morality within evolution

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

True Vaj, but yet while I do not in any way presume to speak for Luna,

we're all busy folks.. i'm sure she'll respond when possible... in the mean time...

does she not mean the circuit, the connection back to the source?

well... i don't quite know... hence the question

The difference as I see it, is that all of nature, every living thing, is tied back to the source. Different "plugs" maybe, but all life (chi) is tied together, and to the source. Is this not the "web of life?"

indeed... this would be a difference in how we view the universe, as it were. my view is that the entire universe is an organic whole.. everything exists in relationship to everything else... it seems that, as you outline above, all life is connected to each other, and then a connection from the totality to the source is established. my view would be slightly different as the source doesn't have a seperate link.. it is part and parcel of the "all life"... if that makes sense

Consider the time Jesus cast the devils into the swine.

Or the talking ass that belonged to a prophet in the OT.

interesting that you mention these two things... as an aside, do you view these as allegory, metaphor or literal?

Spirit interacts with the whole of nature, down to and including the earth. Stones are alive.

spirit IS nature and nature IS spirit, from my view. we can seperate these things into discrete bits to facilitate our ability to communicate, however, this is a lingusitic artifact and does not correspond with suchness, in my view.

the thing with the God shaped hole, however, is particular to a theistic view of the universe... it implies that morality flows from the source of morality, God, and that each human, as evidenced by a great overlap of morality, innately recognizes that God. some just openly rebel.

this is a subtle technique, to be sure, and it is a veiw that is perfectly valid to hold, i just don't happen to share it.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for the reply.

Of course I did not coin this phrase--I think it is attributed to Sartre, whose name I can't even spell much less discuss how he meant this.

oh, i know that you didn't coin the phrase.. it is one that gives me pause, however, as it displays a worldview which i do not share.

To me it means that part of our make-up that causes us to search for higher meaning in our lives.

i think that's a good thing.

Could you tell us more about Anthropic Principle?

sure enough... though, as my understanding of this topic is superficial, i'll let someone a bit more versed carry the explanation forward thusly:

The Anthropic Principle was proposed in Poland in 1973, during a special two-week series of synopsia commemorating Copernicus’s 500th birthday. It was proposed by Brandon Carter, who, on Copernicus’s birthday, had the audacity to proclaim that humanity did indeed hold a special place in the Universe, an assertion that is the exact opposite of Copernicus’s now universally accepted theory.


Carter was not, however, claiming that the Universe was our own personal playground, made specifically with humanity in mind. The version of the Anthropic Principle that he proposed that day, which is now referred to as the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) stated only that by our very existence as carbon-based intelligent creatures, we impose a sort of selection effect on the Universe. For example, in a Universe where just one of the fundamental constants that govern nature was changed - say, the strength of gravity - we wouldn’t be here to wonder why gravity is the strength it is. The following is the official definition of the WAP:

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)​

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)​

In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative.


the interested reader is directed here for more thorough information:
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

I hope am not spoiling this wonderful going thread,

but ive got one or two add-ons.. after spending ermmm apprx. 2 hours to read the whole thread couldnt help myself to dig into this burning debate ;

Ok, has anyone consider the morality's evolvement from the selfishness perspective? Let me :

"Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?"
Because when we're selfish, it'll hurt the group. ..
But that answer on its own isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group. So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?" Nice question... Well, thank you.

The answer is going to be '"because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive."

Then you can imagine the next question. "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?"

You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality.
When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series.
The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."

what was the point, sorry feeling dizzy



dad usually told me to not to stick my nose into **** that i dont know. he still does, though now im STRONGER.. and can beat him, but shall i? isnt it immoral? damn feeling dizzier

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Thank you most sincerely!

indeed... this would be a difference in how we view the universe, as it were. my view is that the entire universe is an organic whole.. everything exists in relationship to everything else... it seems that, as you outline above, all life is connected to each other, and then a connection from the totality to the source is established. my view would be slightly different as the source doesn't have a seperate link.. it is part and parcel of the "all life"... if that makes sense

I'm not quite sure how I am read as "a connection from the totality to the source."? Perhaps something I wrote could be taken that way, but I think we are actually in agreement. Maybe I see an outside influence that potentially directs the flow of the river of life, or at least makes ripples in the water from time to time, but otherwise I think we are far more in agreement than not.

interesting that you mention these two things... as an aside, do you view these as allegory, metaphor or literal?
(*"Consider the time Jesus cast the devils into the swine. Or the talking ass that belonged to a prophet in the OT."*)

You have a valid question. I would whole-heartedly accept a knowledgable retort, particularly from bananabrain, but I have always viewed these events as real. Nothing in my later experience has given me specific cause to reconsider that view.

spirit IS nature and nature IS spirit, from my view.

