tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post164037404396837793..comments2024-03-18T19:39:32.100-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 284Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82479948875249047572007-12-19T21:23:00.000-06:002007-12-19T21:23:00.000-06:00And thank you, Grant, for bringing that to my atte...And thank you, Grant, for bringing that to my attention. Had you not alerted me to your own very similar observation, I could have ended up looking both unoriginal and foolish.<BR/><BR/>Some time ago, I came across another argument to the effect that God is a delusion with adaptive value for the species, and yet another that altruism must have an evolutionary advantage since it, too, had "evolved".<BR/><BR/>Those ideas percolated for a time, and then, writing under my real name, I posed the idea that a "delusion" of free will might be thought by types like Wilson to have such an advantage.<BR/><BR/>So, conversely, I wondered why these EPers never considered why FREE WILL couldn't have evolved.<BR/><BR/>Wilson's epistemological errors made the further question of conceptual consciousness evolving follow naturally.<BR/><BR/>(I suspect that determinism is the root of both instances of blindness here, but the question is really directed at the reader, who would be more likely to have an active mind than an EPer.)<BR/><BR/>While the truth isn't a matter of majority vote, it's still reassuring in a way to see someone else reach similar conclusions.<BR/><BR/>So, thanks again for stopping by, for that reason as well.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-43802120302214557852007-12-19T18:31:00.000-06:002007-12-19T18:31:00.000-06:00Hi Gus(?),Thank you for the compliment; especially...Hi Gus(?),<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the compliment; especially in the face of my insinuation of plagirism. Since I don't know you apart from your blog, I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and put to rest my suspicion that what you wrote was mine.<BR/><BR/>I commend you not only for naturally coming to the same conclusion as me regarding evolution and conciousness, but also honoring my suspicion by going ahead and allowing it to be posted then dealing with it head on. You didn't have to do that, but it shows a lot of class on your part.GDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09996586199024780592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82297903490747451772007-12-19T07:41:00.000-06:002007-12-19T07:41:00.000-06:00Speaking of the first type, I need to come up with...Speaking of the first type, I need to come up with a clever answer for them. <BR/><BR/>Certain types will say things like , "Have a blessed day," making their religion an issue as a substitute for common courtesy.<BR/><BR/>I've thought of "Have a blast, too!" but this is unsatisfying.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-69858915683059964642007-12-19T01:14:00.000-06:002007-12-19T01:14:00.000-06:00John K. writes:I don't know who turns me off more,...John K. writes:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know who turns me off more, someone who tells me that mankind is inherently evil and needs to believe in some higher power (whether God, society or race) in order to find meaning, or someone who tells me that mankind is nothing more than a collection of molecules determined by randomness and chance.</I><BR/><BR/>My answer to each of those is the same:<BR/><BR/>"Speak for yourself, buster."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-55307845346883039412007-12-18T20:23:00.000-06:002007-12-18T20:23:00.000-06:00Great minds think alike! (And like to use the phra...Great minds think alike! (And like to <A HREF="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/07/quick-roundup-216.html#c3250750765594118940" REL="nofollow">use the phrase</A>, "Oh, I don't know.")<BR/><BR/>I was unaware of your comment, having had time only to read the article before blogging it.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-67698064005100499762007-12-18T19:42:00.000-06:002007-12-18T19:42:00.000-06:00The following, reproduced here verbatim, was my co...The following, reproduced here verbatim, was my comment to HuffingtonPost.com on David Sloan's article (Posted 12/16/07 @ 7:20 AM. It was also found via Randex.org:<BR/><BR/>"Here are some "factual truths" that have some value as "practical truths": How about the fact that man's behavior is not merely the latest reflexive motion in some evolutionary tidal wave; but that evolution has made him concious. How about the fact that his conciousness is conceptual in nature. How about the fact that man, in order to survive long-term, must use his power of conceptualization to develop ideas that have long-term application and long-term consequences. Things like, <B>oh, I don't know,</B> coherent, non-contradictory philosophical and moral principles."