didn't force you to stay there. But the issue of force is determined by the nature of reality. If somebody locked you in a room only they can open, you would essentially be held as a prisoner. By the nature of reality (i.e., by the constraints placed by the fact that you are physically unable to leave), the situation is very similar and legal issues can be involved.
Also another thing: if this is the mentality, I doubt they would be the first to do anything in space. So situation is very unlikely as well.- Plasmatic, chuff, splitprimary and 1 other
-
4
-
7 hours ago, New Buddha said:
Certainly young children do.
That quote was taken out of context. I had said: "The same cannot be said for humans. Humans don't learn by imitation. Other members of the same generation need not follow this behavior." Of course children can imitate just like adults can. They don't have to. Besides, even if they imitate, it doesn't need to be permanent. The fact that young children could imitate or even hypothetically "have to" imitate is irrelevant. The fact is that young children aren't hunters and gatherers now.
Dragging in children serves no purpose. Ayn Rand said that "Man is an is end in himself". Yet children are dependent on their parents. Do you disagree with Ayn Rand's statement? If not, that should show you why my own statement isn't wrong. You have some "unique form of human abstract reasoning" to do.
QuoteChildren don't really begin to engage in the unique form of human abstract reasoning until 6 - 8 years of age, and yet they do learn a great deal before then, if properly nurtured.
No, conceptualization begins way before six and you can't reason without concepts (there is no such thing as 'pure reason').
-
Further application of the fact that humans need not function by concrete inheritance:
Several people inherit the religion of their parents. But they don't have to.
Some people wear a certain brand of shoes simply because others wear them. But they don't have to.
This fact was the determining factor in the evolution of 'volitional consciousness'. This choice to be rational. The choice which eliminates concrete inheritance (or the chance, perceptual acceptance of ideas). But it is still a choice: it could have been otherwise. Automatically, it has no survival advantage. -
As for the assertion that animals "exploit" their environment.
Beavers build dams? Great. So will future beavers. Suppose there are no streams or forest/wood materials available in the future. Beavers aren't equipped to deal with it.
Humans building dams is different from beavers building dams. It's irrelevant whether beavers learn to build dams. They couldn't have done otherwise. It is still an instinct. It is inherited.
Just because there is a superficial similarity (dam building) doesn't mean the processes involved are the same. Beavers building dams is an adaptation to the environment (they can't function without streams or wood materials). It is a concrete inheritance (learned or not). Humans building dams is not an adaptation to the environment. It has no concrete inheritance (we don't do it because our ancestors did so or because we are imitating something).
Nonhuman animals inherit their concrete method of functioning. From tribal warfare to signing chimps, it is the the same, inherited concrete method of functioning determined by their evolutionary past. Birds learn to fly? Great. They couldn't have done otherwise. Nobody said that a perceptual consciousness cannot learn. But given their, perceptual consciousness, environment, parenting, etc, they couldn't do anything else.
The potentials involved are simply not the same. The present potential of an animal is determined by their evolutionary history at a concrete level.
Humans do not have the same concrete method of functioning generation after generation. Humans used to be hunters and gatherers. We are not hunters and gatherers now. Humans do not inherit a concrete method of functioning (even though all generations of humans actually possess a specific concrete method of functioning).
The inheritances involved are different: one involves concrete inheritance (whether prewired or imitated from parents or imitated from humans or through perceptual learning). The other involves 'volitional consciousness'.
Natural selection can only act on concrete inheritance (since survival only involves concrete events). Natural selection simply cannot work without inheritance. This inheritance has to be concrete if it refers to the same entity in reality.
Human traits proceeding from volitional consciousness do not follow concrete inheritance and cannot be acted upon by natural selection (simply because they change from generation to generation). Of course, this is a superficial way to say it. The reason some traits differ from generation to generation is choice.
Other human traits which do not proceed from 'volitional consciousness' were acted upon by natural selection.
However, humans did evolve. How? Through a rudimentary artificial selection. Some humans chose a certain concrete, rational way of living. It wasn't the concrete method of functioning that survived but the source that gave rise to it: 'volitional consciousness'. The trait (the concrete way of living that made our ancestors survive) wasn't inherited. The trait was man-made. It needn't have existed meaning that humans needn't have existed meaning humans (as a species) exist by choice. There was an artificial selection involved in our evolutionary history (this artificial selection acted on the inherited trait of 'volitional consciousness').
The fact that humans exist by choice is even more obvious now: we can potentially make our own species extinct using atom bombs. Animals cannot possess such a trait after the action of natural selection (any concrete inheritance [through learning or otherwise] that makes an animal kill itself will be negatively acted upon by natural selection).
Suppose one animal in a herd acts suicidally (by accident) and other animals learn this behavior, that would be acted upon by natural selection. Since animals learn perceptually, this behavior has concrete inheritance. The species can go extinct. Something like this happened to dodo.
The same cannot be said for humans. Humans don't learn by imitation. Other members of the same generation need not follow this behavior. Moreover, the next generation could be entirely rational. Natural selection simply cannot act on this (there is no concrete inheritance for these traits).
Animals acquire traits concretely (with or without learning) and retain it by natural selection. Humans do not acquire (man-made) traits concretely.
Why is everyone pretending that these facts have no consequences in reality? How could these facts possibly have no consequence?
What consequences do you think these facts have, in terms of evolution of human beings vs evolution of other organisms. Are these irrelevant? If so, why?
-
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:
You're rather questioning if the ability to choose is a survival advantage. That too is an advantage though, as should be clear in the race example.
Strong muscles and the ability to see are the material upon which the ability to choose acts. Strong muscles don't constitute an ability to choose. They are the material. The ability to choose is volitional consciousness.
As to the assertion that quills are only a potential survival advantage in the same way as volitional consciousness, that's wrong. Quills are a potential survival advantage but their possible relation with any particular environment is fixed. The standard by which the quills of an animal act automatically is life. They have an automatic, objective survival advantage. Volitional consciousness does not automatically act on the standard of life.
The potential of a porcupine acts on the standard of life. The potential of a volitional consciousness does not automatically act on the standard of life.
The potential of a volitional consciousness isn't just more complicated. Natural selection fully explains the selection pressure on animals. Saying that animal faculties in the present are just a potential like reason is confusing between the past and the present.
The way animal faculties can potentially act in the present is exactly the same way they have actually acted in the past. The way volitional consciousness can potentially act in the present is not exactly the same way it acted in the past.
The reason 'volitional consciousness' survived as a trait is because someone was rational in the past. That is not the potential of that trait for the present or for the future. The potential function of a quill or perceptual consciousness or animal learning or animal flight is exactly the same as the animal's history. The potential for a 'volitional consciousness' is different from the concrete events of the past. It need not even have been conceived yet. The difference is not one of "complication".
The Royal Family of Nominalism
in Political Philosophy
Posted
I am obviously attacking that idea as a strawman. I'm not saying that's the only idea they have. I'm saying that if somebody has that idea, it's wrong. I'm attacking the idea as compared against reality. I was very careful to avoid associating ideas with people because I knew somebody would accuse me of "strawmanning". This was why I avoided mentioning the term "social constructionists", but I forgot to leave out the term "evo psych". I am very sorry if I offended any scientists. I won't make that mistake again. I'm deeply sorry.