Now we're getting somewhere. How then does nature relate to morality? Likewise, how then does spirit relate to morality? If you prefer, ethical actions. Does spirit lead humanity to ethical actions by way of "being more human?", or by way of "supressing the animal nature?" I suppose that demands the opposite question; does nature provide the source, base, ground of whatever that leads humanity to ethical actions?

If nature is spirit, and nature is neither moral nor amoral, is spirit neither moral nor amoral? If so, why morality in humans? What cause for morality? Love?

I rather like Luna's observation, of humanity operating in the tension built between the animal nature and spiritual transcendence.

we can seperate these things into discrete bits to facilitate our ability to communicate, however, this is a lingusitic artifact and does not correspond with suchness, in my view.

Agreed.

However, I am still eating my rice gruel.

I like the way I saw this described in a post sometime back. The words keep coming back, the lesson I took away. I've tried to refind it several times, I would love to thank the original writer here. They said something about being in a train station and looking at all of the trains. Being able to run off this and that about each and every one of the trains, but having never experienced it. That the only way to know where the train went, one had to pick one out and get on. The only way to truly "know" is to get on the train and ride. Well, I am still looking at the trains, trying to figure out which one is worth the ride.

the thing with the God shaped hole, however, is particular to a theistic view of the universe... it implies that morality flows from the source of morality, God, and that each human, as evidenced by a great overlap of morality, innately recognizes that God. some just openly rebel.

this is a subtle technique, to be sure, and it is a veiw that is perfectly valid to hold, i just don't happen to share it.

May I accept that, as in the past with gluadys, there is a term here you are uncomfortable with? I am not aware of any association with the term, and I can understand your detachment for certain implications, but I am not aware of it being a byword or buzzword with any extra-curricular baggage. You are the last person here I would dare think to deliberately answer to with something I knew caused you anxiety. I may provoke thoughtful answers, but I would hope you see my questions in the sincerity they are meant. I greatly value your input into my wanderings and musings.

 

[juantoo3]

Oh yes, Thank You very much for the bit about "Anthropic Principle."

 

[juantoo3]

not at all, welcome

Kindest Regards, PNG!

Ok, has anyone consider the morality's evolvement from the selfishness perspective?

Actually, yes, Lunamoth did in post 109:

And where did this need for morality come? It seems that the evolution of self-consciousness would be fairly detrimental to a selfish gene. Why all the extra baggage of morality? It seems to me that here is better "evidence" for God than in any claim from Intelligent Design about the structure of the eye. Not that we are perfectly created, but that we are imperfectly so. And yet, here we are.

So...

"Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?"
Because when we're selfish, it'll hurt the group. ..
But that answer on its own isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group. So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?" Nice question... Well, thank you.

The answer is going to be '"because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive."

Then you can imagine the next question. "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?"

You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality.
When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series.
The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."

Yeah ... so? Are you saying that the individual has a greater chance for survival as part of a group? I think we covered that on page one. At a physical level you are correct. What are the moral implications? Which way is up? How can you go with the flow, if you don't know which way the flow goes? Think beyond physical, think beyond mental. What truly IS?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Are we really evoluated ?

Oh my! We have spent many long posts discussing this in the past. I guess some depends on what it is you mean. Physically, I think it is fair to say we have changed physiologically over the brief span of history. We are generally taller, and have smaller lower jaws, just in the last couple thousand years. We are still human, but the adaptive mechanism does exist. The long running debate is whether or not that mechanism is deliberately manipulated, and on what time frame.

On one side we have countries with a huge economical developement and space programmes for future basis on other planets. On the other side, we have countries so poor, that their children have to work to survive. Worst, in 21st century we have cannibals among us.

I would think this is social evolution, not evolution in the strictest, Darwinian sense. Society is an artifact of life, not life itself. It does speak at a spirit level though.

We need morals to learn how to be a better person. I think this is the point in all children's stories : what can one learn from somebody's life. And we have an entire panoply of religions to support that.

Religion founded from a collection of children's stories? That is an interesting insight, I had always looked from outside of the family unit on this, meaning religion's association with politics and power. But ultimately mom teaches the kids, you are right.

Finally, we can find morality only in human societies, societies with a great history and culture and religion.

