Evolution as a worldview and basis for being good

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

I do that. CC is the one who tells me I’m missing something

Hey you are the one telling me it means nothing to you.

You are the one still standing behind Pinker’s schtick, without any second thoughts.

Don’t lay it on me.

---

@coffee

Disagree. When you know how we got here, you know how we got here. Why is a very different question. Likely a silly question.

Can you explain?
A different question from what?

"You know how we got here… "
Right, and from that one you can start appreciating why it is that you are a conscious being. Along with why it is that all our conscious awareness comes from within your own body/brain produced mind. Settling that mystery for yourself absolutely rearranges one’s outlook upon one self and the world we must navigate.

The ‘why’ of it is that awareness drives life and successful interactions with one’s environment, it is a prerequisite for successful living and successfully reproducing, and the foundation of evolution.

Truly appreciating that our “superior” levels of intellect are an outgrowth of the mammalian experience and evolution - tempers that sense of uniqueness and superiority that humans cultivate. That feeling that only our concerns matter, because a god (or universal conscious agents) out there created us, and that this world is placed here for our pleasure, which is all that matters.

In my experience the gaining of those insights actually did give my own Ego that healthy kick in the butt. It rearranged how I view the natural world I happen to be walking through. It helped find sense where there was mystery. I do have enough interactions with other people, even groovy nature lovers, and we go on walks, I get to watch how much their walk matches their talk - 'nough said.

---

@coffee

Simply pointing out that why is not answered automatically by how.

Is the “Why” the question?
I just wanted to make sense out of the confusion. I have achieve that.
For me, the Why seems irrelevant to appreciating what is.

It’s purely a theological/philosophical question ( It’s not even a question, it’s a discussion topic, about as meaningful as debating what happened before the Big Bang), thus it belongs whole within the realm of our thoughts, and has nothing to do with the physical reality we negotiate every moment.

@coffee

Why, in nature is often silly simply because evolution never cares about why.

Okay, but nature does care about outcomes.
It’s our human mind that creates all the “why” questions

@lausten

Does the “how” of our origins tells us there isn’t a “why”?
Then what?

This obsession with the “Why” question is simply another reflection of missing the important points.

The How of our origins is critical to understanding the WHY of who we are.
Nothing more, in my estimation One can’t fully understand why one acts that way one does without that awareness of what went into making our creature body.

@coffee

I know you’re stating the obvious- there is very, very, … very little chance of a god. I agree.

And I totally don’t understand these sorts of questions, or comments, when we know that our Gods are created from within our thoughts, which come from within ourselves, no meta-physical intervention required.

@coffee

No answer to why is available.

I would agree. Why is that an issue?
It’s like truth, it doesn’t exist without a framework built around it.

The Regal “Why” is a game we play with ourselves.

(hey, my 20 year old finally woke up, see ya, gotta run.)
Oh fascinating article, thanks Write

Scientists and philosophers identify nature's missing evolutionary law

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

Hey you are the one telling me it means nothing to you.

I responded to that at length. You are ignoring my comments. You cherry pick quotes, strawman, misinterpret, rant, repeat. I didn’t say evolution means nothing to me, in fact I’ve told my story, and responded directly to you many times. So, here we go again…

I said a detailed knowledge of evolution doesn’t add to understanding how I acquire knowledge. Looking at the history of knowledge confirms this.

We first had Plato’s analogy of the cave, where he described a shadowy awareness of the world within our minds, and that we could step out of that, but we would still struggle with our limitations. Then, we kept building on that, eventually developing scientific methods and getting to our current understanding of evolution.

My point is, the worldview is the key concept. Cosmology or entomology could result in similar enlightening experiences as you express them. They all depend on seeing the world as discoverable via our logic.

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

This obsession with the “Why” question is simply another reflection of missing the important points.

Write4u made a claim that knowing “how” leads to understanding “why”. I was responding to him. You reinterpreted, like you constantly do, and called it an obsession. (He later said he didn’t mean to be addressing “why”, but that is left unsorted)

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

Settling that mystery for yourself absolutely rearranges one’s outlook upon one self and the world we must navigate.

@citizenschallengev4

Truly appreciating that our “superior” levels of intellect are an outgrowth of the mammalian experience and evolution - tempers that sense of uniqueness and superiority that humans cultivate.

