Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I entirely agree.
But what is honesty?
What does it derive from?
For honesty to exist, there must also be the concept of dishonesty.
Can the concepts of honesty and dishonesty exist within an entirely physically determined world.
Can the laws of physics be held responsible?
If not, then what?
The answer of course is you.
Can you honestly claim that what you deem to be honesty is just an inevitable consequence of material reactions?
Or is there something else involved .................................................................

Brains will do it, Alan: all you need is biology (dum-de-dum-de-dum)*

*with apologies to The Beatles.

[torridon]

I entirely agree.
But what is honesty?
What does it derive from?
For honesty to exist, there must also be the concept of dishonesty.
Can the concepts of honesty and dishonesty exist within an entirely physically determined world.
Can the laws of physics be held responsible?
If not, then what?
The answer of course is you.
Can you honestly claim that what you deem to be honesty is just an inevitable consequence of material reactions?
Or is there something else involved .................................................................

That is your incredulity showing again.

It's not a problem to conceive how the Periodic Table could derive from the elementary particles of the Standard Model ?  And it's not a problem to see how biochemistry could derive from chemistry or biology from biochemistry, but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?

I agree there is a 'me' that can conceive abstractions like honesty, but there is no evidence for 'something else' in the explanatory loop that describes what constitutes 'me'. I am something formed from biology and reasons for why I am the way I am can be found in my derivation.  The 'something else', a spiritual soul, has no derivation, no form, made of nothing, comes from nowhere, has no reason why for it should be like something rather than like something else and it makes choices for no reason. It has zero explanatory value.

Incredulity has no value, it is merely a symptom of a lack of understanding.

[ippy]

That is your incredulity showing again.

It's not a problem to conceive how the Periodic Table could derive from the elementary particles of the Standard Model ?  And it's not a problem to see how biochemistry could derive from chemistry or biology from biochemistry, but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?

I agree there is a 'me' that can conceive abstractions like honesty, but there is no evidence for 'something else' in the explanatory loop that describes what constitutes 'me'. I am something formed from biology and reasons for why I am the way I am can be found in my derivation.  The 'something else', a spiritual soul, has no derivation, no form, made of nothing, comes from nowhere, has no reason why for it should be like something rather than like something else and it makes choices for no reason. It has zero explanatory value.

Incredulity has no value, it is merely a symptom of a lack of understanding.

 

Nice one Torri, I don't think there's much chance of it sinking in but you never know stranger things have happened.

[Alan Burns]

That is your incredulity showing again.

It's not a problem to conceive how the Periodic Table could derive from the elementary particles of the Standard Model ?  And it's not a problem to see how biochemistry could derive from chemistry or biology from biochemistry, but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?

I agree there is a 'me' that can conceive abstractions like honesty, but there is no evidence for 'something else' in the explanatory loop that describes what constitutes 'me'. I am something formed from biology and reasons for why I am the way I am can be found in my derivation.  The 'something else', a spiritual soul, has no derivation, no form, made of nothing, comes from nowhere, has no reason why for it should be like something rather than like something else and it makes choices for no reason. It has zero explanatory value.

Incredulity has no value, it is merely a symptom of a lack of understanding.

You can't just write this off by claiming it to be personal incredulity.
It is a matter of what is feasible.
For the concept of honesty to exist, you need to have the conscious freedom to comply or not comply with what your conscious awareness deems to be an honest view.
Is it feasible for such freedom to be derived from a series of inevitable reactions, each entirely defined by previous inevitable reactions?
How can whatever comprises "me" invoke the power to influence and drive the process of choosing what you deem to be an honest, or dishonest path?
Can you give any examples of biologically controlled animals to exhibit the concept of honesty?

[Gordon]

You can't just write this off by claiming it to be personal incredulity.

Why not: personal incredulity is, after all, your favourite fallacy.

It is a matter of what is feasible.
For the concept of honesty to exist, you need to have the conscious freedom to comply or not comply with what your conscious awareness deems to be an honest view.
Is it feasible for such freedom to be derived from a series of inevitable reactions, each entirely defined by previous inevitable reactions?
How can whatever comprises "me" invoke the power to influence and drive the process of choosing what you deem to be an honest, or dishonest path?

Brains will do it, Alan.

Can you give any examples of biologically controlled animals to exhibit the concept of honesty?

Easy peasy: humans.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?

Not sure I agree.

Firstly, of course, we need to recognise that honesty is a human concept, but we can consider more universal derivatives thereof.

So how could honesty derive from biology. Simple - through evolutionary advantage for social animals such as humans. For humans to survive working together, cooperatively is key, so evolution to select for traits that are associated with successful cooperative endeavour. And that will, surely, include honesty.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure I agree.

Firstly, of course, we need to recognise that honesty is a human concept, but we can consider more universal derivatives thereof.

