Scientific Forums


Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Evolution/creation Of Our Human Intelligence,, Consciousness, etc.
Mong H Tan, PhD
  Posted: May 2 2007, 06:51 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


RE: Evolution/Creation of our Human Intelligence, Consciousness, etc.

Dear Self-disciplined PhysOrg.com Readers:

After about a year of actively participating in these dynamic PhysOrg.com forums and publications worldwide, I think it’s now right time for us to start a new challenging topic, in consistence with the currently arising intellectual interests, as expressed in this active Creation/Evolution forum herein.

As usual, anything as relevant to the Subject Matter of this thread goes; especially in the persistent quest of our human knowledge, none a many inquiries shall be considered as naïve, as long as the inquirers would justify themselves, and not resort to the “attacking the messenger” self-defeatist hubris or the inferiority-superiority complex syndrome!

So, let’s aim, focus, and fire—the Evolution/Creation of our Human Intelligence, Consciousness, etc—or whatever that is relevant in our each dynamic Mind!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 5/2/7usct1:52p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!

This post has been edited by Mong H Tan, PhD on May 2 2007, 06:54 PM


--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
Insyght
Posted: May 2 2007, 09:26 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 582
Joined: 16-May 05

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 4


Hey Mong H Tan, PhD.

Want us to do some research for you so you can publish it in a new book? (LOL) - ah just playing with you.

You seem to be getting no responses so I'll start.

We were created. Reason: our conscience would actually imped our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression.

The most successful I could be in this life - evolutionary style, is to have no conscience and exercise game theory to get everything I need/want.

Hows that to start? This should get you at least 5 to 10 stomping responses from anti-creationists smile.gif
Send PM ·
Top
Confused2
Posted: May 2 2007, 10:32 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43


It's not so much the 'creation' bit as the total lack of logic that is interesting.
QUOTE (Insyght)
Reason: our conscience would actually imped our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression.

Let's try for 'essence of concience'..
Would you agree it suggests a sense of 'fair play' and a degree of altruism. 'Conscience' is part of fitting in with a group so you (and the 'others') can co-operate in ways that would not otherwise be possible and so the group, the species (and your genes) benefit by co-operating.
By the logic that animals that co-operate are 'created' we have..
Examples of created animals..
Humans,dolphins,bees,ants,lions,wolves,meerkats
Examples of NON-created animals..
Whale sharks, leopards*, mosquitos, cuckoos, hamsters.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is a cultural (evolutionary?) oddity that when most people co-operate an individual can gain advantage by pretending to co-operate without actually keeping their side of the implicit bargain. We could ask why so many humans see such people as 'leaders' and give them positions of power - but that would be another thread.
-C2.

* Edit - I was actually thing of cheetahs when I wrote leopards - I'm pretty sure neither of them co-operate but of the two I have more knowledge of cheetahs. Both spotty cat-type things - you can't really expect a pre-1957 homo sapiens to be able to tell the difference.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on May 2 2007, 11:03 PM


--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
photojack
Posted: May 2 2007, 10:45 PM


Rationality personified.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1858
Joined: 5-December 06

Positive Feedback: 83.93%
Feedback Score: 73


I'll reply to the very poorly worded original post and Insyght's strange response. It is clear from the most cursory glance at the body of science since the magical year of 1859, that human intelligence AND consciousness has EVOLVED without question, much as Darwin theorized so presciently in "On the Origin of Species." Every animal ethological study, every new fossil discovery and every new species discovered fits perfectly into the framework he established in 1859 based on his earlier research and studies. ohmy.gif Even Darwin's Grandfather held views leaning toward evolution, but didn't hit on the methods of how it worked.

"Erasmus Darwin's most important scientific work is Zoönomia (1794–1796), which contains a system of pathology, and a treatise on "generation", in which he, in the words of his famous grandson, Charles Robert Darwin, anticipated the views of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who in turn is regarded to have foreshadowed the theory of evolution." wikipedia.

Ethology has revealed very clearly the origins of moralistic behavior and even the highly lauded characteristic of altruism in animals. NO RELIGION INVOLVED IN THE ORIGIN OF EITHER ONE. I will supply more evidence as this thread grows.

Insyght quote, "We were created. Reason: our conscience would actually imped(e) our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression."

Conscience evolved before mankind entered the picture. And it helped in our successful evolution, it definitely did not impede it.

