Come ye faithful and ye atheist rabble.

[BigBallinStalin]

it is if you consider "they aren't evolved enough" to be justification. which apparently is a good enough answer to questions like "why do some birds rape each other" and "why do female insects eat male insects after they f*ck"

Evolution has nothing to do with man-made moral considerations. Evolution pushes towards a selective advantage in a certain ecosystem.

Suppose there's a village where murder is acceptable, i.e. there's no such thing as unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they wouldn't survive for that long.

Suppose there's this other village where there's some rules against unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they would have greater chances of survival.

Is this not an example of variation?

If so, then isn't the moral code of humans part of the evolutionary process?

[Haggis_McMutton]

yes, but you're missing the point. societal mores still exist to benefit the survival of the group of humans in question. this is the purpose of evolution.

I disagree.
What evolution would really "want" for my genes is if I could kill every male on earth other than me and impregnate as many of the females as I can get around to. The fact that I haven't accomplished this yet is due to the inadequacy of my genetic stock.

What I'm saying is evolution isn't somehow consciously pulling towards the betterment of mankind, it's largely incidental that certain behaviors which we find morally agreeable have also turned out to be evolutionarily profitable. It isn't a "mistake" that male polar bears sometimes eat their own young. For that situation that is what evolution has dictated is optimal.

just because something happens due to our actions doesn't mean it's not an evolutionary adaptation. for example, the actions of peacock females have caused the evolutionary adaptation of bright, colorful plumage. adaptation does not just happen in response to the environment or to other species. in fact, since humans are no longer immediately threatened by either of those, our adaptations to the actions of our own species have become even more important for our survival.

I'm saying that there is no significant genetic difference between humans today and humans 3000 years ago. If you took a baby born today and somehow transplanted him in a hunter-gatherer tribe 3000 years ago, 20 years later he would be more than happy to brutally murder the children and women of an opposing tribe and put their vaginas and penises on strings as trophies. The reverse applies as well.
We don't find slavery morally reprehensible today because evolution has changed our brain chemistry, we find it morally reprehensible because of the cultural changes that have occurred. These cultural changes have nothing to do with biological evolution.

Suppose there's a village where murder is acceptable, i.e. there's no such thing as unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they wouldn't survive for that long.

Suppose there's this other village where there's some rules against unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they would have greater chances of survival.

Is this not an example of variation?

If so, then isn't the moral code of humans part of the evolutionary process?

Yes, but this reasoning only applies to a small subset of our current moral code. To take the most natural extension of your example, the "unjustified" murder would only apply within one's tribe. The murder, rape and torture of a member of any other tribe would be just fine and dandy evolutionarily speaking (baring threats of retribution).

Pinker talks about this. Apparently when monkeys fight for territory and the groups are relatively evenly matched they sort of just jump around and shout until the group that seems weaker gives up and leaves. But it turns out if a group of moneys find just one or two opposing monkeys, the "kindness" ends. They brutally rip them apart and eat parts of their flesh.
Basically evolution "taught" them that when the groups are relatively evenly matched it's bad strategy to get in a fight. But when you have the clear advantage you should take it and kill those fuckers.

So yeah, some evolutionarily beneficial behaviors match with what we think of as moral, but I think this is largely incidental. i.e. what about slavery?

[BigBallinStalin]

Suppose there's a village where murder is acceptable, i.e. there's no such thing as unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they wouldn't survive for that long.

Suppose there's this other village where there's some rules against unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they would have greater chances of survival.

Is this not an example of variation?

If so, then isn't the moral code of humans part of the evolutionary process?

Yes, but this reasoning only applies to a small subset of our current moral code. To take the most natural extension of your example, the "unjustified" murder would only apply within one's tribe. The murder, rape and torture of a member of any other tribe would be just fine and dandy evolutionarily speaking (baring threats of retribution).

Sure, that happens, and I'm not trying to justify universal morals and whatever else j9b may be trying to assert. Just sayin' that it's part of the evolutionary process for this particular species (homo sapiens)--which is why I disagree with "Evolution has nothing to do with man-made moral considerations."

Pinker talks about this. Apparently when monkeys fight for territory and the groups are relatively evenly matched they sort of just jump around and shout until the group that seems weaker gives up and leaves. But it turns out if a group of moneys find just one or two opposing monkeys, the "kindness" ends. They brutally rip them apart and eat parts of their flesh.
Basically evolution "taught" them that when the groups are relatively evenly matched it's bad strategy to get in a fight. But when you have the clear advantage you should take it and kill those fuckers.

So yeah, some evolutionarily beneficial behaviors match with what we think of as moral, but I think this is largely incidental. i.e. what about slavery?

Good, let's take on slavery. Before slavery, human sacrifice was more profitable; however, at some point various groups could realize the gains of greater labor productivity by enslaving others. Perhaps, this was due to the decreased price of maintaining slaves (e.g. greater ability to grow food).

