Andrew L. wrote:[confidential to Gramsci: so you're saying morality is indexed in the human genome? That there are merely genetic determinants for the moral differences between Genghis Khan and Mao Zedong, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi? Further, are you saying that individuals of certain cultures are literally "more evolved" than those of others?]

I have no idea, but since the physical universe is all that we can prove exists, it is feasible, but don't ask me to follow up on that idea. From the little details I do know about evolution I can't see why not, however genes aren't everything, ask a scientist. I'd look into the idea of Memes.

You seem to be keen to add value judgments to various different human actions, which doesn't make any sense. You seem to wish to impose a Western Liberal ideology on the morality of human behaviour, i.e Jesus good, Mao bad, which seems a little odd. You seem to be implying that humans are some kind of special case. I suggest you read [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor’s_Tale:_A_Pilgrimage_to_the_Dawn_of_Life]The Ancestor’s Tale[/url] by Richard Dawkins. It is really interesting and offers some great insights into evolution; like the common and wrong idea that something can be "more evolved" than something else, as if there is some kind of final perfect form everything will eventually evolve into. It's great stuff.

To be blunt I am not a genetic science or evolutionary biologist, but it would seem rather obvious to me that if you take the position of evolution as fact, as seems to be the case for most sane people and that there is no God or even "intelligent" creator -whatever that means- then everything must be the result of evolution. Where the hell else does it come from. a God? Not likely, as I said every culture reflects their "social values" back into their religion.

In the end, god(s) just doesn't exist, so human ideas of morality can't come from there, so we should study where they do come from.

Gramsci wrote:
You seem to be keen to add value judgments to various different human actions, which doesn't make any sense. You seem to wish to impose a Western Liberal ideology on the morality of human behaviour, i.e Jesus good, Mao bad, which seems a little odd. You seem to be implying that humans are some kind of special case.

Actually, this is precisely what I'm arguing against. Either that was unclear or you misunderstood me.

It is really interesting and offers some great insights into evolution; like the common and wrong idea that something can be "more evolved" than something else, as if there is some kind of final perfect form everything will eventually evolve into.

Agreed. But you seem to believe that people like Richard Dawkins and Dennett speak absolute truth on behalf of science, when in reality there is anything but consensus within the scientific community.

What do you think of other neuroscientists like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins?

I have to admit I have a soft spot for Dawkins. Anyone who calls Bush a shitty little oil sheik can't be bad.

So far as his science is concerned, I think in his understanding of evolution he's what I call an ultra-Darwinist. He believes that there is a divorce between the replicators — our genes — and the organisms that carry them. This leads him into a morass as regards evolutionary processes.

As far as the mind and brain are concerned, in Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, he ends by saying, "Only we can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators." Steve Pinker says something similar: "If my genes don't like what I do they can go jump in a lake."

But you cannot be a materialist and also make these kinds of arguments. Who is the "we" who is rebelling against the selfish replicators, who is the "I" who can tell my genes to jump in a lake?

To try to escape from this determinist trap they've made for themselves, they have to claim there is something else controlling us. I want to argue instead that our capacity to act freely in the world arises out of our biology. To use their terms, it is our genes that allow us to rebel against our genes.

According to Steven Rose, in the final instance, Dawkins abandons strict materialism for Cartesian dualism, reinforcing what you term "Western Liberal ideology."

Rose, like the "ultra-Darwinists," cites the evolutionary biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky to the effect that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." But unlike Dawkins, et al, he doesn't stop there. Instead he offers the emendation:

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of history. That is, evolutionary history, developmental history, social history, the history of our science itself.

There's a video of Rose talking about this stuff (and critiquing Dawkins) here.

Forgive me if my science is incorrect, but it seems that a particular species can be "more evolved" than another yet without being better or more advanced. Wouldn't it just mean "more mutated?"

Andrew L. wrote:Agreed. But you seem to believe that people like Richard Dawkins and Dennett speak absolute truth on behalf of science, when in reality there is anything but consensus within the scientific community.

No, far from it, I'm just interested in the subject as a whole, so the link is much appreciated.

Evolution to me, is an elegant and simple explanation as to the "how" we got here, now; and it is the most compelling explanation. What usually follows a "how" question is "why", however I don't think that is a question we will ever get close to an answer for, the theistic explanation is so ridiculous it's not even worth the effort to pursue.

Dear Messrs. L. and Gramsci-

Thank you for embellishing my posts about whiggishness and also empiricism (will link this word to an earlier post later) with this little internal discussion.

Getting back to the thread, suck on this. Would've thought that Alan Thicke would have invited Midnight Oil onto his show? Such were the 1980's, I suppose.

Matt.

... I prefer to think of myself as a freethinker and skeptic.

But back to the shaky handed baldy guy. Really, they do stand categorically opposed to everything that you think you believe in Matt. Socialist, environmentalist, civil rights, gay-rights, anti-racist. You really like the backing music that much?

Garrett's maiden speech in the House of Representatives. Good on ya' cobber.

Gramsci wrote:...back to the shaky handed baldy guy. Really, they do stand categorically opposed to everything that you think you believe in Matt. Socialist, environmentalist, civil rights, gay-rights, anti-racist. You really like the backing music that much?

Garrett's maiden speech in the House of Representatives. Good on ya' cobber.

I think they as a band made good music, particularly in the 1980's. Many musicians who live and have lived lives and do and have done things that I find objectionable have made good music. When it comes to music, it either grabs me or it does not and I don't really think about it terribly. Need I elaborate? Furthermore, the rest of Midnight Oil aside from Mr. Garrett were clean-cut, low-key guys who just played rock and roll, and did it quite well. I've always thought that this fact (more than anything else) was an honorable and respectable thing and that is partly why I like Midnight Oil.

Also I'm not a racist because I think that there is no such thing as "race". Hence I cannot be, eh, opposed to a thing that does not exist. In fact I think that "race" is nothing more than a social convention with virtually no scientific or real life, common-sense basis. It's an illusion.

matthew wrote:Also I'm not a racist because I think that there is no such thing as "race". Hence I cannot be, eh, opposed to a thing that does not exist. In fact I think that "race" is nothing more than a social convention with virtually no scientific or real life, common-sense basis. It's an illusion.

Well, by its very nature the Catholic Church is a racist organisation, but I digress. Well you are right that race is a social convention, this is about the only thing you've been right about in the past year, however regardless of this people can still be racist if they buy into the social convention. Try explaining to a KKK member there isn't such a thing as race, I'm sure she'll disagree. But also buried in between the lines of your "Hence I cannot be" statement there is more than a hint of possible unintentional racism, you might want to watch that one. But I'm sure your rallying against the non existent "liberal consensus" make you feel kinda cool, eh Matty, kinda special.

Oh, and try as you may to dig your way out of the Oil pit, the music is shit, all they had were their politics.