Insyght quote, "The most successful I could be in this life - evolutionary style, is to have no conscience and exercise game theory to get everything I need/want."

If that is your definition of success, God be with you! laugh.gif tongue.gif Are you wishing to backtrack to having no conscience? Criminals are the most obvious examples of that! dry.gif Greed does not equal success. Passing on genes, leaving an artistic, scientific or literary legacy would be examples of success. Educating the upcoming generation to our best ability for the furtherance of culture and civilization would be another. Striving to accomplish those goals implies a consciousness, a conscience and intelligence. Nice things that we inherited through evolution from our animal progenitors! biggrin.gif


--------------------
Darwin was a keen observer and theorist and his theory is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason it is still called a theory is because it can't be proven in the same way a mathematical theorem can. That is a problem with semantics, NOT the science!
Top
thinkbig!
Posted: May 2 2007, 10:57 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 301
Joined: 6-January 07

Positive Feedback: 42.86%
Feedback Score: -21


QUOTE (Insyght @ May 2 2007, 09:26 PM)
Hey Mong H Tan, PhD.

Want us to do some research for you so you can publish it in a new book? (LOL) - ah just playing with you.

You seem to be getting no responses so I'll start.

We were created. Reason: our conscience would actually imped our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression.

The most successful I could be in this life - evolutionary style, is to have no conscience and exercise game theory to get everything I need/want.

Hows that to start? This should get you at least 5 to 10 stomping responses from anti-creationists smile.gif

I agree. Thats a good way to put it.
Top
Confused2
Posted: May 2 2007, 11:49 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43


Hi Thinkbig!

QUOTE (Thinkbig!)
I agree. Thats a good way to put it.


As a matter of interest - can you contemplate a situation (say) 50,000 years ago when you would have the choice of co-operating or being killed?

-C2.


--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
Insyght
Posted: May 3 2007, 06:11 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 582
Joined: 16-May 05

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 4


QUOTE
Insyght's strange response.


Not strange enough, I expected far more response. I'll have to be weirder next time wink.gif

QUOTE
co-operate in ways that would not otherwise be possible and so the group, the species (and your genes) benefit by co-operating.


You don't need cooperation to procreate and spread genes. You just take as many men or women as you want and procreate. You spread you genes, you diversify life. The more off spring you mother/father, the higher your survival rating.

Competition between you and others with heat up and you will 'fight' for the right/privilege to spawn offspring.

The weak fail, the strong succeed. This is much like how most of the animal kingdom currently works. Evidence is right there in front of us.

Humans however... apparently decided that the fighting way is no use and instead we should be nice and try and convince a prospective mate that we are the best choice. On top of that, others recognize that the sexual subject is 'taken' and then abide by some law of niceness and leave them alone because it will make them more successful.

Then we come to modern day and we appear to be going back to prehistoric times and spreading our seeds in as many places as possible with no regard for group any more (LOL)

There is no logic. You want, you take. The strong person, the one with the best game plan will procreate and the weaker will not.

QUOTE
Conscience evolved before mankind entered the picture


In what form/manifestation and for what reason?
Send PM ·
Top
Confused2
Posted: May 3 2007, 08:07 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43


QUOTE (Insyght)
You don't need cooperation to procreate and spread genes. You just take as many men or women as you want and procreate. You spread you genes, you diversify life. The more off spring you mother/father, the higher your survival rating.


There's no point in having offspring if you can't provide food for them. I suspect animals mostly co-operate because it improves their chances of finding food rather than for the parties and general fraternity activities. Very often the social structure is oppressive rather than liberating for the majority of individuals in the group.

-C2.



--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
ImmortalCoil
Posted: May 3 2007, 10:06 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 307
Joined: 10-November 06

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 12


QUOTE (Insyght @ May 3 2007, 02:11 PM)
The weak fail, the strong succeed. This is much like how most of the animal kingdom currently works. Evidence is right there in front of us.

Seems like you haven't looked at the 'evidence' well enough.
Observe a clan of mountain gorillas in Rwanda and you will see what teamwork and cooperation can do for you.
By helping out those that are related to you, you are indeed helping spread your own genes, because of course, they are related to you.

Not all animals go through the simple 'I will kill and male that will try and take my females'. Believe me, it is a lot more complex than that. Perhaps you need to watch some Attenborough docs.