So how could honesty derive from biology. Simple - through evolutionary advantage for social animals such as humans. For humans to survive working together, cooperatively is key, so evolution to select for traits that are associated with successful cooperative endeavour. And that will, surely, include honesty.

Torridon isn't saying it couldn't. See the question mark. He is questioning AB's position that it couldn't

[ProfessorDavey]

Torridon isn't saying it couldn't. See the question mark. He is questioning AB's position that it couldn't

Whatever - I'll leave you to do the pedantry.

All I was doing was to indicate how evolutionary biology could readily lead to the selection of a behavioural trait, that humans describe as honesty, in highly social animal species.

[Alan Burns]

Not sure I agree.

Firstly, of course, we need to recognise that honesty is a human concept, but we can consider more universal derivatives thereof.

So how could honesty derive from biology. Simple - through evolutionary advantage for social animals such as humans. For humans to survive working together, cooperatively is key, so evolution to select for traits that are associated with successful cooperative endeavour. And that will, surely, include honesty.

Conversely, could the human capacity for being dishonest offer evolutionary disadvantages?
Either way, you still have to consider how the mechanisms for deliberately invoking conscious acts of recognisable honesty can occur within inevitable, physically driven chains of reactions.

[Nearly Sane]

Whatever - I'll leave you to do the pedantry.

All I was doing was to indicate how evolutionary biology could readily lead to the selection of a behavioural trait, that humans describe as honesty, in highly social animal species.

You quoted someone as if you disagreed with them, when they had been saying exactly what you went on to say. Pointing out that you were completely misrepresenting someone's position is not pedantry.

[torridon]

You can't just write this off by claiming it to be personal incredulity.
It is a matter of what is feasible.
For the concept of honesty to exist, you need to have the conscious freedom to comply or not comply with what your conscious awareness deems to be an honest view.
Is it feasible for such freedom to be derived from a series of inevitable reactions, each entirely defined by previous inevitable reactions?
How can whatever comprises "me" invoke the power to influence and drive the process of choosing what you deem to be an honest, or dishonest path?
Can you give any examples of biologically controlled animals to exhibit the concept of honesty?

Are you omniscient that you know what is feasible and what isn't ?  I don't think so. Homo Sapiens has clearly have evolved greater levels of mental abstraction than other creatures, but that does not equate to unfeasible.  Any creature that has developed some rudimentary level of theory of mind would likely be capable of navigating the line between honesty and deception. Many creatures lie, squirrels for instance pretend to bury nuts when they know other squirrels are watching in order to deceive them. Quite whether that constitutes high order theory of mind is debatable, but there is research demonstrating that chimps and orangutans are capable of volitional deception and figuring out when they are being lied to; this implies a more sophisticated theory of mind in other great apes.  Humans of course have excelled in this regard, but that does not validate the claim that such high order mental abstraction as a product of a biological brain is unfeasible. It is just one of our many distinctive specialisations.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimps-may-be-capable-of-comprehending-the-minds-of-others/

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Conversely, could the human capacity for being dishonest offer evolutionary disadvantages?

Probably, yes.

Either way, you still have to consider how the mechanisms for deliberately invoking conscious acts of recognisable honesty can occur within inevitable, physically driven chains of reactions.

No you don’t, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times already but that you consistently ignore. Awareness gives us attentiveness, but it doesn’t “invoke” which ideas should emerge from the subconscious to begin with.     

[ProfessorDavey]

You quoted someone as if you disagreed with them, when they had been saying exactly what you went on to say. Pointing out that you were completely misrepresenting someone's position is not pedantry.

Yes it is.

The interesting issue is of course whether honesty and biology are linked rather than your pedantic derail.

That Torridon phrased his post in the manner of a non neutral statement "... but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?", (regardless of the question mark) means that responding that I don't agree with the statement as proposed is perfectly reasonable. I am indicating that I'm not agreeing with his statement as phrased.

As so often you are starting a fight in an empty room - if Torridon has a problem with my post, I'm sure he'll let me know. Why do you feel to take offence on his behalf, when there is no evidence that he is offended by my post himself.

[ProfessorDavey]

Conversely, could the human capacity for being dishonest offer evolutionary disadvantages?

But that is just describing the same effect in a different manner. In either case (honesty is advantageous, dishonesty is disadvantageous in terms of biological evolution) you'd have a situation where the behavioural characteristic of honesty/dishonesty derives from evolutionary biology in social animals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Either way, you still have to consider how the mechanisms for deliberately invoking conscious acts of recognisable honesty can occur within inevitable, physically driven chains of reactions.

Behaviour is linked to neurological traits associate with the biology of our brains. In some cases that neurology will lead to more honest behaviour, in other cases more dishonest behaviour. There will be gene mutations and abnormalities of neurology that lead to shifts in behaviour - some with mild consequences some with extreme behaviours.

Those behaviours will provide evolutionary advantage or disadvantage and those that are advantageous will be selected for.