Do the Bushmen of the Kalahari have a society with a great history and culture and religion? Or Australian aboriginies practicing their native culture? Just checking. These societies have moral codes, I might add strong moral codes. Morality seems endemic, "natural", among humans. One can always find the exception to the rule, the "lone wolf," but as a rule humans are social animals. The only places and times throughout known history in which humanity thrived, it was as social animals.

I need to spend some time looking at what Brian suggested, I just haven't had the time. Animals do show an elemental morality. Especially the social, herding animals. Cattle. Antelope. Deer. Elephants. Whales.

Thank you very much, yours was a thoughtful response!

 

[alexa]

I need to spend some time looking at what Brian suggested, I just haven't had the time. Animals do show an elemental morality. Especially the social, herding animals. Cattle. Antelope. Deer. Elephants. Whales./QUOTE]

Juan,

Do you mean we have to go back at the departure quay ? Oh God !

You let me without words !

Alexa

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

Thank you, nice to take part..

Kindest regards back juan,

Kindest Regards, PNG!
Actually, yes, Lunamoth did in post 109:

That was quite a long reading Juan, i guess i have missed that part, and i was a lil bit.. high vs low, to tell you the truth elephants were shagging in my head while was writing that stuff ;

So...
Yeah ... so? Are you saying that the individual has a greater chance for survival as part of a group? I think we covered that on page one. At a physical level you are correct. What are the moral implications? Which way is up? How can you go with the flow, if you don't know which way the flow goes? Think beyond physical, think beyond mental. What truly IS?

hmmmm... yeah good point.. so, thats what ive been thinking the other day, SO what? why on earth i wrote things like that...
p.s in the middle: (F* man, should have listened to my pa, and wouldnt put my nose into **** ive got a little idea about but wtf here my mind goes, what you are about to hear is myselves own thoughts travelling in my head...)

Ok now, I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish?

Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.
That is silly. Because i know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.
Why do i know that?
Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.
Morality is something altogether different. I may debate about all that moral views, but one thing we can all agree on, I think, is that when we are looking for a definition of morality, we know it isn't about selfishness. It is about not being selfish, just the opposite.

That's why these explanations don't work. They either smuggle morality into the balance by describing the behavior that is meant to be explained by evolution so they depend upon morality to do the job.
Else the descriptions and explanations end up being reduced to selfishness, which isn't what im trying to explain. I'm trying to explain why one ought not be selfish, not why one ought to be selfish.

thats it im over )








spend your time in some useful stuff mom cried, go buy some aubergine.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Do you mean we have to go back at the departure quay ? Oh God !

You let me without words !

Oh now, I would think a former poultry geneticist would enjoy such a ride!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, PNG!

That was quite a long reading Juan, i guess i have missed that part, and i was a lil bit.. high vs low, to tell you the truth elephants were shagging in my head while was writing that stuff ;

understandable.

Ok now, I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish?

Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Of course, I can't help but think maybe this is asking an incorrect question. I ask myself that a lot with my questions.
For the sake of discussion, let's take a minute with this. Are you at all familiar with an author named Ayn Rand, who wrote a couple of books, Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. She promoted a philosophy of selfishness called "objectivism." Her books extolled the virtues of selfishness. I mean, let's face it, if you don't look out for yourself, who will? Right?

Morality, as I see it, extends beyond that. Love, in Rand's world, seemed to me cold, mechanical, animal. The real world isn't like that. A mother loves her child so much that she would do anything to protect it, even at the cost of her own life. THAT, is love. That is reaching beyond self. That is seeking the greater good for the benefit of the group. In so doing, the individual has an enhanced opportunity to thrive.

So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.

That is silly. Because i know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.

Is self interest, self protection and self improvement selfish? Even if they are, is selfish "evil" or "wrong" in this context? How can you help others if you yourself need help? This is why I wonder if you may not be asking an incorrect question. Selfish is not evil when it is in the proper context. Otherwise, infants are born evil, and I will argue against that to my dying breath.

Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite.

OK, now I'm getting a better picture. Keep in mind your words "moral rules." Written morality, codified law, whether religious or secular, is an extension of morality. Law is not morality. That is, law may have a basis and beginning in morality, but law is not automatically moral because of that connection. Initially it may have been promoted that way, in the power chase 3 or 4 thousand years ago, but a law is not inherently moral now. In short, the formal morality you are confusing is enforced morality, of a kind that reaches beyond what we have been discussing (at least in this physical realm).