If you kill everyone but your own relatives, then you will be left with no one to mate with but your own gene pool. The very first law of genetics is to spread the genes, to diversify the gene pool. Flowering plants don't fertilize themselves, at least intentionally. Kindness and cooperation is a very good strategy to survival. Don't forget, our strongest point in our 10 mya history has been our social behavior. We like to live in groups and societies. To understand why, research more on our cousins, the chimpanzees and the gorillas.
Send PM ·
Top
Mong H Tan, PhD
  Posted: May 4 2007, 05:33 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


RE: Good Showing—but required More Specifics with Cogent Arguments!?

QUOTE (Insyght: May 2 2007; 9:26p)
Hey Mong H Tan, PhD.

Want us to do some research for you so you can publish it in a new book? (LOL) - ah just playing with you.

You seem to be getting no responses so I'll start.[1]

We were created. Reason: our conscience would actually impede our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression.[2]

The most successful I could be in this life - evolutionary style, is to have no conscience and exercise game theory to get everything I need/want.[3]

Hows that to start? This should get you at least 5 to 10 stomping responses from anti-creationists.[4]


1] It looks like Carl Jung’s (1875-1961) “Synchronicity” is at work here: In fact, I was inspired to start this thread just for Readers with curious Mind like yours (and Consued2’s, et al), after I read your “multi-layered” queries about our Human Brain (including Mind and Emotion) in the other irrelevant (anti-ID neocreationism) thread, in this dynamic Creation/Evolution forum; wherein none a many Readers could help you analyze your “multidimensional” thinking. So, if you could organize and present your “multifaceted” thoughts into some specific questions or theses herein, perhaps, I would be able to help you and other curious Readers analyze all those queries along in this new challenging thread!? smile.gif

2] Your thesis that “We were created” would be the same Dualism of Rene Descartes’ (1596-1650) “I think therefore I am” mentalism vs. physicalism!? You need to elaborate that in order to generate more responses.

3] As for your “Conscience” thesis: Were you trying to mock the anti-creationist notion of the 19th-century Darwinian Evolutionism—a Scientism propagated in Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene and 2006 The God Delusion?!

4] As such, if your theses are too vaguely expressed as in your “Conscience vs. Game Theory” arguments, none a rational anti-creationist would be able to respond cogently, as explained in 1] above; and as one exemplified below:

QUOTE (Confused2: May 2 2007; 10:32p)
It's not so much the 'creation' bit as the total lack of logic that is interesting.[5]

QUOTE (Insyght)
Reason: our conscience would actually impede our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression.


Let's try for 'essence of conscience'..

Would you agree it suggests a sense of 'fair play' and a degree of altruism. 'Conscience' is part of fitting in with a group so you (and the 'others') can co-operate in ways that would not otherwise be possible and so the group, the species (and your genes) benefit by co-operating.

By the logic that animals that co-operate are 'created' we have..

Examples of created animals..
Humans, dolphins, bees, ants, lions, wolves, meerkats.

Examples of NON-created animals..
Whale sharks, leopards*, mosquitoes, cuckoos, hamsters.[6]
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is a cultural (evolutionary?) oddity that when most people co-operate an individual can gain advantage by pretending to co-operate without actually keeping their side of the implicit bargain. We could ask why so many humans see such people as 'leaders' and give them positions of power - but that would be another thread.[7]
-C2.

* Edit - I was actually thinking of cheetahs when I wrote leopards - I'm pretty sure neither of them co-operate but of the two I have more knowledge of is cheetahs. Both spotty cat-type things - you can't really expect a pre-1957 homo sapiens to be able to tell the difference.


5] Semantically, “Creation” means “Anything that we can imagine or think of—or Create—mentally,” and not physically or materially, as explained in 2] above; thus “Creationism” is a pure mental—or Spiritual—state or process or fantasy or superstition (including Religion), or any psychicism that could not and would not be forever falsified by “Science,” as Science is an investigative methodology, that could and would only subscribe to our physical or material worldview or “Empiricism” or reality, so to speak; and, therefore, Creationism (as in Religion) and Empiricism (as in Science) would be always in contradictory to each other, if one does or would not differentiate and complement these 2 worldviews!