What does that say of morals? I'd say that morals are largely driven by profit-seeking plans, realization of prices, and those outcomes. Those who have the leisure (from Plato to beyond) would then reflect on the outcomes and try to make them coherent. 'Ethics' back in Greece's day meant "custom." Another side of ethics/moral philosophy was about planning beyond the custom. Later, with perhaps the Renaissance Period, we see this side dominate as they would strive to design a moral system beyond the current outcomes/customs--and this phenomenon might be part of evolution, but I'm not sure.

Does someone sitting down, reflecting, and then writing resemble something of evolution? If not, then the ethics/moral philosophy which is designed by reason and largely devoid of current custom may not be part of evolution... but what could it be?

[Lootifer]

Herp. Intellectual and Cultural evolution is an analogue to the more commonly referred to species evolution. Be pragmatic for once you twits.

So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?

man... are you another one of those guys who thinks significant humans evolution can happen in a 50 year time span?

Yeah, you're right. With Lootifer's argument, 1000s of years of totalitarian governance is justifiable!

Not even close to what I was saying.

I'd assert that intellectual/cultural evolution is visable in a human-lifespan time scale.

Dont be like PS and view it as black and white BBS; we are evolving towards your own personal-view uptopia. But be warned, if I was you I would personally prepare myself for a pre-libanarchy optimum (i.e. Libertarian Anarchy is kinda poop).

Related to this I believe at this stage we dont have nearly enough data points to determine anything but a theoretical optimum (so far we have a handfull of failed totalitarian systems, a bunch of psuedo-free systems that only serve to give erranous data points - Im looking at you USA, and a few free-ish systems that show, generally, the direction to head in).

[BigBallinStalin]

Herp. Intellectual and Cultural evolution is an analogue to the more commonly referred to species evolution. Be pragmatic for once you twits.

So the Soviet Union needed another 60 years or so, and it would've worked like a charm?

man... are you another one of those guys who thinks significant humans evolution can happen in a 50 year time span?

Yeah, you're right. With Lootifer's argument, 1000s of years of totalitarian governance is justifiable!

Not even close to what I was saying.

I'd assert that intellectual/cultural evolution is visable in a human-lifespan time scale.

Dont be like PS and view it as black and white BBS; we are evolving towards your own personal-view uptopia. But be warned, if I was you I would personally prepare myself for a pre-libanarchy optimum (i.e. Libertarian Anarchy is kinda poop).

Related to this I believe at this stage we dont have nearly enough data points to determine anything but a theoretical optimum (so far we have a handfull of failed totalitarian systems, a bunch of psuedo-free systems that only serve to give erranous data points - Im looking at you USA, and a few free-ish systems that show, generally, the direction to head in).

I can't joke around?

I don't think the US is headed in the direction of a narrower in scope and more effective government. It's simply consuming more people's incomes in order to transfer wealth to other groups---while at a loss too (deficit spending). It's not sustainable, so my concern is that people will continue looking to the government for a solution to the problems which the government creates and sustains.

[Lootifer]

I can't joke around?

Apologies, was a bit strong in the interpretation, joke away my man, joke away

I don't think the US is headed in the direction of a narrower in scope and more effective government. It's simply consuming more people's incomes in order to transfer wealth to other groups---while at a loss too (deficit spending). It's not sustainable, so my concern is that people will continue looking to the government for a solution to the problems which the government creates and sustains.

Agree.

[AslanTheKing]

Interesting to read,
every page was entertaining too,

but to make this short,

every human has the right to live on this planet,
if they believe in god or not

if they are good humans or bad humans
if they are good animals or bad animals ,
if they are good plants or bad plants,
( becuse it doesnt matter )

theyre so many religions on this earth that many people get confused and fed up,

there comes this question out of my mind
if u are a bad person who deserves to go to hell
where do you go to hell,

to the christian hell, the islamic hell, the buddhist hell, the tribe hell,
is funny or?
should there not be one god?
why then all this many religions?

like this funny quote: ever<body wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die , lol

asking myself this question , i believe i was around 12
by that time i had consumed all information about every religion

but i realized at the end, religions are not different from each other

and that also bad things happen from people who are strong believers in god
some very fanatic god believers are not always the best people,
and bad things happen from atheists

its always the same question, who are we, and were do we come from

i think religion should be personal, even there churches , mosques, temples and much more

as long people dont get hurt , its okay,

unfortunately the history tells us different ( at least as much we humans can go back )

it all started somewhere some time

and thats the illusion, we forget that even before recording human history was people leaving on this planet, in a brutal way
what did this people belive in ?

maybe nothing, but for sure they where very afraid of things they couldn't answer

and thats us today, things we cant answer we are afraid of

we humans are not more inteligent then the ones before us,( there is a mistake in the word inteligence - just google it )

just look at the architecture, literature, music all made many many years ago

today we talk only about iphone, windows, apple, pixar , mercedes etc.... ( i forgot pornography )

never mind

the question is, does god exist and where is he?

