Re: Duality, Evolution, Naturalism, Spiritual Selection, and that certain 'someone'


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1175638636.036993.69330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 3, 5:12 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1175637539.399770.189510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 3, 4:53 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Scooter the Mighty" <Greyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1171986334.890048.296590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 19, 7:31 pm, "TCE" <strangebr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Started a new thread as things are hopelessly confusing in the
existing threads. So, here it is, (I think), in a nutshell:

1. Someone2 believes that "consciousness" can never be achieved by a
purely mechanical process.
2. He uses the term "mechanical" to mean both man-made and biological
machines in the context of evolution.
3. He believes that if evolution is true, then we are simply
biological machines akin to computers, following a set of rules like a
computer program, reacting to stimulus such as pain using appropriate
behaviors in an automatic and passive way.
4. However, we are "conscious" and therefore can seemingly affect our
behavior using "free will", which means we can't be biological
machines simply following a "build and program" as determined by the
process of evolution.
5. The terms "Atheist", "Materialist" and "Evolutionist" are
interchangeable. If a person is any one of these things, he's also all
of the others.
6. Materialists all subscribe to his view of evolution above, and so
believe that that we are all pre-programmed, biological machines
following evolution's "build and program", which precludes
consciousness and so is impossible.

Before anyone starts critiquing this "theory", keep in mind this is
only my opinion until someone2 responds and tells me if I'm
correct :-)

That sounds like what he's saying to me, but he is adamantly opposed
to admitting he's saying anything, and whenever you try to attribute
an argument to him he claims that it is inaccurate. If you're trying
to figure out what he's saying and are willing to believe it without
his consent, I think you're pretty much right on.

Most of the people who have engaged with that overly certain 'someone'
have done so by denying dualism (point #4 above). However, it might
be interesting to see a debate between 'someone' and a person who accepts
dualism, but disagrees as to whether evolution could explain our bodies.

I have in mind a version of dualism which postulates that there are certain
disembodied spirits - call them souls - which take up residence in physical
human bodies, sit themselves down in the driver's seat in front of the control
panel, and direct the joined entity until the body dies. Such a viewpoint
seems to be implicit in many Eastern religions, as well as in some new-age
thinking - astral projection and the like.

'Someone' seems to believe that if this were the case, then it would be
impossible for evolution to explain the physical bodies. I'm not so sure.
Under this hypothesis, the soul can be seen as an odd variety of endosymbiote,
and therefore it may be that evolution *could* account for the fact that
humans, and other animals, have 'control panels' that are well designed
to work with souls. Of course, you are required to assume that animals
usually have souls, but this is not a problem for most religions. And
we can then hypothesize a variant of 'sexual selection' - 'spiritual
selection' - as animals and men compete to provide the most useful
control panel and the most luxurious driver's seat so as to attract the
best souls.

While this hypothesis involves supernatural entities, I wonder whether it
might be possible to investigate it naturalistically and scientifically.
It seems to me that Ian Stevenson has tried to conduct such investigations,
though I don't think he has done so convincingly.

Just a silly idea which might spark some discussion ...

this idea, as do most dualistic ideas, ignores vast amounts of
evidence from neuroscience that show how behavior changes quite
deterministically with brain damage.

I could pretend to be unconvinced. Damage to the control panel feeds, and
control leads will, of course, result in more-or-less predictible behavior
changes. There could still be a soul in the control loop, cursing the
loss of effective control, just like an auto driver whose brakes have failed,
or whose speedometer is wrong.

and the soul doesnt bail out because....?

Not sure. You should really be disputing this with someone who believes in
it. But maybe, hanging on to the body you have is preferable to getting stuck
in the queue of disembodied souls, or, worse, finding yourself next in a naked
mole rat. Or, maybe, bailing 'just isn't done' in the best circles.

.

Relevant Pages