6] In Humanity, “Conscience” is more than “fair play,” “altruism,” “game theory,” or “genes;” and, therefore, your classification of animals and insects as “created” or “non-created” is not scientific, but falls flat into the fallacy of Creationism or Metaphysics, including those teleological arguments of Aristotle’s; St Augustine’s; St Aquinas’; William Paley’s (1743-1805; author of 1802 book Natural Theology); etc and the latest form of the Intelligent Design as anti-scientific anti-Evolution thesis!

7] As such, Human Enterprises (including Civilization or Cultures) are more complex than any formalism in the Game Theory that we can subscribe, define, fathom, or describe; and, last, but not least:

QUOTE (Photojack: May 2 2007; 10:45p)
Ethology has revealed very clearly the origins of moralistic behavior and even the highly lauded characteristic of altruism in animals. NO RELIGION INVOLVED IN THE ORIGIN OF EITHER ONE. I will supply more evidence as this thread grows.[8]

Insyght quote, "We were created. Reason: our conscience would actually imped(e) our being 'successful' in life - in the evolutionary sense of the expression."

Conscience evolved before mankind entered the picture. And it helped in our successful evolution, it definitely did not impede it.[9]

Insyght quote, "The most successful I could be in this life - evolutionary style, is to have no conscience and exercise game theory to get everything I need/want."

If that is your definition of success, God be with you! Are you wishing to backtrack to having no conscience? Criminals are the most obvious examples of that! Greed does not equal success. Passing on genes, leaving an artistic, scientific or literary legacy would be examples of success. Educating the upcoming generation to our best ability for the furtherance of culture and civilization would be another. Striving to accomplish those goals implies a consciousness, a conscience and intelligence. Nice things that we inherited through evolution from our animal progenitors![10]


8] Please don’t propagate your “Scientism” herein again: Mind you (and ImmortalCoil), Ethology is not Anthropology or Archeology or Psychology or Civilization; this is a specific thread on our Human Intelligence, and no Ethology can accomplish or establish that!

Whereas Evolutionism and Scientism would only encourage more anti-Darwinism rhetoric like Insyght’s above: One which is rhetorically inventive or creative, but one whose contexts and observations are just too scientifically inaccurate or incorrect; and above all, philosophically irreconcilable in both Science and Religion.

Furthermore and prospectively: Being able to recognize, reconcile, and complement our unified Mind and Emotion (as in Science and Religion) shall be the hallmark and advancement of our Human Intelligence in Evolution into the 21st century; otherwise the Evolution/Creation of our Human Life, Mind, Consciousness, Conscience, etc would have had all been in vain—in big time—especially after over 3 billion years of Biogenesis on this unique planet Earth—God directed or not—and that would be the inquest for all the modern, intelligent, self-disciplined religionists and scientists to begin Dialogues and Reconciliation among themselves worldwide!

For more discussions and/or dialogues on our Human Nature and Enterprises, especially our Science and Religion, please see another in-depth on-going thread in these dynamic PhysOrg.com forums and publications herein, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; since May 2006), so as to stimulate the concerned Readers ourselves to see if we could all evolve to be a better and wiser Humanity worldwide—especially in the post 9/11/2001 world of today and beyond!

9] and 10] As explained in 3] - 8] above, our Human Intelligence has nothing to do with other any lower Animal Intelligences and/or their Consciousness (with or without Religion); whereas our Conscience is more than just Animalism or Entomology or Ichthyology or Metaphysics! Nevertheless, you’re all welcome to debate any relevant theses, issues, or themes, as expressed herein above.

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 5/4/7usct12:33p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!


--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
Insyght
Posted: May 4 2007, 08:56 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 582
Joined: 16-May 05

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 4


Long response. I got a bit bored trying to read it all. Might wanna post more frequently - just a recommendation.

You over-complicate much. Take point 5, your description of Creation. Creation is simply understood as "God made man". No spiritual and metaphysical stuff needed.

QUOTE
As for your “Conscience” thesis: Were you trying to mock the anti-creationist notion of the 19th-century Darwinian Evolutionism—a Scientism propagated in Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene and 2006 The God Delusion?!


Nope. Never read the book, just stating the obvious.

QUOTE
6]your classification of animals and insects as “created” or “non-created” is not scientific, but falls flat into the fallacy of Creationism or Metaphysics, including those teleological arguments of Aristotle’s; St Augustine’s; St Aquinas’; William Paley’s (1743-1805; author of 1802 book Natural Theology); etc and the latest form of the Intelligent Design as anti-scientific anti-Evolution thesis!