guys, and thats exactly the trap

dont ask, dont wonder, just be sure

open your eyes really, not just read and study,
just open your eyes, dont u see

sad for u, i can see it every day, and i dont look at the iPhone,
i look at the nature, and nature has given me the answer, its all there , but people cant see it anymore, very sad

when i lived in australia i was dreaming of skiing in australia ( but before when iwas living in austria i was dreaming of a sandy beach)

now i live in hamburg, germany and i dont dream of all this anymore, now i only dream that my kids are godloving , and people loving, and animal loving
and nature loving

get it?

that they are loving

and thats what humans have lost
to be loving

everything else isnt important and never was, and that was the message all along

( and besides , our human brain is not programmed to get that far

our brain is programmed to get us only to the next stage, to the stage we have been before
and we are not there yet, more will follow, or could u imagine 20 years ago that u talk to somebody on the phone
where there are not wires attached ?????? ( or technically speaking look at the graphics of the old lucasfilm comp games like maniac mansion...)

( if u would leave this planet for good on a spaceship , what would u leave behind?
a DVD with all our knowledge ?

no, i dont think so , u would leave pyramids build out of solid stone, which lasts more than 5000 years or more
( or something else what will last longer enough than a cd, ore ups stick, lol )

( the problem is , that the humans cant read the information correctly , they will misinterpret it )
( even lets say a dvd can last 100000 years, how could the humans know what to do with it without our technology and electricity
evern its all there - it just goes step by step to get there )

and then we are, asking.... and every information is there

humans have been here before, but one day we will be some other place,
we have to, and everything will start from scratch again ( at least for us humans )

not the universe, and not for god

for us humans for sure, until we start again,and again and again

when u die u will know, its soon
( humanly speaking, since 100 years is nothing , but realy nothing for this universe, but for the humans its a lot 9

biblical numbers stated that one man got 130 years old, and we were wondering, no that cant be true,
now people die with 110 years of age ( not all of course )

soon , we will be getting to that age again,

and then?

[BigBallinStalin]

I can't joke around?

Apologies, was a bit strong in the interpretation, joke away my man, joke away

I don't think the US is headed in the direction of a narrower in scope and more effective government. It's simply consuming more people's incomes in order to transfer wealth to other groups---while at a loss too (deficit spending). It's not sustainable, so my concern is that people will continue looking to the government for a solution to the problems which the government creates and sustains.

Agree.

Going back to the joke, although certain decision-makers can learn from past mistakes, thus "evolve" to a better form of government, there are some fundamental points which governments/central planning cannot overcome, so they really cannot evolve.

And, even if they get better at doing whatever, it doesn't mean that they should continue the status quo (e.g. central banking's control over The interest rate).

[Lootifer]

I can't joke around?

Apologies, was a bit strong in the interpretation, joke away my man, joke away

I don't think the US is headed in the direction of a narrower in scope and more effective government. It's simply consuming more people's incomes in order to transfer wealth to other groups---while at a loss too (deficit spending). It's not sustainable, so my concern is that people will continue looking to the government for a solution to the problems which the government creates and sustains.

Agree.

Going back to the joke, although certain decision-makers can learn from past mistakes, thus "evolve" to a better form of government, there are some fundamental points which governments/central planning cannot overcome, so they really cannot evolve.

And, even if they get better at doing whatever, it doesn't mean that they should continue the status quo (e.g. central banking's control over The interest rate).

Go on...

[Neoteny]

Don't encourage his imperialism.

[BigBallinStalin]

I can't joke around?

Apologies, was a bit strong in the interpretation, joke away my man, joke away

I don't think the US is headed in the direction of a narrower in scope and more effective government. It's simply consuming more people's incomes in order to transfer wealth to other groups---while at a loss too (deficit spending). It's not sustainable, so my concern is that people will continue looking to the government for a solution to the problems which the government creates and sustains.

Agree.

Going back to the joke, although certain decision-makers can learn from past mistakes, thus "evolve" to a better form of government, there are some fundamental points which governments/central planning cannot overcome, so they really cannot evolve.

And, even if they get better at doing whatever, it doesn't mean that they should continue the status quo (e.g. central banking's control over The interest rate).

Go on...

For one, the prices which emerge from voluntary exchanges and its consequences.
Another is profit and loss, which serves as a objective criteria for measuring one's performance (i.e. ability to satisfy consumers). Central planners who do not operate within a market (governments) lack this ability.
Then there's groupthink, monopoly and special privileges/collusion--which cannot be overcome by competition alone, if it's been curtailed by the law, etc.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Suppose there's a village where murder is acceptable, i.e. there's no such thing as unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they wouldn't survive for that long.

Suppose there's this other village where there's some rules against unjustified killing. I'd imagine that they would have greater chances of survival.

Is this not an example of variation?

If so, then isn't the moral code of humans part of the evolutionary process?

Yes, but this reasoning only applies to a small subset of our current moral code. To take the most natural extension of your example, the "unjustified" murder would only apply within one's tribe. The murder, rape and torture of a member of any other tribe would be just fine and dandy evolutionarily speaking (baring threats of retribution).