When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that.

I'm not sure I follow. How does this relate then, with love, the genuine "look out for those you care about" kind.

Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

Actually, to this point, evolution proper hasn't really even entered the picture. Several sciences, religions and histories have. And a little "thinking outside of the box" to draw corresponding parallels, which means supposition. That is why I want to in the next couple of days bring in some of the animal morality stuff to compare notes with.

Morality is something altogether different. I may debate about all that moral views, but one thing we can all agree on, I think, is that when we are looking for a definition of morality, we know it isn't about selfishness. It is about not being selfish, just the opposite.

Conceptually, you are right. That is the "propaganda" as it were, promoted by religion. But in the end it is for the benefit of the individual. Selfishness, by definition.

Saints are saints, not because it is the right thing to do, but because they want to selfishly get themselves into heaven, whatever they perceive that to be.

That's why these explanations don't work.

If what Vaj says has merit, then words (explanations) fall short. They are an artifact of language. However, what other realistic means do we have to convey knowledge, especially when others like myself have no other way to develop that knowledge. In the end, you and Vaj both are correct. It is in the doing. For now, this is a working study using the path of linguistic knowledge.

They either smuggle morality into the balance by describing the behavior that is meant to be explained by evolution so they depend upon morality to do the job.

Else the descriptions and explanations end up being reduced to selfishness, which isn't what im trying to explain. I'm trying to explain why one ought not be selfish, not why one ought to be selfish.

Again, selfishness is not inherently evil. It could be called "the will to survive." Without it, we would not have reached the point we have as a species. Selfishness is contrary to morality when it is the only driving factor at the expense of love.

Does this help?

 

[juantoo3]

As an afterthought:

"Selfishness is contrary to morality when it is the only driving factor at the expense of love."

Perhaps PNG has hit onto something here. How closely does selfishness (will to survive) equate with "animal nature?" And how closely does love equate with "transcendence?" And as Luna pointed out, do humans operate in the tension between selfishness and love? Where does morality figure into that tension?

 

[lunamoth]

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)​

In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative.


the interested reader is directed here for more thorough information:
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

Dear Vajradhara,
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for your reply. Very interesting; so is Carter and physicist or a philosopher, or perhaps there is not much difference these days? I do like his audacity! The topic of anthropocentrism and the importance of humans in the grand scheme of things is one I would like to explore in another thread, perhaps, when I return. I don't have time for deep reflection on this idea now (my trip still looms--you'd think I was moving to Africa!), but I could not help but think of the old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it...
cheers!

 

[lunamoth]

I am not fluent in Tao, not used to thinking in those terms, so that's why I avoid reflecting on Tao and Chi questions.

Gotta add, I don't know much about zen either, but that hasn't stopped me from trying to fold a bit of it into my thinking!

 

[alexa]

Oh now, I would think a former poultry geneticist would enjoy such a ride!

I'll enjoy it, Juan ! There is no doubt in my mind. You know, I never said no in my whole life to an interesting challange. I'm to stubborn for that.

I need however, some time to summarize all the posts on this thread to see what we have managed to find till now and where I should look in the future.

Do you agree ?

Alexa

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

I need however, some time to summarize all the posts on this thread to see what we have managed to find till now and where I should look in the future.

Do you agree ?

Oh, by all means. If you find something you believe would contribute to this discussion, pass it along to us.

 

[alexa]

What a bout a little joke, just to relax for a moment ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/biologyjokes.html

This one is called : Do you believe in evolution ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/imagesb/bushorchimp.jpg

I hope you are not a fun of Bush !

Regards.

Alexa

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/WhoWas.html

this ones nice reading)

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

What a bout a little joke, just to relax for a moment ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/biologyjokes.html

This one is called : Do you believe in evolution ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/imagesb/bushorchimp.jpg

I hope you are not a fun of Bush !

Funny! I guess I am not so much a fan of Bush, as much as I don't care for Kerry!

I spent a little time looking today. Much more difficult material than before. I'll put something together soon, but it's time for a break.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, PNG!

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/WhoWas.html

this ones nice reading)

Yes, it was. Of course, it left me wondering, what does a biography page about Darwin have to do with the subject of this thread? I saw nothing pertaining to morality. Did I overlook something?

May I presume that your problem with selfishness has been resolved, since you have nothing further to add to that part of the discussion? I was kinda hoping for your input concerning how love figured into the equation, that is, if you can refrain from the self-participatory kind for the duration of the discussion...