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-89065584685140252062007-12-17T22:47:00.000-06:002007-12-17T22:47:00.000-06:00You may be in a quandary, but you have at least fo...You may be in a quandary, but you have at least formulated a philosophically interesting question about two extremely uninteresting kinds of people!Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-50998848674334368872007-12-17T22:40:00.000-06:002007-12-17T22:40:00.000-06:00"In answer to your question, I would say, "YES", a..."In answer to your question, I would say, "YES", and that would even include many of the less left-wing types. But for most, politics follows philosophy pretty closely."<BR/><BR/>That's what I suspected and its terrible news. I get the impression that these kind of scientific empiricists will not be open to Objectivism. They will consider it a set of arbitrary premises that "have not been confirmed by empirical data." This is how one such person described it to me. I lament this because I would love to see a fully rational science devoid of skepticism. One that didn't just see man as some random collection of atoms and molecules.<BR/><BR/>As for the part about politics, from what I have seen there aren't many non-liberals among university types. I would think that would apply even more so to the sciences. If skepticism is the norm then it would be difficult if not impossible for someone who was a mystic (let alone an overt one) to deal with all those empiricists and evil "Darwinians". <BR/><BR/>I don't know who turns me off more, someone who tells me that mankind is inherently evil and needs to believe in some higher power (whether God, society or race) in order to find meaning, or someone who tells me that mankind is nothing more than a collection of molecules determined by randomness and chance. <BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-2150625630728809942007-12-17T20:54:00.000-06:002007-12-17T20:54:00.000-06:00John,The sentence you quote is what got me irritat...John,<BR/><BR/>The sentence you quote is what got me irritated enough to post on this, and your comments on it are spot-on.<BR/><BR/>In answer to your question, I would say, "YES", and that would even include many of the less left-wing types. But for most, politics follows philosophy pretty closely:<BR/><BR/>In my first job after grad school, I was the only one in a group of about 30 to vote for Bush. (Whether I was right to do so is beside the point.) THREE supported Kucinich in the Democrat primary and voted Democrat in the election only because Nader wasn't on the Texas ballot. (And yes, anyone with an IQ over 35 voting for Kucinich is <A HREF="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-doomsday-clock-stuck.html#c113957538683617269" REL="nofollow">scary</A>.)<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-29052532423404976562007-12-17T19:40:00.000-06:002007-12-17T19:40:00.000-06:00"As for the canons of rational thought, to the ext..."As for the canons of rational thought, to the extent that brains evolved by natural selection, their main purpose is to cause organisms to behave adaptively in the real world--not to directly represent the real world"<BR/><BR/>This sounds like pure Kant which is to say thinly vailed skepticism. I have noticed something about the professional atheists after reading their books; they are all skepticists of this variety. Sam Harris in his book "The End of Faith", spends pages upon pages in his endnotes section explaining how there is no Objective reality (because of Quantum Theory) and that free will is a myth (because of advanced knowledge of bio-chemistry) and how free will and therefor ideas of criminal punishment are barbaric remnants of religion, because after all, all humans are is clockwork. If the clock is broken, you don't punish it, you fix it. See?<BR/><BR/>Similar (and often identical) ideas are present in Dawkins and Dennett. Hitchens is not a scientist so he doesn't focus too much on determinism, but skepticism, relativism and determinism seems to be mandatory if you are involved with the hard sciences. The upshot of this is that athiests like these and David Sloan Wilson are useless in combating religion and spreading reason. In fact, they probably make religionists more steadfast in their mysticism.<BR/><BR/>Lastly a question for Gus as you are involved in academia and science. Do you find that Wilson's and Harris' type of skepticism is common in academia? I ask because it seems that everyone that I meet or read about who is a hard science person is both a skeptic and a determinist. I mean everyone.<BR/><BR/>John KimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com