Sure, that happens, and I'm not trying to justify universal morals and whatever else j9b may be trying to assert. Just sayin' that it's part of the evolutionary process for this particular species (homo sapiens)--which is why I disagree with "Evolution has nothing to do with man-made moral considerations."

Fair enough. That was an overstatement. Should have said: "Evolution has little to do with man-made moral considerations."

Pinker talks about this. Apparently when monkeys fight for territory and the groups are relatively evenly matched they sort of just jump around and shout until the group that seems weaker gives up and leaves. But it turns out if a group of moneys find just one or two opposing monkeys, the "kindness" ends. They brutally rip them apart and eat parts of their flesh.
Basically evolution "taught" them that when the groups are relatively evenly matched it's bad strategy to get in a fight. But when you have the clear advantage you should take it and kill those fuckers.

So yeah, some evolutionarily beneficial behaviors match with what we think of as moral, but I think this is largely incidental. i.e. what about slavery?

Good, let's take on slavery. Before slavery, human sacrifice was more profitable; however, at some point various groups could realize the gains of greater labor productivity by enslaving others. Perhaps, this was due to the decreased price of maintaining slaves (e.g. greater ability to grow food).

What does that say of morals? I'd say that morals are largely driven by profit-seeking plans, realization of prices, and those outcomes. Those who have the leisure (from Plato to beyond) would then reflect on the outcomes and try to make them coherent. 'Ethics' back in Greece's day meant "custom." Another side of ethics/moral philosophy was about planning beyond the custom. Later, with perhaps the Renaissance Period, we see this side dominate as they would strive to design a moral system beyond the current outcomes/customs--and this phenomenon might be part of evolution, but I'm not sure.

Well, I guess morals would be driven by profit-seeking plans in the sense that everything we do is driven by profit-seeking plans(i.e. if I didn't expect to get some benefit of some kind out of an action I wouldn't do it in the first place). This doesn't seem like the best explanation of the development of morality. Presumably the slave holder's profit seeking plan was to keep their plantations.

Does someone sitting down, reflecting, and then writing resemble something of evolution? If not, then the ethics/moral philosophy which is designed by reason and largely devoid of current custom may not be part of evolution... but what could it be?

Kant's writings would be explained by evolution (as in biological evolution) only if some kind of biological shift occurred in the brain that allowed Kant to think about things differently. This is what I was saying to john.

You can, of course, say it's the result of something somewhat similar to biological evolution (i.e. cultural evolution). The difference I was getting at is that if it's biological evolution then I'm stuck. I was born with this brain, I can't do shit about it. If it;s cultural evolution then chugging 6 monsters and scribbling all night might just mean I'll come up with an incredible better moral system.

Herp. Intellectual and Cultural evolution is an analogue to the more commonly referred to species evolution. Be pragmatic for once you twits.

Not even close to what I was saying.

I'd assert that intellectual/cultural evolution is visable in a human-lifespan time scale.

Dont be like PS and view it as black and white BBS; we are evolving towards your own personal-view uptopia. But be warned, if I was you I would personally prepare myself for a pre-libanarchy optimum (i.e. Libertarian Anarchy is kinda poop).

Related to this I believe at this stage we dont have nearly enough data points to determine anything but a theoretical optimum (so far we have a handfull of failed totalitarian systems, a bunch of psuedo-free systems that only serve to give erranous data points - Im looking at you USA, and a few free-ish systems that show, generally, the direction to head in).

See, my problem with this is the somewhat fatalistic "we're evolving towards this". It's funny that this view is somewhat shared between both extreme optimists who think it's inevitable that humanity will reach the singularity in 50 years and extreme pessimists who think that it's inevitable that humanity will have an all-out nuclear war in the next 50 years.

What I'm saying is: we have much more control over our cultural/technological evolution than a rhino has over it's biological evolution. In that sense the analogy is flawed. There isn't some cosmic force pushing us towards one outcome or the other it's just the actions of people. (case in point, biological evolution was not able to eradicate polio, Bill Gates might be able to do it though).
So forget the fatalism and get off the fuckin' sofa cause nothing's written in the stars.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have a sofa in front of your computer???

[john9blue]

real talk: i have this serta executive office chair in front of my computer that was made with the same shit as the mattresses and feels just like a sofa. cost me like $200 but it was totally worth it.

