Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is truth good?
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 20 (91776)
03-11-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yaro
03-10-2004 4:24 PM


Who are we?
Yaro,
I agree that myths per se are an interesting expression of thinking profitably about something that you know is not literally true. But, as an evolutionary ecologist, I am accustomed to looking at expensive behavior, and wondering what the adaptive value of it might be. In the case of theology, that might appear mythological, when the believers start acting as if they believe the idea is literally true, by investing heavily (time and money) in it, I think we have something that is different than myth. Why would people do this? The answer turns out, in evolutionary terms, it pays off. If there is a gene for believing in a make-believe God, them that have and express it are and have been prospering. Along comes an idea (evolution) that is closer to truth, and those that believe it wane in W. Now, how could that be?
Now, we are called homo sapiens, and being smart ought to make us as happy as flying makes a bird happy, or swimming makes a fish happy. That's our thing, and it should be more fun than sex. Note that I regard happiness as an emotion that we and any organism which can make choices feels, when it chooses the niche to which it is adapted. I have studied several other species, what exactly their niche was all about, and have now taken on humans. I delighted once in studying how birds flew, and fish breathed under water. Now, the fun is in studying how people get or express "smartness." How, that is, we think. The wing takes advantage of the way air and gravity interact. The eye, the way light rays reflect off of objects. What about the mind?
I have long supposed, as a part of being a scientist, that there was some "ontology" out there, some state of being of the universe that was the way it was, no matter what I thought it was. My job was to find out that state, recognizing that it was going to change somewhat because I was studying it, or even thinking about it. My ideas or models of the way the world is, that were more accurate were more true.
Pretend I'm three years old and explain what you mean in the above paragraph.
On this thread, I am exploring the idea that, for the sake of my fitness, my mind has an interest in concocting world-view models that are actually intentionally inaccurate. This course of study has been recommended to me by others here, actually. It's an interesting question, and I want to explore its logical consequences. So far, I have seen where in nature it often is possible to know too much, to be too smart. In evolving homo sapiens, then, there ought to be a likely limit to useful "smartness." There very well could be truths that we are better off not knowing.
Your drawing my attention to myths actually makes this easy to explain, in the myth of Icarus.
And, I have to admit, that while I have thoroughly enjoyed learning stuff, I have enjoyed even more learning the process of learning stuff. It's as if our true niche is knowing the way we learn stuff, and applying that knowledge in a modest effort to solve pressing problems, not in "flying high intellectually."
When I take this idea over to creation thinking, at least that based on biblically based thinking, to see what it says about it, it is interesting that I find a similar theme. It's not safe, so it is written, to know the truth without holding God's hand.
I have been accused here of being deluded, to which I have mainly been able to respond, "Well, maybe so, but so far, it works for me." Of course, the best part of that delusion is that I am deluded to think that my personal working models are closer to an accurate ontology, than that of those who think that natural selection and random mutation are all that is behind the wondrous diversity of nature. This could be because the human mind, mine anyway, is predisposed to such delusion, so it can have more grandchildren. Or, it could be, as my models suggest, evolution is not behind all the religious behavior of humans. Time, I suppose, will tell.
If you got through all that, you are an unusual three year old. I'll think of a "short answer."
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yaro, posted 03-10-2004 4:24 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 20 (101292)
04-20-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-09-2004 4:01 PM


Stephen quote:
______________________________________________________________________
This means that, if evolution is true, most evolved humans believe a lie. How could they evolve the behavior of believing a lie?
______________________________________________________________________
Stephen : This topic of yours raises earth shattering questions about evolution. Presently no evo has addressed your most pointy arguments/implications. I intend to monitor the evo responses to see if they will.
Good stuff !
Willowtree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-09-2004 4:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by SkepticScand, posted 04-20-2004 5:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
SkepticScand
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 20 (101313)
04-20-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
04-20-2004 4:42 PM


Hi Willowtree,
quote:
quote:
This means that, if evolution is true, most evolved humans believe a lie. How could they evolve the behavior of believing a lie?
  —Stephen
...Presently no evo has addressed your most pointy arguments/implications...
  —WILLOWTREE
OK. I'll try
I have started another thread on the subject Neurotheology/Biotheology. It suggests that the brain is "hard-wired" to believe in something greater than oneself. A "God" part of the brain. "And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death".
You can read more about Neurotheology here:
Page not found -
Corante – The Latest News & Trends
SkepticScand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-20-2004 4:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-20-2004 11:06 PM SkepticScand has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 20 (101388)
04-20-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by SkepticScand
04-20-2004 5:47 PM


