Evolutionary psychology

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby promethean75 » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:44 pm

Oh hey yo I remember Dawkins pointing out how stupid a particular design in the giraffe seemed. There's an optic nerve or something that runs way the fuck out of the way down the neck only to turn around and come back up to the brain. Like it goes around his pelvic bone or something.

So creationists, why would G do that? Or does he allow some margin of error and step back with his hands off like the deist clock maker?

And if he does, how can error be called random of he's got the universe running on natural laws?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5738
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:45 pm

Maybe for reasons that you cannot understand because you are a puny human.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:00 pm

That is correct. The larger sequential patterns of inheritence can be factored into the smaller, sub ordinate chains, as Being can be into the reduced ontologically appearing inferior pre-tense of existence.

This reset is made easier even breaking with antecedent referential ties.

Not that these ties can actually be demonstrated in any other way, the mile stoned thinkers above alluded to, made it happen.(the linkage of the higher sequencing, and it's inclusion into the lower)
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9993
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:26 pm

Natural selection is counterintuitive. Attempts to make it sound colloquial tend to anthropomorphize it. The first person to do evolutionary psychology was Darwin himself. EP research is thorny. They're trying to synthesize evolutionary biology with cognitive psychology. There's a lot of chaff to burn. The only guy that I know of writing EP books that has a teleological hypothesis is Robert Wright. But I didn't present his hypothesis because I was presenting mainstream theories based on natural selection. Wright knows his hypothesis won't be accepted by most EPs. I don't mind discussing the teleology proposition but it isn't what I was proposing.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:39 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Maybe for reasons that you cannot understand because you are a puny human.


God's mysterious ways. Now that's original.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:53 pm

promethean75 wrote:Oh hey yo I remember Dawkins pointing out how stupid a particular design in the giraffe seemed. There's an optic nerve or something that runs way the fuck out of the way down the neck only to turn around and come back up to the brain. Like it goes around his pelvic bone or something.

So creationists, why would G do that? Or does he allow some margin of error and step back with his hands off like the deist clock maker?

And if he does, how can error be called random of he's got the universe running on natural laws?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.


Among the creationists some say it was the demiurge. Others blame it on Sophia. The Kabbalists say the universe cracked early on. And of course let's not forget the meddling of Satan. I didn't think creationism was relevant to this thread but, (shrugs)...
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:55 pm

felix dakat wrote:Natural selection is counterintuitive.


In other words, "somehow" lifeless matter evolved into living matter here on planet Earth. Creating that part of nature we call us. And assuming that someday we will understand how this resulted in a human brain able to exercise free will in discussing it's own psychology we will factor in intuition as well.

On the other hand, before there was us? I suspect that nature didn't select anything at all intuitively. Because that would seem to imply a nature cognizant of what it was doing when this particular random mutation rather than that particular random mutation resulted in matter evolving into us.

In fact that's one reason we invent God. With God human intuition can be sourced back to an omniscient and omnipotent font. There is a teleological component to existence. It's Him.

Then it's only a matter of pinning down whether this God is our God or their God. Or the God of the Deists. Or the Pantheists.

Or a No God teleology those like the Buddha thought up.

Intuitively perhaps.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:34 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Natural selection is counterintuitive.


In other words, "somehow" lifeless matter evolved into living matter here on planet Earth. Creating that part of nature we call us. And assuming that someday we will understand how this resulted in a human brain able to exercise free will in discussing it's own psychology we will factor in intuition as well.

On the other hand, before there was us? I suspect that nature didn't select anything at all intuitively. Because that would seem to imply a nature cognizant of what it was doing when this particular random mutation rather than that particular random mutation resulted in matter evolving into us.

In fact that's one reason we invent God. With God human intuition can be sourced back to an omniscient and omnipotent font. There is a teleological component to existence. It's Him.

Then it's only a matter of pinning down whether this God is our God or their God. Or the God of the Deists. Or the Pantheists.

Or a No God teleology those like the Buddha thought up.

Intuitively perhaps.

So you're saying "lifeless matter" evolved into living matter through natural selection? So the environment selected the best adapted lifeless matter? Is that what you are claiming? I can see how once life emerged natural selection could transform living organisms over deep time. But I don't comprehend how natural selection could transform lifeless matter into a living organism. Do you?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Sculptor » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:18 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Sculptor wrote:when evolution replaced creationism in the 19thC


Also, this never happened, how naive are you?


I'm living in the real world you fucking idiot
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:34 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Sculptor wrote:when evolution replaced creationism in the 19thC


Also, this never happened, how naive are you?


I'm living in the real world you fucking idiot


That's what all paranoid delusionals say.

Little bitch.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Sculptor » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:38 pm

Why has a giraffe such a long neck?
A non teleological way to ask this question should be how is it that giraffe's necks have grow so long over time?