[AslanTheKing]

Interesting to read,
every page was entertaining too,

but to make this short,

every human has the right to live on this planet,
if they believe in god or not

if they are good humans or bad humans
if they are good animals or bad animals ,
if they are good plants or bad plants,
( becuse it doesnt matter )

theyre so many religions on this earth that many people get confused and fed up,

there comes this question out of my mind
if u are a bad person who deserves to go to hell
where do you go to hell,

to the christian hell, the islamic hell, the buddhist hell, the tribe hell,
is funny or?
should there not be one god?
why then all this many religions?

like this funny quote: ever<body wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die , lol

asking myself this question , i believe i was around 12
by that time i had consumed all information about every religion

but i realized at the end, religions are not different from each other

and that also bad things happen from people who are strong believers in god
some very fanatic god believers are not always the best people,
and bad things happen from atheists

its always the same question, who are we, and were do we come from

i think religion should be personal, even there churches , mosques, temples and much more

as long people dont get hurt , its okay,

unfortunately the history tells us different ( at least as much we humans can go back )

it all started somewhere some time

and thats the illusion, we forget that even before recording human history was people leaving on this planet, in a brutal way
what did this people belive in ?

maybe nothing, but for sure they where very afraid of things they couldn't answer

and thats us today, things we cant answer we are afraid of

we humans are not more inteligent then the ones before us,( there is a mistake in the word inteligence - just google it )

just look at the architecture, literature, music all made many many years ago

today we talk only about iphone, windows, apple, pixar , mercedes etc.... ( i forgot pornography )

never mind

the question is, does god exist and where is he?

guys, and thats exactly the trap

dont ask, dont wonder, just be sure

open your eyes really, not just read and study,
just open your eyes, dont u see

sad for u, i can see it every day, and i dont look at the iPhone,
i look at the nature, and nature has given me the answer, its all there , but people cant see it anymore, very sad

when i lived in australia i was dreaming of skiing in australia ( but before when iwas living in austria i was dreaming of a sandy beach)

now i live in hamburg, germany and i dont dream of all this anymore, now i only dream that my kids are godloving , and people loving, and animal loving
and nature loving

get it?

that they are loving

and thats what humans have lost
to be loving

everything else isnt important and never was, and that was the message all along

( and besides , our human brain is not programmed to get that far

our brain is programmed to get us only to the next stage, to the stage we have been before
and we are not there yet, more will follow, or could u imagine 20 years ago that u talk to somebody on the phone
where there are not wires attached ?????? ( or technically speaking look at the graphics of the old lucasfilm comp games like maniac mansion...)

( if u would leave this planet for good on a spaceship , what would u leave behind?
a DVD with all our knowledge ?

no, i dont think so , u would leave pyramids build out of solid stone, which lasts more than 5000 years or more
( or something else what will last longer enough than a cd, ore ups stick, lol )

( the problem is , that the humans cant read the information correctly , they will misinterpret it )
( even lets say a dvd can last 100000 years, how could the humans know what to do with it without our technology and electricity
evern its all there - it just goes step by step to get there )

and then we are, asking.... and every information is there

humans have been here before, but one day we will be some other place,
we have to, and everything will start from scratch again ( at least for us humans )

not the universe, and not for god

for us humans for sure, until we start again,and again and again

when u die u will know, its soon
( humanly speaking, since 100 years is nothing , but realy nothing for this universe, but for the humans its a lot 9

biblical numbers stated that one man got 130 years old, and we were wondering, no that cant be true,
now people die with 110 years of age ( not all of course )

soon , we will be getting to that age again,

and then?

what have i been drinking ? give me more of that stuff

[WestWind]

Since we've gotten past the typical opening salvos for this type of argument, I thought I'd toss a log or two into the fire as well.

Where, exactly, does our appreciation and enjoyment of beautiful things come from? Not necessarily beautiful people (we can all probably be pretty confident about where that urge originates...), but, say, a sunset, a valley full of fall colors, a favorite bird song, or a piece of music. The deistic approach is pretty easy- God/etc created a beautiful world and gave us the ability to perceive it.

But how do you explain it without a higher power? For one, we'd have to take away the fact that the world/universe itself is beautiful in itself, since that would imply a level of order and intent in the universe that, in this argument, just isn't there. What we're left with is humans interpreting fairly random stimuli and developing a subjective enjoyment and appreciation for it- thus our interpretation of beauty. The question we're then left with is why? What's the point in, say, seeing a sunset from the top of a mountain and deriving pleasure and enjoyment from it? Is there an evolutionary benefit, or is it just (I love this term) "evolutionary cheesecake"- leftovers from our other high-level cognitive abilities? I have no real answer and would just enjoy hearing others' thoughts on it.

FTR I'm a very comfortable fence-sitting agnostic, and this is one of the questions I've considered for a while. I've looked for some research-based answers and haven't found anything definite. There is a cool article on human perceptions of music, which I'll link below. It's really damn interesting and answers some question, but not the root question of "Why" as I've presented it:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... ove-us-so/

Another related link by the same author: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... l-so-good/

[BigBallinStalin]

The question we're then left with is why? What's the point in, say, seeing a sunset from the top of a mountain and deriving pleasure and enjoyment from it? Is there an evolutionary benefit, or is it just (I love this term) "evolutionary cheesecake"- leftovers from our other high-level cognitive abilities? I have no real answer and would just enjoy hearing others' thoughts on it.