These are reasonable points.

[citizenschallengev4]

@lausten

I responded to that at length.

@lausten

@citizenschallengev4

It’s not about facing the void so much as facing who you yourself are. Full Stop.

I’m not comparing your themes, I’m comparing your logic. Look at what the inthedarkness says and evaluate how he states his case. He makes no real attempt to connect his claim to his conclusion. It’s assertion, “look at the void then you’ll see things his way”. Then, look at how you present your body/brain/evolution and assert that will result in seeing things a certain way. How are they different.

Have a good day.

@lausten

My point is, the worldview is the key concept. Cosmology or entomology could result in similar enlightening experiences as you express them. They all depend on seeing the world as discoverable via our logic.

No, no, no.

This is about yourself, cosmology has nothing for that.
Cosmology can tell us about how the fundamental constituents and processes evolved. But that doesn’t tell you anything about how you evolved, or about your thoughts, or your relationship with the body you inhabit, nor about your intellectual relation with the knowledge of all that material stuff and process out there beyond your Being.

@lausten

My point is, the worldview is the key concept.

And my point is I’m not sharing a “worldview” I’m pointing out a fundamental observation of the human condition and physical reality!

Sure, own world views are formed out of our observations, still it is not a worldview in itself - it is what it is. Full Stop.

@lausten

Write4u made a claim that knowing “how” leads to understanding “why”. I was responding to him. You reinterpreted, like you constantly do, and called it an obsession. (He later said he didn’t mean to be addressing “why”, but that is left unsorted)

I don’t care if you don’t think it was appropriate, because you were the one that used those words and concepts and I’m pointing that with out a framing of parameters, the question or concept “Why” a dead end. Same as it is with “Truth”.
Thereby trying to better explain, what seems to be amazingling difficult to . . .

@lausten

You reinterpreted, like you constantly do

So you feel my pain. But, you probably think you aren’t guilt of same.

@lausten

These are reasonable points.

Thank you

[write4u]

@lausten

I’m slightly breaking the rule of cross-posting, but there ten-thousand threads about evolution and microtubules and math as the basis of everything, and most of them are hijacking something else, so, either I ban everyone including myself or I try to start this conversation here.

Richard Carrier has one of the few complete books that lays out the scientific history of the universe as we know it and builds on that to provide reasoning for why we should act for the greater for other living creatures, not the least of which are people that you know. I’ll look for more links, but I’ll start with this one that was published before that book came out. He refers to it in the article. As Carrier often does, he builds his view by responding to someone who has a messed up view.

Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea’s World Without Design » Internet Infidels

So, he has to start by defending the existence of a naturalistic POV, and that it’s not self-defeating, and not scientism. In other places, Carrier spends many words elaborating on the idea that naturalism is best because it works as opposed to magical thinking which doesn’t. When he talks about discovery of properties, says,

This method entails that “to do science” we not only can but must imagine facts and conditions obtaining in the world, reason from them to conclusions about what would be observed if that model were true and what would be observed instead if that model were not true, then look to see which observations bear out. If the former, then we have ‘confirmed’ to some degree the imagined facts and conditions–even without observing them directly. This is how we discovered atoms, for example, long before we could ‘see’ them in any sense of the word. This is how all science is conducted.

Nothing about neuroscience or having a deep understanding of the pageant of reality add to this. Not for me anyway. This covers how math extends observation and how we can go about finding answers to any difficult problem laid before us.

This may be of interest .

Principles of Scientific Pantheism

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

This may be of interest .

Principles of Scientific Pantheism – World Pantheism

The basic concepts comprise:

• Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
• Active respect and care for the rights of humans and animals.
• Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth.
• Freedom of religion, separation of state and religion, tolerance.
• Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, beings or forces.
• Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method.
• Realism: there is a real world independent of human thought or perception.

Not bad.

Though worth mentioning.

Celebration of our lives in our bodies on this beautiful Earth.

I’m thinking, why not point out that our thoughts are created by our beautiful bodies living on this beautiful Earth? The idea really is deep and holds a lot of useful insights, once one learns to get comfortable with the conception.

Still, I’m happy to sign up.