Confused2 was being sarcastic. I don't think he was really using Creation as a scientific method for animal categorization.
Send PM ·
Top
Confused2
Posted: May 5 2007, 01:56 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43


QUOTE (mong)
your classification of animals and insects as “created” or “non-created”


Insyght is (of course) correct - I was being sarcastic. I will try not to do it again sad.gif .

-C2.


--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
tikay
Posted: May 5 2007, 11:48 PM


a bene placito
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3834
Joined: 21-March 06

Positive Feedback: 75.26%
Feedback Score: 149


QUOTE (photojack @ May 2 2007, 03:45 PM)
Greed does not equal success. Passing on genes, leaving an artistic, scientific or literary legacy would be examples of success. Educating the upcoming generation to our best ability for the furtherance of culture and civilization would be another. Striving to accomplish those goals implies a consciousness, a conscience and intelligence. Nice things that we inherited through evolution from our animal progenitors! biggrin.gif

I am going to take this as a compliment biggrin.gif

Thank you for saying this, it makes me feel like I have accomplished something of value in my life, after all! Most people critisize me for passing on my genes, they tend to think I passed on too many, having four offspring. I think the number was perfect, obviously. I have left some art, some writings, and some scientific hypothesis now in my short time, as well. So maybe I am a sucess?


I remember once my mom told someone important (one her her bosses) that my life had not been a series of successes. When they told me of her acessment I thought for a moment and said that I believed my life to be exactly that, a series of sucesses...and then went into the definition of sucess for me, someone who began life wanting only to experience motherhood, and marriage. It was a job interview, and I was hired when it was over for making a similar statement as yours.

Peace!

Oh...I believe we (humans and all of sentient life) are Created To Evolve in Darwinian movements and fibronicchi spirals biggrin.gif Conciousness being a veil of illusive programmes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics









--------------------
Send a PM if you want my e-mail address. Miss You, people~
;~})
Top
Mong H Tan, PhD
  Posted: May 6 2007, 03:05 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


RE: Good Points—but most Pretexts had had been misread!?

QUOTE (Insyght: May4 2007; 8:56p)
Long response. I got a bit bored trying to read it all. Might wanna post more frequently - just a recommendation.[1]

You over-complicate much. Take point 5, your description of Creation. Creation is simply understood as "God made man". No spiritual and metaphysical stuff needed.

QUOTE
As for your “Conscience” thesis: Were you trying to mock the anti-creationist notion of the 19th-century Darwinian Evolutionism—a Scientism propagated in Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene and 2006 The God Delusion?!


Nope. Never read the book, just stating the obvious.[2]

QUOTE
6]your classification of animals and insects as “created” or “non-created” is not scientific, but falls flat into the fallacy of Creationism or Metaphysics, including those teleological arguments of Aristotle’s; St Augustine’s; St Aquinas’; William Paley’s (1743-1805; author of 1802 book Natural Theology); etc and the latest form of the Intelligent Design as anti-scientific anti-Evolution thesis!


Confused2 was being sarcastic. I don't think he was really using Creation as a scientific method for animal categorization.[3]


1] That’s the problem that I was afraid of: Please note, normally I won’t respond to any frivolous or irrelevant posts herein, in these too dynamic forums and publications worldwide; especially those “attacking the messenger” self-defeatist posts!

Whereas, in order to encourage thoughtful—not impulsive or irrational—responses, intellectually I would expect the concerned intelligent Readers to justify their own posts—including my own practice—and not abusively or irresponsibly express their own frustrations or any sarcastic statements without sensible justifications!

So, all my points or pretexts raised above were all self-justified or elaborative statements; otherwise, there would be no intelligent conclusion or intellectual satisfaction to be reached; and that would be wasting our time and space in these “freewill” forums and publications indeed—won’t you agree?

2] As such, your notion of “We were created” to mean “God made man” might be obvious to you; but without any justification or elaboration, it might not be fully understood by the general Readers, including those of Richard Dawkins’—and, that’s why in The God Delusion Dawkins vehemently attacks the God-concept (or the Abrahamic monotheism) as a religious Metaphysics since Judaism, while without his realizing that in doing so, he has had also created and advanced a Scientism of his own, by abusing the 19th-century Darwinism as anti-Religionism, into the 21st century—an extremely perverted Intellectualism that I would consider as the Devolution or Neurodegeneration of our Human Intelligence ever since the Emergence and Divergence of Science from Religion, in the 17th-century Europe—won’t you agree?