SkepticScand quote:
______________________________________________________________________
It suggests that the brain is "hard-wired" to believe in something greater than oneself
______________________________________________________________________
Theology calls this "God sense".
It is being discussed here:
http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING
Thanks for the links. I probably will participate in your topic.
Willowtree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by SkepticScand, posted 04-20-2004 5:47 PM SkepticScand has not replied

  
atrejusan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 20 (102326)
04-23-2004 10:42 PM


In response to ben Yeshua (pardon me if I do not quote)...
Evolution does not act in the directional manner which you suggest; I do not see your conclusion (of truth being maladaptive, evolutionarily, for humans) as the most reasonable conclusion. I shall paint my version, and pardon me that I do not cite sources. Go with it...
The seeming predisposition for humans to believe lies is, from the standpoint of evolution, happenstance. It is a side effect of the more glamorous "human" trait of a large cerebral cortex. If we are to believe the most sensible models of human evolution over the past few million years (particularly the past 2 million), our ancestors experienced a mushrooming of the brain unparalleled elsewhere on earth (and hopefully in the greater universe). Whatever the combination of pressures and mutations which culminated in our large brains, the most significant result, other than an increased storage and computational capacity, is the comparatively immature state in which we, humans, are doomed to emerge from the womb.
I do not know of any placental mammal, let alone other form of animal, which has a longer combined gestation and ex utero maturation period than the human; the latter takes up the better part of 25 years, give or take a formica. The physical dimensions of the human birth canal (I kid you not) and corresponding skeletal anatomy, as well as the energy costs implied by an overextended pregnancy, precludes our being born with useful intellect. Proportional to our capacity, and necessary minimum of learning, we are born galactically stupid. We have to learn just about every thing we come to know.
Humans have a seeming predisposition towards believing lies because, first of all, life is a lie. Life is a self-asserted misnomer. And, quite literally, yes, sensory exposure to every aspect of reality would almost certainly render the average human person insane — which in itself might be something against which evolution would select.
More directly, however, in the more meaningful sense of believing in lies, humans are prone to this unfortunate habit for two reasons: our inferential tendencies, and the fact that our contemporaries are liars (and that we are programmed to believe them).
We infer, by leaps and bounds, a mental representation of reality from the youngest age: it is how we learn. The reason the information is not innate is because learning (which is a specific, and often misunderstood concept) is much more efficient, much less costly, and much more expansive form of information storage and transfer than genes. Our physical constraints and the mushrooming of the cerebral cortex (both mentioned above) make this an almost inevitable situation. It in turn leaves us susceptible to false suggestions; and as already implied in the design of life, false suggestions are everywhere to be had.
The larger, more meaningful (from a humanistic view) source of lies is: other humans. We, as babes, are predisposed to mimickery of our precedents; we are fashioned, in essence, to believe our adult (and non-adult) contemporaries. That is an expression of that same collusion between happenstance and evolutionary opportunism (body physics, mutation, information transfer). Our greatest source of lies is each other.
In all, predisposition to lies is no more legitimate an argument than predisposition to truth; the only seeming advantage stems from the recognition that lies abound, and that humans are born so stupid as to be easily seduced by them. We are merely victims, in that regard, of directionless evolution (there is only one kind).
The converse, a predisposition to truth (whatever that condition might be, and it would have to be highly contextual) is, I believe, better. If evolution cared — as though it were possessed of a will — the merits of its specific adaptations towards the success of its various spawn, it would have us be born with innate wisdom.
If we stick to the metaphor of a willful evolution that it resulted in the spawning of a mammal entirely dependent upon learning, and a tremendous quantity of learning over a precariously large quantity of time, is testament to the gamble. One can imagine an alternate history in which humans preserved and transmitted whatever was most reasonably true, and differentiated it from whatever was most reasonably false then, by Jove, we would have humanism! And science! And Epicurus, and Omar Khayyam! Etc.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024