Jazzns' History of Belief

There seems to be a contradiction in your thinking.On one hand you say that you wholeheartedly subscribe to Wright's thesis. A thesis in which evolution is said to have a "purpose" exactly because morality, love, compassion, altruism etc. aid gene propagation and thus evolve as psychological traits. Traits that are the physical manifestation of non-zero-sum logic that is the source of Wright's "moral order".On the other hand you seem to be asserting a rather minimalist role for genes as the cause of human psychological traits and instead invoking moral conscience.But you can't on one hand deny the fundamental role of genes in human choices whilst on the other hand be advocating Wright's argument that the very moral conscience you refer to is a direct product of genetics and evolution.It doesn't make sense. Well I think you have just answered your own question. Not really. The details of how sexual reproduction originated aren't known for sure but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental logical problem to overcome. Evolution of sexual productionEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As I understand Wright we are evolving not just physically but socially. As I understand him, the evolution of our moral order is social. I just don’t see him saying that this is strictly a product of genetics although I suppose there might be a genetic component. From your link there are different theories and any of them or none of them could be accurate. I do have to question the likelihood of any of them originating from a mindless process though.

The social component of his thesis is that increasing technology etc. allow us to expand the circle with which we apply non-zero-sum logic.Wright in The Evolution of God: "The expanding moral compass sponsored by the moral order, as we’ve seen, is a manifestation of non-zero-sumness, of the fact that cultural (and in particular technological) evolution leads more and more people to play non-zero-sum games at greater and greater distances." Then you have completely misunderstood it.You have been beguiled by Wright’s rather unique use of theistic sounding terminology. But conceptually you are poles apart. Darwinian evolution as the mechanism of moral progress is the central plank of his higher purpose and moral order argument. If you don’t accept a materialistic Darwinian account of human morality it is impossible for you to agree with his conclusions regarding divinity or a "moral axis" in any way that actually makes conceptual (as opposed to superficial borne from terminological conflation) sense. The Moral Animal LinkEvolution of God LinkI wouldn’t call non-zero-logic divine. And I certainly wouldn’t label human personification of non-zero-sum logic god. Furthermore I would describe myself as agnostic towards the notion that there exists some sort of mathematical Platonic moral axis borne of non-zero sum logic. But to say that makes me an agnostic with regard to anything that can meaningfully be called "God" in the sense of a supernatural being is just an act of unjustifiable semantics in my view. But if one absolutely insists on labeling non-zero-sum logic "god" then I suppose that I would qualify as a materialist agnostic. For what that is worth. Why? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi StragglerI think that you have misunderstood my point in this. My theism isn’t the issue for me. My view in that regard is simply that God dun it. As a Theist I don’t care whether he used an exclusively genetic process, a social process or for that matter a one time infusing of the understanding of good and evil in mankind which has evolved from there. My interest here is simply from the POV of trying to understand the evolution of altruism from a natural perspective as best I can. I agree. I can see how you get that from the quotes you used but he also said this.

quote:

---

If genetic evolution is the selective transmission of genetic information, then cultural evolution is the selective transmission of non-genetic information: everything from technologies to religious doctrines to songs. Everything, every kind of information that goes from person to person and isn't genes, is part of cultural evolution. And because people are selective in what they transmitI may hear a song and choose not to whistle it or choose to whistle itthe collective body of cultural information changes all the time. And that's what got us from the Stone Age to where we are now.

---

I also agree that Wright isn’t a theist let alone a Christian but he does say that his theories do allow for a deity.

quote:

---

The existence of a moral order, I’ve said, makes it reasonable to suspect that humankind in some sense has a higher purpose. And maybe the source of this higher purpose, the source of the moral order, is something that qualifies for the label god in at least some sense of that word.

