3 ms·
> atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative Procreation kinda is an evolutionary imperative- atheism or not
by Havoc 3y ago
> atheists who think we have some kind of evolutionary imperative
Procreation kinda is an evolutionary imperative- atheism or not
- silverquiet 3y agoI'm not super thrilled about being compelled by evolution or a god.
- Havoc 3y agoNeither am I but evolution doesn’t seem inclined to engage in philosophical discussions
- silverquiet 3y agoI suppose it's a subject I've long wondered about - am I just some sort of biological robot fulfilling some pre-determined program? Or have I actually been equipped with some sort of agency? I guess it's the old free will question and it may be unanswerable. That said, I can't say I've ever really felt much instinctual desire to reproduce, and if I have, perhaps I have reasoned myself out of the idea in some way. Either way it would seem that I am an evolutionary dead end. Am I supposed to feel some way about that? It seems like having an opinion on g=9.8m/s2 or the boiling point of water; useless.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoFree will is so self-evident that deniers of free will have to give lectures at universities to convince everyone else that the universe is making illusions for fun at the cost of thermodynamic efficiency.
- vidarh 3y agoDefine it in a way that doesn't mean it is just an illusion, and that actually explains something then. I've yet to meet anyone able to do so coherently.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIt’s impossible to define it or do anything requiring verbs if you don’t have free will, so it’s tautologically impossible to satisfy this class of solipsistic ideas.
- effingwewt 3y agoLol because commands can't be typed out by a computer. Your argument is flawed.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoSimply point to a computer that has never had conscious human involvement in any part of its evolution and wait for it to type out something ;)
- vidarh 3y agoA machine can type, so this is not a logically valid argument. You've also presented no argument for why it is impossible to define. If free will is possible, there should be no reason you can't define what it is.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIf there is no free will, it’s tautologically impossible to define anything, therefore there is no reason to make an argument for free will, because in doing so I would be using free will.
- vidarh 3y agoThis argument is not logically valid. Nothing changes with respect to the possibility of defining something if there is no free will - defining something is merely mapping an identifier to a representation of meaning. A purely mechanical device can define things just fine. Free will is demonstrably not necessary to define things.
- coremoff 3y agoYou might enjoy "The Robot's Rebellion" by Keith Stanovich (in this context, you are the robot)
- RestlessMind 3y agoThen I suggest you introspect and observe your own behavior. A lot of it can be boiled down to evolution.
- silverquiet 3y agoHow do you figure?