The example of the giraffe has been a mythical example of how to explain evolution.
The usual reason is often expressed as a competition in reaching the highest leaves on the trees. This "just so story" has been offered to children fo generations. It is wrong.
Observation shows that the giraffe's most common sustainence is from grazing grass. It is highly uncomfortable for them to graze, and yet that is what they do.
The real story of the long neck is more remarkable. It is all about mating. Male Giraffes use their heads as sledgehammers to one another in competition for females. THe longer the neck the far more momentum the head has to bash other males. This painful and uncomfortable process has led to the unfeasibly long necks. Why, you might ask do emale giraffes also have long necks and you figure out there there is no direction or design here.
Mating is at the very cutting edge of natural selection can can lead to the most bizare forms emerging such as ridiculously large human breasts, which, indicentally have zero extra benefit for milk, but attract the eye of man.
If you are not convinced by thisw take a look at birds of paradise especially the bower bird who constructs an absurd nest or peacocks who have those mad feathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9hcvIxASAI
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:43 pm

Sculptor wrote:Why has a giraffe such a long neck?
A non teleological way to ask this question should be how is it that giraffe's necks have grow so long over time?


Yeah, that's the same question.

Which natural selection doesn't answer. As you pointed out, all it says is that certain factors didn't stop it from growing longer.

Also, if you are going to pretend to nit pick words, nothing actually grew. Some were just born with longer necks.

But we won't keep doing that, sometimes it's relevant to point out inexactitudes and some times it is not.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:45 pm

felix dakat wrote:So you're saying "lifeless matter" evolved into living matter through natural selection?


That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the "Rummy's Rule" factor.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:48 pm

The peacock is interesting because it actually does hurt more than it helps. This realization is what led Dawkins to conclude that it wasn't the individual peacock being selected for (never mind the species), but the gene for the peacock feathers (to be bluntly inexact).

But, like I said, that just begs the question. So then he went to the phenotype. But that eventually still begs the question.

If your approach to explain change is to point out things that don't stop it, you will never come up with theories that account for all of the change.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:55 pm

The big problem with natural selection, and you won't like me saying this, is that it kind of evokes a selector. As you said, there is none. But that can easily get shuffled to the back of the mind when you are describing actual hypotheses for some change or another, you say 'it was selected for by nature because it attracted the female.' Never mind that that begs the question of why it attracted the female, the whole focus is wrong. Nothing actually selects, nothing gets selected. Things just happen or they don't.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:51 am

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So you're saying "lifeless matter" evolved into living matter through natural selection?


That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the "Rummy's Rule" factor.


Yeah, you can speculate but scientifically it's a known unknown.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:05 am

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:So you're saying "lifeless matter" evolved into living matter through natural selection?


That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the "Rummy's Rule" factor.


Yeah, you can speculate but scientifically it's a known unknown.


That's it? That's all you've got to say in responding to my points?

I think it's time for me to move on to others. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:24 am

He's not satisfied with the answer there.

But in the end, we are all dasein, so it all works out.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:52 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:He's not satisfied with the answer there.

But in the end, we are all dasein, so it all works out.


Okay, you and me. Dasein. New thread.

I'll start it tomorrow.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:

That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the "Rummy's Rule" factor.

Felix wrote:
Yeah, you can speculate but scientifically it's a known unknown.

That's it? That's all you've got to say in responding to my points?

I think it's time for me to move on to others. :wink:



I intended this thread to be about the evolution of human behavior according to natural selection.
The mechanisms of the origin of life, abiogenesis, is poorly understood even by the experts.
If you wish to entertain the possibility that evolution was planned, okay.
But I was taking natural selection as a given and in natural selection there's no plan.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Sculptor » Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:11 pm

felix dakat wrote:
iambiguous wrote:

That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the "Rummy's Rule" factor.

Felix wrote:
Yeah, you can speculate but scientifically it's a known unknown.

That's it? That's all you've got to say in responding to my points?

I think it's time for me to move on to others. :wink:



I intended this thread to be about the evolution of human behavior according to natural selection.
The mechanisms of the origin of life, abiogenesis, is poorly understood even by the experts.
If you wish to entertain the possibility that evolution was planned, okay.
But I was taking natural selection as a given and in natural selection there's no plan.


And yet you are claiming no teleology??
tututut.
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:20 pm

felix dakat wrote:Natural selection is counterintuitive. Attempts to make it sound colloquial tend to anthropomorphize it. The first person to do evolutionary psychology was Darwin himself. EP research is thorny. They're trying to synthesize evolutionary biology with cognitive psychology. There's a lot of chaff to burn. The only guy that I know of writing EP books that has a teleological hypothesis is Robert Wright. But I didn't present his hypothesis because I was presenting mainstream theories based on natural selection. Wright knows his hypothesis won't be accepted by most EPs. I don't mind discussing the teleology proposition but it isn't what I was proposing.



Ok. So let's do reductive evolution corresponding to psychology as a cognitive inquery. I was going to say 'science' but according to some, it's an iffy science as well next to more apparently substantially demonstrateable inqueries.