FTR I'm a very comfortable fence-sitting agnostic, and this is one of the questions I've considered for a while. I've looked for some research-based answers and haven't found anything definite. There is a cool article on human perceptions of music, which I'll link below. It's really damn interesting and answers some question, but not the root question of "Why" as I've presented it:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... ove-us-so/

Another related link by the same author: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... l-so-good/

In other words, your root question is: "why do we derive pleasure from sunsets and beautiful things?," or

"Where, exactly, does our appreciation and enjoyment of beautiful things come from?"


Well... what kind of explanation are you looking for?

Are you asking about a locality? Are you asking about some neurological/causal process? Are you trapped in your chasing after a substantive (beauty)?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's quote from Wittgenstein (blue book, 8 ):

I can say: "in my visual field I see the image of the tree to the right of the image of the tower" or "I see the image of the tree in the middle of the visual field." And now we are inclined to ask "and where do you see the visual field?" Now if the "where" is meant to ask for a locality in the sense in which we have specified the locality of the image of teh tree, then I would raw your attention to the fact that you have not yet given this question sense; that is, that you have been proceeding by a grammatical analogy without having worked out the analogy in detail.

The underlined is analogous to: "Where, exactly, does our appreciation and enjoyment of beautiful things come from?" (Wittgenstein seems to call this kind of question a 'grammatical misunderstanding').


For example, Wittgenstein asks, "what is the meaning of the word?" In order to answer this question, we have to first answer, "what is an explanation of the meaning of a word, and what does the explanation of a word look like?"

(analogy:)
In other words, "What is length?"
In order to understand this question, it helps to be able to answer, "how do we measure length?"

When we ask about a substantive (length, meaning, beauty), we get a "mental cramp" while we try to look for a thing which corresponds to the substantive. Why? See:

page 6:

Now if it is not the causal connections which we are concerned with, then the activities of the mind lie open before us. And when we are worried about the nature of thinking, the puzzlement which we wrongly interpret to be one about the nature of the medium (i.e. 'this sought-after place in the mind where thinking occurs') is a puzzlement caused by the mystifying use of our language.

This kind of mistake recurs again and again in philosophy; e.g. when we are puzzled about the nature of time, when time seems to us a queer thing. We are most strongly tempted to think that here are things hidden, something we can see from the outside but which we can't look into. And yet nothing of the sort is the case. It is not new facts about time which we want to know. All the facts that concern us lie open before us. But it is the use of the substantive "time" which mystifies us. If we look into the grammar of that word, we shall feel that it is no less astounding that man should have conceived of a deity of time than it would be to conceive of a deity of negation or disjunction.

WestWind, Wittgenstein's talking to ya, buddy.

I haven't gotten too in-depth with Wittgenstein, but based on a conversation, Wittgenstein seems to explain that many philosophers are like dogs chasing their own tails. They don't realize or they refuse to acknowledge the constraints of their language, so many of them pursue answers which do not exist.

(Of course, if those philosophers admitted to this, then they would render themselves unemployed. Rational self-interest, anyone?)

[WestWind]

In other words, your root question is: "why do we derive pleasure from sunsets and beautiful things?," or

"Where, exactly, does our appreciation and enjoyment of beautiful things come from?"


Well... what kind of explanation are you looking for?

Are you asking about a locality? Are you asking about some neurological/causal process? Are you trapped in your chasing after a substantive (beauty)?

For the sake of this argument, let's focus on neurological/biological/evolutionary process. The word "beauty" has too much of a subjective connotation, so let's rephrase it to: Why do humans derive pleasure from stimuli (light, sound) that they find aesthetically pleasing?

That Wittgenstein bit is interesting. I'm actually not too heavy into philosophy except where it can be practically useful, which it never seems to achieve when talking about highly subjective issues (Truth, beauty, etc.).

[BigBallinStalin]

In other words, your root question is: "why do we derive pleasure from sunsets and beautiful things?," or

"Where, exactly, does our appreciation and enjoyment of beautiful things come from?"


Well... what kind of explanation are you looking for?

Are you asking about a locality? Are you asking about some neurological/causal process? Are you trapped in your chasing after a substantive (beauty)?

For the sake of this argument, let's focus on neurological/biological/evolutionary process. The word "beauty" has too much of a subjective connotation, so let's rephrase it to: Why do humans derive pleasure from stimuli (light, sound) that they find aesthetically pleasing?

That Wittgenstein bit is interesting. I'm actually not too heavy into philosophy except where it can be practically useful, which it never seems to achieve when talking about highly subjective issues (Truth, beauty, etc.).

Well, I can't answer that. Dern't knorw much about that nuerology.