---

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Christianity I’ll grant you but still not Richard Dawkins either. It just goes back to my basic argument that I can’t muster up enough faith to believe that intelligence, morality can evolve from a non-intelligent non-moral source. I realize that this is an argument from incredulity but actually no more so than the argument of the person who says that he can’t believe that such an intelligence exists.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Wright’s moral axis as a result of non-zero-sum interactions argument is fascinating and worthy of consideration. As someone who essentially considers themselves to be a moral relativist it has certainly caused me to reconsider the notion of objective moral truth. But his attempt to apply this to justify something that can meaningfully be called theism is rather contrived. And the semantic games he is forced to play in order to do this are appalling.If even a thinking and intelligent theist such as yourself initially failed to grasp the fact that Darwinian natural selection and genetic selfishness lie at the heart of Wright’s moral axis argument then I would suggest that by using overtly theistic terminology he is creating an entirely unnecessary barrier to effective communication of his ideas. The whole thesis is based on genetically selfish organisms (i.e. us) engaging in non-zero-sum outcomes with other equally genetically selfish organisms (i.e. other people). The following is another quote from The Evolution of God. This one is specifically about love as a product of non-zero-sum interactions. But the same principle could be applied to altruism, compassion or any of the other psychological traits we have been discussing. This particular quote lacks much of the semantic confusion that is present in many of his other quotes. Moving on... Firstly - What do you think he means by "deity"....? Secondly - Even my atheism allows for a deity. Nobody (even Dawkins) is saying such a thing is impossible. It depends what you mean by "higher purpose". If all that means is that there is potentially some form of objective morality derived from the Platonic existence of non-zero-sum logic then I think Dawkins, like Dennett, might well give that serious and not unsympathetic consideration. But I doubt they would use the rather misleading and inappropriate phrase "higher purpose" to describe it.And as for "god". Well if you define "god" as the source of moral order and then ask me if I believe in the Platonic existence of non-zero-sum logic as the source of moral order you might well get me to say that I am agnostic, or even a believer in, "god". But I am not sure that this proves anything other than the fact that a rather misleading use of the term "god" is being applied. So you cannot believe that intelligence can emerge as a result of increasing complexity but you are fine with the idea that some super-intelligent being simply exists out of nowhere. Are you familiar with the phrase skyhooks and cranes? All of the evidence indicates that intelligence, consciousness etc. are the product of material brains. On what basis do you conclude that intelligence can even exist without a material brain?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Specifically, if "souls" actually existed, then that would mean that human consciousness is not tied to any specific portion of the physical body. If people can continue to think and be self-aware after death, with no brain at all, then why does brain damage have any effect at all? Why do psychoactive medications have an effect on personality and cognition?If souls exist, and people continue to be their conscious selves after the complete death or even total destruction of the brain, then why is Alzheimer's disease so devastating to a person's mental abilities?

All good points. But you don't even need to go to brain damage or disease to ask these sorts of questions.What would one's personality be like in the absence of any of the hormones that affect such things in a healthy individual?"We" are our physicality.

Entirely true.The reason I chimed in is simply because the effect of physical changes to the brain (hormonal, artificial chemical, or structural) is one of the larger nails in the coffin of my own former faith. I've personally known people who've developed mental illness and used psychoactive medication, and even one person who suffered significant changes to her personality after a head injury. There seems to me no way to rationalize the concept of an immortal soul containing a human consciousness without any body at all, and the concept of changes to a part of a human body altering the consciousness of the individual.If it were only body-related functions like motor control that were affected by changes to the brain, I could still allow for a soul that simply runs the personality processing independently of the meat brain. But when memory, personality, mood, language comprehension, etc. are all very clearly and incontrovertibly resident in the brain, there's simply no way to rationally include a "soul."

Once you had rejected the notion of a soul did the rejection of an immaterial super-intelligence-consciousness (a godly prime mover) follow naturally or did that take more thought?Can one reject one form of immaterial intelligence and cling onto another?

Wasn't quite the way it happened. I rejected Christianity and belief in god(s) first. I suppose at that point i also no longer believed in souls...but the consideration of the brain-vs-soul problem occurred later, serving more to solidify the direction of my belief.Like many issues of my former faith, it's one of those very large inconsistencies that I had simply never thought of before. My religion served as a titanic blind spot, in which was hidden all manner of topics that should have triggered confusion, but which cognitive dissonance kept me from really thinking about. Of course. I can loosely conceive of a hypothetical intelligent entity that possesses no physical form. I have no idea what mechanism would drive such a mind, but all things may reside in the utterly speculative space of total ignorance.The problem is with human nonphysical consciousness. We have unassailable proof that human consciousness rests solely within the physical brain, and that altering the state of the brain through chemicals or even just a solid impact can permanently alter the personality, memory, etc of the individual.That doesn't preclude a non-human entity having a purely non-physical mind, or even a hybrid of the two. If we discovered such a thing tomorrow, I would not at all reconsider the state of the human "soul," as I see no contradiction if the mechanism of consciousness is entirely different.That's not to say that I actually believe that such a thing exists. I'd need a reason to do so; that I can conceive of a thing only means that I have a good imagination, not that my imagination is in any way tied to reality. Ignorance breeds freedom in imagination, but is a poor basis for belief.

I agree with your differentiation between an immaterial human soul as the seat of human intelligence and personality etc. and that of an innately immaterial godly entity.We do have what amounts to conclusive proof that a human "I" is a product of the physical whilst it remains relatively possible that a conscious entity lacking such physicality could conceivably exist.But I seriously suspect that in most cases the two are rather entrinsically entwined and that belief in one goes hand in hand with belief in the other. I suspect that pretty much all heists are dualists of some sort. Whether they realise it or not.That was the root of my question.