The politics inherent in the so called 'phenomenological reduction' or the prounoncement that being is subordinate to existence has berm a long road coming, but the trigger for it was the acute political realization, that it is time to exemplify the death toll to and pronounced formal re-cognition of ideal?states ; not with standing those that may yet can offer some revised solution.

What happened was a game theory that literally can, albeit subtly, be played around with.

The same political lean on Darwin, as with others , who revolutionized thinking in any conceivibly consistent and probable manner

The thing to consider is what goes on in a construction of anthropomological factors, that primarily necessitated the factoring in of the ideas associated with it, and why those elements still can be thought about as effective and viable tools to manipulate man's incredibly complex channels of realizing current issues and problems, given at times outdated yet useful tools to prevent total melt down or deconstruction of a gestalt.

Because even the what's called ' phenomenological reduction' has an 'ediectic' counterpart, the idea of skiwing down and putting brackets sutuationally or, within contexts that do relate on some level, show a note of cautious restraint in upsetting the very delicate balance that has arisen in conjunction with such ideas as enetertained at Cern, of finding the god-particle.

The fact is , one does not have to try to connect cosmologically unthinkeable configurative realities ( for lack of a better word) with the ultimate reductive substance without falling into a teleological causitive argument to see the reason behind politically necessity, to cap any iota of uncertainty without knocking over the while apple cart of sustained belief, therefore psychology in this instance fails to connect with evolutionary in a correspondingly way that a functional synch can be established.

Sometimes aberrant parents bring forth extraordinary evolutionary offspring, examples abound.

There can no line of succession be shown as a general rule of some genetic competition going on in pursuit of the best minds, even to the extent as to prove that species survivability as a factor of adaptive intelligence play a part.
The substantial basis of evolution is based more, much more on the physical attributes as factors of strength, primarily, and the invention of tools, secondarily.

There is a minimal demarcation as to the use and function of tools beginning in the stone age, and that is augmented with the acquired facility that the adapted use of of physical characteristics had brought about by trial and error.

It gives n I indication of some formidable instinct to grab hold of a rock and use it, but it dies show some morphological linkeage, which today can be attributed to more then mere 'discovery'.

This was what made the difference between Freud and Jung basically a very fine lined , subtle distinction, in retrospect, whereas the ontologically trumped up initial impression gabe a distinct taste of a widely divergent view which parted the revisions into disarray.

The same with the example that I mentioned before, of the 'Case of the Midwife Toad' which Darwin's appearant meddling in suicided the whole contravening idea from evolutionary theory as stated.

The mind of man can even tolerate the problems associated with neutralizing any attempt to give an absolute imprimature to a general theory of the phenomenological reduction as setting the stage to the conclusions of positivism.

It's suspect in the revision, and there really is no nominal conclusion which can be sustained for it indefinitely.

This is why I proposed sub ordinate channels between primary and secondary considerations.
The most interest in idea to support such notion is the missing link, but that is as vague as any other problem that considers sequential development between ideas and hypothetical assumptions and those which garner elements of prepossessing , larger scoped, pre-verbial intentive processes appearing out of now explainable source.

The cig itive source of self consciousness can never be unearthed , fir it will lead to the bedrock of it's iwn reflexive mother liad, which almost at the point if discovery will disappear as a factual inquiry.

This is why Jung had to go unded a much wider ground the certain contextual situations could exemplify.

Call it a strange magic of sorts, but the magician can not allow the magical production become an undiscoverable artifact as well, for that it hapoen, the whole construction will be pulled diwn, hence never have been created in the first place. Of course we'd never kniw, and fir these reasons, my argument stands.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9993
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:49 pm

felix dakat wrote:I intended this thread to be about the evolution of human behavior according to natural selection.
The mechanisms of the origin of life, abiogenesis, is poorly understood even by the experts.
If you wish to entertain the possibility that evolution was planned, okay.
But I was taking natural selection as a given and in natural selection there's no plan.


Just out of curiosity, what part of this...

That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8


...led you to believe that I believe that the evolution of matter into, among other things, human psychology, was planned? No God, no plan from my frame of mind.

Again...

"Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way."

I'm basically agreeing with you. Just given the exasperating context that is "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43774
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:37 pm

Sculptor wrote:


And yet you are claiming no teleology??
tututut.


Where do you see teleology implied by me?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Evolutionary psychology

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:I intended this thread to be about the evolution of human behavior according to natural selection.
The mechanisms of the origin of life, abiogenesis, is poorly understood even by the experts.
If you wish to entertain the possibility that evolution was planned, okay.
But I was taking natural selection as a given and in natural selection there's no plan.


Just out of curiosity, what part of this...

That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then "somehow" [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: https://youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8


...led you to believe that I believe that the evolution of matter into, among other things, human psychology, was planned? No God, no plan from my frame of mind.

Again...

"Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it's not like nature planned it this way."

I'm basically agreeing with you. Just given the exasperating context that is "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".


I didn't think you believed evolution was planned. That was somebody else's proposition that you were responding to.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users