3] I thought so—from my understanding of Confused2 who might be a reader of Science in these forums; whereas I responded with a self-justified statement anyway, just trying to show that we really needed to recognize the difference and connection—but not confusion—of our both scientific and spiritual (or religious) thinkings, especially since the 17th century, as explained in 2] above; otherwise, the Evolution/Creation of our Human Intelligence (as exercised and separated in Science and Religion nowadays) would have had been all in vain, into the 21st century—won’t you agree?

Last, but not least,

QUOTE (Tikay: May 5 2007; 11:48p)


QUOTE (Photojack)
Greed does not equal success. Passing on genes, leaving an artistic, scientific or literary legacy would be examples of success. Educating the upcoming generation to our best ability for the furtherance of culture and civilization would be another. Striving to accomplish those goals implies a consciousness, a conscience and intelligence. Nice things that we inherited through evolution from our animal progenitors!


I am going to take this as a compliment!

Thank you for saying this, it makes me feel like I have accomplished something of value in my life, after all! Most people criticize me for passing on my genes, they tend to think I passed on too many, having four offspring. I think the number was perfect, obviously. I have left some art, some writings, and some scientific hypothesis now in my short time, as well. So maybe I am a success?


Good point: However I’m more thinking of “Success” being a subjective term, in Metaphysics, a mental state of “Happiness” that can only be defined and satisfied in and by “Oneself” or One’s own Mind—once Anyone lets Success to be defined or dictated by someone else, that Happiness will never be attained in and by Oneself! Just a food for thought in the concurrent Metaphysics of Buddhism and Neuroscience.

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, imagining, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 5/6/7usct10:05a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a critical reader-independent philosopher of Modern Mind and Emotion, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively—blogging avidly since February 2006!

This post has been edited by Mong H Tan, PhD on May 6 2007, 03:42 PM


--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
photojack
Posted: May 6 2007, 08:36 PM


Rationality personified.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1858
Joined: 5-December 06

Positive Feedback: 83.93%
Feedback Score: 73


Mr. Tan quote, "Please don’t propagate your “Scientism” herein again: Mind you (and ImmortalCoil), Ethology is not Anthropology or Archeology or Psychology or Civilization; this is a specific thread on our Human Intelligence, and no Ethology can accomplish or establish that!"

Ethology is a required science for an understanding of the origins of our human intelligence. It plays a big part in anthropology AND psychology. Just look at any INTRODUCTORY level textbook on those subjects! ohmy.gif That, most assuredly is not "scientism" in your negative only context! dry.gif Once again, your sentence structure would gain you an "F" grade in most any college level class I know of. It is the most arcane and twisted logic with run-on sentences and awkward wording in this forum. Literally, dud1 writes better than you do! tongue.gif

Mr. Tan quote, "Were you trying to mock the anti-creationist notion of the 19th-century Darwinian Evolutionism—a Scientism propagated in Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene and 2006 The God Delusion?!"

For your information, 19th century Darwinian Evolutionism still stands unscathed and even stronger in the 21st century, bolstered by innumerable new studies and further evidence. Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps a better spokesman for this view, with virtually none of the controversy that attends Dawkins. I have pointed out the dualism in the use of the word "scientism" previously, but you seem to insist on using this easily misinterpreted word.

Mr. Tan quote, "So, all my points or pretexts raised above were all self-justified or elaborative statements; otherwise, there would be no intelligent conclusion or intellectual satisfaction to be reached; and that would be wasting our time and space in these “freewill” forums and publications indeed—won’t you agree?"

One can reach intellectual satisfaction without falsely "blowing your own horn!" Redundancy has its own rewards, and they are not good. Your blanket denial of the importance of animal ethology to the evolution of human intelligence does not bode well for a realistic appraisal of this most interesting subject, as it is FUNDAMENTAL to a basic understanding of its origins and subsequent development.

“... the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.” ~ Dr. Carl Sagan.

This ecstasy includes an understanding and appreciation of ethology AND evolution, NOT "Creation." biggrin.gif


--------------------
Darwin was a keen observer and theorist and his theory is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason it is still called a theory is because it can't be proven in the same way a mathematical theorem can. That is a problem with semantics, NOT the science!
Top

Topic Options Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use