PlunderBunny wrote:The point wasn't to dumb down her beliefs. My argument there had nothing to do with her beliefs. I was setting up an analogy. If you had read and comprehended what I wrote, you would understand that.
I did read what yoou wrote and only found it extremely offensive. Shall I demonstrate?
A dog goes to his food bowl and doesn't find any food there and thus thinks that reason dictates that his owner does not exist. Shall this be an good analogy for atheists deciding that God does not exist. It is insulting isn't it?
I extend the courtesy of looking at the actual reasons atheists give for deciding that God does not exist rather than making insulting analogies, don't you think that courtesy requires this?
MM wrote:Evolution can account for instincts. But no I don't believe that it can account for desires and I don't even believe that any such desire is that widespread among human beings or animals. The most that we can say is that the survival of the species selects for adaptations (including instincts) that are advantageous to the survival of the species.
Doesn't really agree or disagree with my point.
It disagrees with your idea that morality is just an example of the instincts behind herd behavior. It disagrees with your assertion that evolution can account for a desire for species survial. It disagrees with your argument that by accounting for such a desire that I see no evidence for, it provides some kind of logical foundation for morality. I am basically saying that these have nothing to do with morality and that you are indeed competely off base. BUT I don't see how objective evidence could confirm this either way, so I guess these are opinions on both of our parts.
MM wrote:The brain is a part of the body and is indeed a product of biological evolution.
I believe the mind is the product of the brain. But I guess that was too hard for you too infer when I stated 'evolution can account for our bodies and our minds'.
Do you want me to comment on your insults? You do see them right or am I twisting your words to see this as an insult? You think the insults are appropriate? If I responded with similar intimations that your are incapable of understanding what I say will you then go on on about how I am impossible and how my personality is intolerable the way that so many other people are doing? Do you see right here how these things gets started? Because my usual response is to play the same game and show you that I TOO can insult your intellegence. Perhaps I can even do it better and that is why people lose it. But do you REALLY think that it is right to expect having an exclusive right to doing such things? That it is ok for you to do this but not ok for me to do the same thing right back?
I do not believe the mind is a product of the brain. In fact I think there is exceptional evidence to the contrary. What is life? And what role does information have? These are the questions that I address and think are crucial. And I think the answers set the mind and body apart. No I don't believe in a metaphysical dualism between the mind and body. With regards to the mind body problem in philosophy, I am a physicalist. That is I believe that the mind is no less of a physical entity than the body. But I don't let my rejection of metaphysical dualism blind me to the reasons why people believe in such things and accept the unjustified conclusion that this means that the mind is nothing but a function of the brain.
So. What are my answers to those questions?
Life is a process of self-organization, and it is this process rather than the medium in which it takes place that makes something a living organism. To such an organizational process, information plays a crucial role, and by tracking how information is transmitted we can see the outlines of the process and the limits of the identity of the organism. So for biological organisms, where is the information found and how is it transmitted? This is well known right? It is found encoded in a molecule called DNA and it is in this form that the information is transmitted to the next generation.
How about the mind then? Can that be described as a process of self-organization? Yes, it certainly can. What about the information for that organizational process? Is that found in DNA and is it by DNA that it is transmitted to the next generation? No it is not. Where is it found then? It is easiest to identify in all the mediums of human communication and it by such mediums that information is transmitted to the next generation. Thanks to Dawkins we even have a name for it in analogy with genes, the units of biological information. We call it memes.
Thus the mind is NOT a function of the brain. The mind does not do what it does because the brain is what it is, any more than a computer does what it does simply because of the hardware. There is something else there, provided in the case of the computer and which grows and develops in the case of the mind. The mind is not a biological orgamism because its information is not found or transmitted using DNA. We should rightly call it a memetic organism instead. Certainly by analogy we can say that the information of human communication develops in a process similar to evolution to some extent. One difference being that, what we learned by one individual in his lifetime can not only be transmitted to the next generation but to everyone else in his own life time. But the word we usually use for this is learning rather than evolution.
So lets go back to your query, "Would it make you happy if I instead say "evolution gave us our bodies, including our brains"?
The answer is no. There is two seperate processes of development. If you looking for a way to say it that I would be happy with, it would be something like this.We can account for morality by the evolutionary like process of human learning.
Does that answer your question?
Comments on my personality and abilities, in which I see no understanding on your part, I will simply ignore.
P.S. I am trying to do things gary's way of talking about what is courteous and all that crap. I find that really tedious. But ok, I give it a try. ...yawn... The problem is that all that stuff is social relative convention without an ounce of objective justification. Logic doesn't really support it, and so I find it really like waking out into no man's land. And if you embark on some big argument about such junk I will just drop it and go back to responding in kind as I usually do, because the topic really bores me.