(October 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm)apophenia Wrote: Are you suggesting there are qualities that humans possess that aren't biological? Whether they are needed to survive or not, or are imperative, if the only qualities which exist are biological, then the set of non-biological qualities is empty, and your assertion is empty and false.

What qualities are you suggesting are not biological? Your statement seems to imply a dualism, whether property or substance. Are you a property or substance dualist?

Yes, I am suggesting that there are qualities that human possess that aren't biological - and biological here refers to "of genetic origin". I regard human qualities related to consciousness - such as capacity to reason, sentience etc. - as non-biological in nature, even though I do accept that their mode of operation if biological. And no, this does not imply substance dualism.

(October 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 17, 2013 at 2:21 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Evolution is not random chance.
It is natural selection.

And mutations come from where? You must support intelligent design.

Mutations come from errors in DNA replication. But this mostly happened a while ago, now evolution mostly selects already existing traits.
Its why most vertibrates have a similar basic structure, even when it dosen't really work that well but it works well enough. I am thinking of the female pelvic girdle and the human back bone which are both sufficient for their role are not actually very good.

---

(October 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm)apophenia Wrote: Are you suggesting there are qualities that humans possess that aren't biological? Whether they are needed to survive or not, or are imperative, if the only qualities which exist are biological, then the set of non-biological qualities is empty, and your assertion is empty and false.

What qualities are you suggesting are not biological? Your statement seems to imply a dualism, whether property or substance. Are you a property or substance dualist?

Yes, I am suggesting that there are qualities that human possess that aren't biological - and biological here refers to "of genetic origin". I regard human qualities related to consciousness - such as capacity to reason, sentience etc. - as non-biological in nature, even though I do accept that their mode of operation if biological. And no, this does not imply substance dualism.

Are you thinking that books and the internet can be thought of as an extension of human memory?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

(October 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm)max-greece Wrote: But this is not what I am arguing at all. I keep talking about the fundamental and that is not coming through. What I mean by fundamental is the basis, however, simple, that would lead to constant development with culture as the primary influence.

As a creature with higher brain centres we have (for whatever reason) an ability to decide things on a moral basis. This does not reference the morality itself but the capacity for morality. The actual moral decision would be determined by the culture but the recognition that there is a moral issue to be decided is probably encoded genetically. Hell there are now earnest discussions about a genetic disposition towards religion. Why there couldn't be one for morality is beyond me.

Just to clarify - we have a moral decision faced by 2 individuals in different societies. Even when one goes one way and the other does the opposite that does not mean that there is no biological input - even if that is merely the flagging up of "moral decision ahead."

Now we know that even humanity has instinctual behaviours - a baby knows to look its mother in the eyes, automatically turns its head towards the mother's breast to suckle and so on. These are clearly identifiable as instinct as opposed to morality. The question remains, however, are there simple moral values that are pre-programmed to start the process. I still am yet to see a reason you think not.

I don't know why you keep missing this, but I am getting your argument. My arguments are addressing your position. Here's your argument in the simplest terms:

"1. Humans have evolved a set of instincts (or pre-programs) that are biologically ingrained on their very being.

2. One such set of pre-programs could be, possibly, regarded as a basis for morality - let's call this set proto-morality.

3. This set of proto-morality gives you certain inclinations to act in particular ways and give you a sense of rightness or wrongness about certain actions and events.

4. As your higher brain functions develop, you do have the ability to override the dictates of this proto-morality, but it does not negate its existence.

5. Further, as your mind develops, you build upon this proto-morality - using the other social, cultural, emotional and rational factors - and come up with a set of rules to follow which gives you a similar sense of rightness and wrongness and this set of rules is called morality.

6. Since it was the basic, genetic proto-morality that was developed upon to give us out morality, it can, therefore, be regarded as the fundamental basis for morality."

Is that correct? Is that an accurate representation of your argument?

If no, then tell me where I went wrong.

If yes, then here's where it goes wrong. In step number 5, when you start factoring in all those other things not dictated by genetics, you change the fundamental aspect of human morality - it is now no longer purely about behavior but the choice to behave that way. Among humans, if the capacity to override is not working, then no moral condemnation is attached to the behavior itself. The very existence of that override function makes it the dominant consideration in development of morality and that makes your proto-morality a secondary consideration. While you could regard that proto-morality as the starting point, the final product is so different and addresses so much more that it cannot be regarded as the fundamental basis of morality.

To give an analogy - suppose you had a dream that gave you an idea to write a story. As you keep writing, you keep adding, deleting and changing it so much that the finished product bears only a passing resemblance to the dream. Would yo still regard your dream as the fundamental basis for your story?

---

(October 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Are you thinking that books and the internet can be thought of as an extension of human memory?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Not as of yet. But I do think that in the future, electronic medium can serve as an extension - or replace the biological medium altogether.

This might sound blunt, but christians morals come from, god said so therefore it is moral. so let me ask you ronedee, or any other Christian here, if god appeared to you and said cut your dick and balls off with a spoon, because i command. Would that be a moral action, why or why not.

(October 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: This might sound blunt, but christians morals come from, god said so therefore it is moral. so let me ask you ronedee, or any other Christian here, if god appeared to you and said cut your dick and balls off with a spoon, because i command. Would that be a moral action, why or why not.

Moral. Definitely moral. The fewer Christians who reproduce, the better.

there was sect of Christians that did cut their dicks off. Cant remember what they were called which is maddening.

And there aren't any around to ask, either!

(October 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: there was sect of Christians that did cut their dicks off. Cant remember what they were called which is maddening.

Do you mean Skoptsy?

(October 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: there was sect of Christians that did cut their dicks off. Cant remember what they were called which is maddening.

Skoptsy?

---

genkaus, you beat me to it!

Quote: The Skoptsy were persecuted by the imperial government and later by the Soviet Union, but enjoyed substantial growth before fading into obscurity by the mid-20th century.

Looks like they weren't doing it right.