[Symmetry]

Interesting to read,
every page was entertaining too,

but to make this short,

every human has the right to live on this planet,
if they believe in god or not

if they are good humans or bad humans
if they are good animals or bad animals ,
if they are good plants or bad plants,
( becuse it doesnt matter )

theyre so many religions on this earth that many people get confused and fed up,

there comes this question out of my mind
if u are a bad person who deserves to go to hell
where do you go to hell,

to the christian hell, the islamic hell, the buddhist hell, the tribe hell,
is funny or?
should there not be one god?
why then all this many religions?

like this funny quote: ever<body wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die , lol

asking myself this question , i believe i was around 12
by that time i had consumed all information about every religion

but i realized at the end, religions are not different from each other

and that also bad things happen from people who are strong believers in god
some very fanatic god believers are not always the best people,
and bad things happen from atheists

its always the same question, who are we, and were do we come from

i think religion should be personal, even there churches , mosques, temples and much more

as long people dont get hurt , its okay,

unfortunately the history tells us different ( at least as much we humans can go back )

it all started somewhere some time

and thats the illusion, we forget that even before recording human history was people leaving on this planet, in a brutal way
what did this people belive in ?

maybe nothing, but for sure they where very afraid of things they couldn't answer

and thats us today, things we cant answer we are afraid of

we humans are not more inteligent then the ones before us,( there is a mistake in the word inteligence - just google it )

just look at the architecture, literature, music all made many many years ago

today we talk only about iphone, windows, apple, pixar , mercedes etc.... ( i forgot pornography )

never mind

the question is, does god exist and where is he?

guys, and thats exactly the trap

dont ask, dont wonder, just be sure

open your eyes really, not just read and study,
just open your eyes, dont u see

sad for u, i can see it every day, and i dont look at the iPhone,
i look at the nature, and nature has given me the answer, its all there , but people cant see it anymore, very sad

when i lived in australia i was dreaming of skiing in australia ( but before when iwas living in austria i was dreaming of a sandy beach)

now i live in hamburg, germany and i dont dream of all this anymore, now i only dream that my kids are godloving , and people loving, and animal loving
and nature loving

get it?

that they are loving

and thats what humans have lost
to be loving

everything else isnt important and never was, and that was the message all along

( and besides , our human brain is not programmed to get that far

our brain is programmed to get us only to the next stage, to the stage we have been before
and we are not there yet, more will follow, or could u imagine 20 years ago that u talk to somebody on the phone
where there are not wires attached ?????? ( or technically speaking look at the graphics of the old lucasfilm comp games like maniac mansion...)

( if u would leave this planet for good on a spaceship , what would u leave behind?
a DVD with all our knowledge ?

no, i dont think so , u would leave pyramids build out of solid stone, which lasts more than 5000 years or more
( or something else what will last longer enough than a cd, ore ups stick, lol )

( the problem is , that the humans cant read the information correctly , they will misinterpret it )
( even lets say a dvd can last 100000 years, how could the humans know what to do with it without our technology and electricity
evern its all there - it just goes step by step to get there )

and then we are, asking.... and every information is there

humans have been here before, but one day we will be some other place,
we have to, and everything will start from scratch again ( at least for us humans )

not the universe, and not for god

for us humans for sure, until we start again,and again and again

when u die u will know, its soon
( humanly speaking, since 100 years is nothing , but realy nothing for this universe, but for the humans its a lot 9

biblical numbers stated that one man got 130 years old, and we were wondering, no that cant be true,
now people die with 110 years of age ( not all of course )

soon , we will be getting to that age again,

and then?

what have i been drinking ? give me more of that stuff

iJust assumed you were boasting about having an iPhone, given that it was one of the few times you used capital letters.

[crispybits]

"Why do humans derive pleasure from stimuli (light, sound) that they find aesthetically pleasing? "

Is it just me or does that question eat it's own tail? It's the linguistic equivalent of asking "why do humans derive enjoyment from things that they find enjoyable?" or "why do humans derive pain and suffering from things that they find painful?". Apologies if I'm missing something here but the question kinda answers itself by definition as stated.

Can you name something that is universally pleasant to everyone? Some people couldn't care less about sunsets or mountain views or classical music. Some people prefer beach views or heavy rock music, etc. If you view the realm of all possible pleasant experiences as an entirely subjective one, then you can easily describe the process as a combination of memory linkages (you had a lovely family holiday in the mountains when you were a kid / you saw a nature program about jungles and have always been very interested in visiting one / whatever) and one of goal attainment (climbing that mountain is an achievement, the view from the top is a kind of reward for going to all that trouble). It also solves the issue of someone who lives on a beach becoming "blind" to the beuty they see every day, but being awestruck if they get to the top of a mountain and look out over the top of a canopy of forest or similar.

As far as I know nobody has come up with a hard and fast objctive rule for what is pleasant or what is beautiful. To try and move those experiences and emotions into the objective realm surely you first have to define exactly what they are objectively?

[BigBallinStalin]

"Why do humans derive pleasure from stimuli (light, sound) that they find aesthetically pleasing? "

Is it just me or does that question eat it's own tail? It's the linguistic equivalent of asking "why do humans derive enjoyment from things that they find enjoyable?" or "why do humans derive pain and suffering from things that they find painful?". Apologies if I'm missing something here but the question kinda answers itself by definition as stated.

