|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:33:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.
Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.
In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.
I refer to my thoughts on evolution, in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.
I refer to my thoughts on Evolution in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
 |
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:42:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.
Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.
In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.
My thoughts on emotion and its relationship with evolution as discussed in my theory is what I refer to, not the process of how we came to understand evolution. Thanks for coming out. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:43:37 [Permalink]
|
didnt see page 2, sorry bout that
|
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.
Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.
In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.
I refer to my thoughts on evolution, in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.
I refer to my thoughts on Evolution in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.
Again, your main premise is flawed. Emotions are advantageous. Perhaps not in combat, but definately so in the protection and care of young. It increases the number of young who are likely to survive to breeding age. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:45:04 [Permalink]
|
| Someone asks me to ignore philosophy in my arguments against evolution, but your stance is that evolution created philosophy, how can one ignore it? |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:48:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that the two sides to the human brain are science and philosophy and the result is that the world is limited in scope to the properties of these two elements and cannot comprehend anything else, thus nothing else exists. The birth of the arts, social sciences, and emotions comes from the mix of the two.
That's fine that you believe that, but it won't make sense to anyone but you. Is a chair science, philosophy, or a mix? Or does it not exist? What qualifies as science, what qualifies as philosophy, what qualifies as a mix, and finally, what qualifies as non-existance?
I would love to see you come up with qualities a thing must exhibit to not exist.
quote:
Computers are the height of science today, why can't computers evolve to feel emotions (the difference between humans and computers is philosophy, hence philosophy is integral in development of emotions), since they are a scientific life-form which can comprehend yes and no?
If your asking why computers can't evolve, you do not have enough knowledge of evolution to make an argument against it.
A computer is a machine. It is no different than a toaster. A bit more complex, but the concept is the same. Power + Input => Process => Output.
Computers don't comprehend anything, even yes and no. They have a state (or rather millions of states) which the user comprehends. Don't get those two confused.
quote:
Music - sound waves (science) mixed with a meaning using words (philosophy), it invokes emotion, love it, hate it, whatever you will.
Music was created long before the concept of a wave was ever thought of. Hell, it was created long before the concept of science and philosophy were ever throught of. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 10/12/2005 10:50:39 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 10:56:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Someone asks me to ignore philosophy in my arguments against evolution, but your stance is that evolution created philosophy, how can one ignore it?
You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.
You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:09:08 [Permalink]
|
That's fine that you believe that, but it won't make sense to anyone but you. Is a chair science, philosophy, or a mix? Or does it not exist? What qualifies as science, what qualifies as philosophy, what qualifies as a mix, and finally, what qualifies as non-existance?
I would love to see you come up with qualities a thing must exhibit to not exist.
"Does this exist? A: No" It's a science question. "Does it have any qualities? A: No" Science qualifies as anything that can be determined. A chair can be determined, it is science. What a chair is used for, that is philosophy (to sit or to stand on and reach something out of reach, it's debatable) Philosophy is all things that are debatable, everything that you can think about but cannot touch. How much is gold worth? Cannot be answered with yes or no, it is undifinitive. For arguments sake $10,000 dollars an ounce. Do you think it is worth that much? debatable. The mix of the two is all things that require a combination of the two to exist. Is the Mona Lisa a great work? A: Yes. But you have to have a reason as to WHY it is a great work in order to say that. A DEBATABLE answer. The mix is everything that requires an input from logic and creative.
If your asking why computers can't evolve, you do not have enough knowledge of evolution to make an argument against it.
A computer is a machine. It is no different than a toaster. A bit more complex, but the concept is the same. Power + Input => Process => Output.
Computers don't comprehend anything, even yes and no. They have a state (or rather millions of states) which the user comprehends. Don't get those two confused.
If computers reach a conclusion that it cannot understand it crashes.
quote:
Music - sound waves (science) mixed with a meaning using words (philosophy), it invokes emotion, love it, hate it, whatever you will.
Music was created long before the concept of a wave was ever thought of. Hell, it was created long before the concept of science and philosophy were ever throught of.
[/quote]
Music was conceived after comprehending sound. Sound is science. The first musician understood enough. If you believe in Hell then GOD understood science and philosophy well before Hell was created. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:11:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.
You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas.
A neuron fires in the brain to create a thought, be it scientific or philosophical thought, thus evolution must have created philosophy. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
quote:
You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.
You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas.
A neuron fires in the brain to create a thought, be it scientific or philosophical thought, thus evolution must have created philosophy.
Those things are completely unrelated. And your conclusion is flawed.
A neuron fires to create an impulse. That impulse may be a thought. It may be a state message on arm position. It may be a pain message. That evolution made the equipment does not follow that philosophy is a hardwired trait. Especially since philosophy is learned, not inherent.
This is a categorical error of division.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/div.htm
Your premise is logically flawed. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.
I'll answer that, NO. Emotions are well studied purely chemical electrical and structural brain function.
If you're trying to argue that consciousness could not have evolved you are simply ignoring years of research in favor of pure contemplation without evidence.
And, BTW, perhaps folks here didn't fail to understand your points but rather you failed to make them clearly. |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:35:36 [Permalink]
|
Those things are completely unrelated. And your conclusion is flawed.
A neuron fires to create an impulse. That impulse may be a thought. It may be a state message on arm position. It may be a pain message. That evolution made the equipment does not follow that philosophy is a hardwired trait. Especially since philosophy is learned, not inherent.
This is a categorical error of division.
Your premise is logically flawed.
[/quote]
If philosophy is completely unrelated to the brain and evolution then why can't ants philosophy? |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:36:29 [Permalink]
|
Evolution exists whether philosophy comes along or not, your trying to use the vein of philosophy as the scalpal to dissect evolution, so to speak.
Also evolution of thought and evolution of species are wholly different, not in concept but in mechanics and hard data. Evolution of species cannot be discounted by attacking a fault of thought evolution.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:39:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
If philosophy is completely unrelated to the brain and evolution then why can't ants philosophy?
How do you know they can't?
Philosophy is a noun.
Philosophize is the verb. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:40:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If computers reach a conclusion that it cannot understand it crashes.
A computer cannot understand anything. A computer is a machine. Computers crash for many reasons, NEVER because they don't understand something.
quote:
"Does this exist? A: No" It's a science question. "Does it have any qualities? A: No" Science qualifies as anything that can be determined. A chair can be determined, it is science. What a chair is used for, that is philosophy (to sit or to stand on and reach something out of reach, it's debatable) Philosophy is all things that are debatable, everything that you can think about but cannot touch. How much is gold worth? Cannot be answered with yes or no, it is undifinitive. For arguments sake $10,000 dollars an ounce. Do you think it is worth that much? debatable. The mix of the two is all things that require a combination of the two to exist. Is the Mona Lisa a great work? A: Yes. But you have to have a reason as to WHY it is a great work in order to say that. A DEBATABLE answer. The mix is everything that requires an input from logic and creative.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Stop Jumping around and simpley state what your problem with evolution is.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