I don't think so. There are religions that believe in the non-total-physicality of human consciousness and yet do not believe in deities - like Buddhists.Never forget that beliefs regarding spirituality are not universally alike, as certain others would have us believe. Belief in the nature or existence of souls and deities are widely different. Modern commonalities are largely due to the expansive reach of three particular religions that themselves share a common history.It's been said that the near-universality of human belief in some manner of soul or spirit is evidence that such a thing may exist, but those beliefs are so different that it's almost criminal to even lump them together.Theists in cultures dominated by monotheistic religions tend to most frequently have a both-or-neither belief regarding souls and deities, but I think that's more a cultural distinction than an observation of a pattern in human theistic beliefs.

Whether it is ancestor worship or some form of "god" the notion that there exists an immaterial "I" and the notion that there is "something" else that is conscious, immaterial and "out there" seems inseparable. But with Buddhism specifically you make a good point. I would suggest that they share enough in common to suggest a common source. Namely human psychology. The attribution of cause to agency rather than mindless processes seems to lie at the heart of most religiosity.

I think the more relevant factor in most religion is simply the human ability to have confidence in an unsupported proposition.Anthropomorphism of nature is certainly prevalent, but I think it ties more that what specifically we come up with, where the real problem is that we simply tend to have unfounded confidence in what we essentially pull from our rectums.

I don’t see his polemic as being something that leads to theism. I think his language if anything leads to his self-proclaimed agnosticism or deism. I’m saying though that his theories allow for the possibility of theism. I think, and I emphasize think, that he is saying that there are two streams to evolution. There is the biological side and there is the social side, and that the two work together in tandem. The non-zero-sum argument makes a great deal of sense.In reference to your quote I still don’t see that dealing with altruism. If you are extrapolating his argument for love to altruism I think that is a stretch. I understand altruism is a zero-sum-game where the benefactor is the loser and the recipient is the winner. A non-zero-sum situation with kin is not the same thing. An intelligent prime mover with purpose. Yes, but he goes beyond that and thinks that there are indications that a deity actually exists. In a sense though, by that way of thinking all atheists are really agnostic. Sure but even in the Platonic sense there is some form of external intelligence with purpose which fills the bill for a non-specific deity doesn’t it? But the cranes had to start somewhere. I am fine with the idea of cranes but remember this all started with a non-physical, (as I understand it), singularity several billion years ago. You are saying that I am fine with the idea that super-intelligence exists out of nowhere, but you believe essentially the same thing. You believe that your intelligence came out of nowhere. It is my opinion that our intelligence did not come out of nowhere but is the emergent property of a greater intelligence that exists in a non-entropic multi-time dimensional state. Wright says this about consciousness:

quote:

---

It (science)certainly hasn't solved the mystery (of consciousness) and it's hard to imagine that it would, in part because consciousness doesn't have what scientifically explicable phenomena need, which is public observability. Anything that is to be explained scientifically has to be something that you can point topoint to the physical phenomena and say, "See, I'm predicting that it will behave like this when you do that." Consciousness, by definition, doesn't fall into that category. Now, of course, you can register brain waves and you can do MRIs, and you can look at various physical manifestations of consciousness, but by definition that's not consciousness itself. Consciousness itself is a subjective experience. So it's very hard to imagine how science would really go about tackling the fundamental problem of consciousness. In any event, I certainly don't think it has handled it successfully to date. And there are too many people who are under the impression that science has answered all the important questions in the world or can answer them.

​

One reason I think it's fascinating that science can't handle this question, at least so far, is that the existence of subjective experience, of consciousness, is the source of all the meaning in the world, so far as I can tell. If I told you that there was a planet out there that looks just like Earth, and there are these things that look just like people, and they walk around doing exactly the things we do, and they utter phrases and stuff, but they have no subjective experience, it isn't like anything to be them. They are zombies. You would probably think, "Well, who cares what happens to that planet?" And I would agree. I would think, "Well, there's really nothing especially immoral about annihilating some of those creatures on that planet because we are not going to cause them any pain by doing that, and we are not going to deprive them of any future happiness or anything. So, who cares?" In my view, the whole basis of meaning and of moral significance is the fact that it is like something to be alive. And that is the one thing that, it seems to me, science cannot explain.

---

All the objective evidence just points to the fact that intelligence and consciousness exist. There are also theories, and some of them solid that show how they might have evolved. There is no evidence that indicates whether or not a prime mover exists that set all of this in motion. That is a purely subjective conclusion.