Can you name something that is universally pleasant to everyone? Some people couldn't care less about sunsets or mountain views or classical music. Some people prefer beach views or heavy rock music, etc. If you view the realm of all possible pleasant experiences as an entirely subjective one, then you can easily describe the process as a combination of memory linkages (you had a lovely family holiday in the mountains when you were a kid / you saw a nature program about jungles and have always been very interested in visiting one / whatever) and one of goal attainment (climbing that mountain is an achievement, the view from the top is a kind of reward for going to all that trouble). It also solves the issue of someone who lives on a beach becoming "blind" to the beuty they see every day, but being awestruck if they get to the top of a mountain and look out over the top of a canopy of forest or similar.

As far as I know nobody has come up with a hard and fast objctive rule for what is pleasant or what is beautiful. To try and move those experiences and emotions into the objective realm surely you first have to define exactly what they are objectively?

Your mum.

[WestWind]

"Why do humans derive pleasure from stimuli (light, sound) that they find aesthetically pleasing? "

Is it just me or does that question eat it's own tail? It's the linguistic equivalent of asking "why do humans derive enjoyment from things that they find enjoyable?" or "why do humans derive pain and suffering from things that they find painful?". Apologies if I'm missing something here but the question kinda answers itself by definition as stated.

Can you name something that is universally pleasant to everyone? Some people couldn't care less about sunsets or mountain views or classical music. Some people prefer beach views or heavy rock music, etc. If you view the realm of all possible pleasant experiences as an entirely subjective one, then you can easily describe the process as a combination of memory linkages (you had a lovely family holiday in the mountains when you were a kid / you saw a nature program about jungles and have always been very interested in visiting one / whatever) and one of goal attainment (climbing that mountain is an achievement, the view from the top is a kind of reward for going to all that trouble). It also solves the issue of someone who lives on a beach becoming "blind" to the beuty they see every day, but being awestruck if they get to the top of a mountain and look out over the top of a canopy of forest or similar.

As far as I know nobody has come up with a hard and fast objctive rule for what is pleasant or what is beautiful. To try and move those experiences and emotions into the objective realm surely you first have to define exactly what they are objectively?

Your mum.

Zing.

*ahem*

For most things that we find pleasurable or enjoyable, there's a good evolutionary response behind it- nutrition for food that tastes good to us, sex feels good because it aids reproduction. Independent of our own personal tastes, however, we all find enjoyment in things that, as of yet, we haven't found a good reason to enjoy. There's a few tentative explanations out there (i.e. music as a form of communication), but they're still in early stages of development. For whatever reason there's a series of biological mechanisms that rewards us for seemingly pointless experiences.

The argument that memories play a large effect is a good one and can probably go a long way towards explaining subjective variation among what we enjoy. For example, maybe you hate warm sunsets because you broke your arm during one, but instead take pleasure in grey cloudy days. The point is for some reason we're drawn to some type of aesthetic experience that really serves no purpose to surviving and reproducing. Memories and experiences might help shape what those individual preferences are (but 100%? probably not), but they don't go to explain why we seek them out to begin with.

[Haggis_McMutton]

For most things that we find pleasurable or enjoyable, there's a good evolutionary response behind it- nutrition for food that tastes good to us, sex feels good because it aids reproduction. Independent of our own personal tastes, however, we all find enjoyment in things that, as of yet, we haven't found a good reason to enjoy. There's a few tentative explanations out there (i.e. music as a form of communication), but they're still in early stages of development. For whatever reason there's a series of biological mechanisms that rewards us for seemingly pointless experiences.

The argument that memories play a large effect is a good one and can probably go a long way towards explaining subjective variation among what we enjoy. For example, maybe you hate warm sunsets because you broke your arm during one, but instead take pleasure in grey cloudy days. The point is for some reason we're drawn to some type of aesthetic experience that really serves no purpose to surviving and reproducing. Memories and experiences might help shape what those individual preferences are (but 100%? probably not), but they don't go to explain why we seek them out to begin with.

Ok, here's two ideas off the top of my head.

1. As the article you linked suggests, we like things similar to other things we've liked in the past. Our brain forms templates for how to process certain complex stimuli and the effect of processing these stimuli is rewarded with dopamine. When do these templates initially form? Probably somewhere in our infancy. The "sunset" and "mountaintop" and "beach" memes are pretty deeply ingrained in our culture. Most kids will be exposed to them while still very young.

2. We've developed all this capability for higher reasoning and for forming templates and interconnections in the brain (as the article says). Once these mechanism are present, there is no evolutionary reason why they should be applied only to things directly beneficial for our survival. Indeed you can't even say with any certitude what's beneficial to your survival (i.e. is writing poetry beneficial to your genes survival? if we are to accept the "chicks dig artists" social theory then yes, it is). The brain abhors a vacuum, it fills up things it doesn't understand with best guesses, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the templates would be fired at somewhat random "light and noise stimuli". And as the article says, releasing certain chemicals is part of the templates, so voila pleasure and pain.