Now, of course another element of that evolutionary-driven social behaviour is highly complex societal interactions within human societies, based on learned behaviours. So those behavioural traits that are beneficial (honesty) will also be amplified by learned cultural social behaviours - in other words society deeming those behaviours to be preferred and acceptable, while other behaviours (dishonesty) are deemed unacceptable. But again that derived back to fundamental evolutionary biology which drives societal interactions in humans (we can't run fast, we don't have sharp teeth so we survive by collective social action).

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is.

The interesting issue is of course whether honesty and biology are linked rather than your pedantic derail.

That Torridon phrased his post in the manner of a non neutral statement "... but how could honesty derive from biology, that is a no-no ?", (regardless of the question mark) means that responding that I don't agree with the statement as proposed is perfectly reasonable. I am indication that I'm not agreeing with his statement as phrased.

As so often you are starting a fight in an empty room - if Torridon has a problem with my post, I'm sure he'll let me know. Why do you feel to take offence on his behalf, when there is no evidence that he is offended by my post himself.

Being wrong is something you really struggle to accept.

[ProfessorDavey]

Being wrong is something you really struggle to accept.

Good evening to you mister pot, have you made acquaintance with monsieur kettle.

And while you continue with you single handed impression of these chaps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STIvNjWobzA

the rest of us will continue with the discussion at hand - specifically the relationship between evolutionary biology and the biological trait/behaviour we humans call honesty. You'd be very welcome to join us if you have anything it add to the discussion and you aren't too busy pretending to be one of Harry Enfield's stereotypical scousers.

[Nearly Sane]

Good evening to you mister pot, have you made acquaintance with monsieur kettle.

And while you continue with you single handed impression of these chaps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STIvNjWobzA

the rest of us will continue with the discussion at hand - specifically the relationship between evolutionary biology and the biological trait/behaviour we humans call honesty. You'd be very welcome to join us if you have anything it add to the discussion and you aren't too busy pretending to be one of Harry Enfield's stereotypical scousers.

  You were wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

  You were wrong.

Calm down, calm down (in scouse accent).

Anything to contribute on the actual topic in hand NS

[Nearly Sane]

Calm down, calm down (in scouse accent).

Anything to contribute on the actual topic in hand NS

Yes, torridon's post, which you misrepresented and quotemined made the point much clearer and correctly than your's. I tried to make a simple correction to your mistake but I forgot there is just no way around your ego.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, torridon's post, which you misrepresented and quotemined made the point much clearer and correctly than your's. I tried to make a simple correction to your mistake but I forgot there is just no way around your ego.

Weird that you seem so affronted on my perceived sleight of torridon yet he seems completely disinterested in this so-called misrepresentation.

Could it be that:

a) You are picking a fight for the point of it
b) There was no sleight and no misrepresentation
c) Both of the above

I'd plump for c).

[Nearly Sane]

Weird that you seem so affronted on my perceived sleight of torridon yet he seems completely disinterested in this so-called misrepresentation.

Could it be that:

a) You are picking a fight for the point of it
b) There was no sleight and no misrepresentation
c) Both of the above

I'd plump for that c).

Do you disagree with Torridon's post? I don't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you disagree with Torridon's post? I don't.

But you really aren't interested in my views on the link between evolutionary biology and honesty are you NS - you know the views I've raised in reply 41955 and expanded on in posts 41962 and 41964 - which is where we will find out whether torridon and I agree. You are only interested in picking a fight.

Bit of a shame really as we now have a derail to the thread that you have generated and I suspect the rest of us (me, torridon, ippy, bhs, gordon and ab) would prefer getting back to the matter at hand.

I'd be delighted to engage in discussion if you have something to add on evolutionary biology and honesty - but it seems you don't so this conversation is, sadly, going nowhere. I shall feed the troll no further.

[Nearly Sane]

But you really aren't interested in my views on the link between evolutionary biology and honesty are you NS - you know the views I've raised in reply 41955 and expanded on in posts 41962 and 41964 - which is where we will find out whether torridon and I agree. You are only interested in picking a fight.

Bit of a shame really as we now have a derail to the thread that you have generated and I suspect the rest of us (me, torridon, ippy, bhs, gordon and ab) would prefer getting back to the matter at hand.

I'd be delighted to engage in discussion if you have something to add on evolutionary biology and honesty - but it seems you don't so this conversation is, sadly, going nowhere. I shall feed the troll no further.

You could have just said no, you don't disagree with anything in torridon's post.

[ProfessorDavey]

For the concept of honesty to exist, you need to have the conscious freedom to comply or not comply with what your conscious awareness deems to be an honest view.

But the very concept of honesty is fundamentally anthropomorphic (or at least limited to animals with higher consciousness for which honesty as a concept has meaning) so you are engaging in a circular argument. But having higher consciousness does not imply the importance of honesty - a species with just as much higher consciousness as humans but which lives in an entirely solitary manner would be unlikely to recognise honesty as it has no fundamental relevance to their existence.