Options

What is the human soul?

135678

Posts

  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    My view of the soul is complex.

    First of all this comes from nothing of religion, so the issue of religiousness is out.

    When you are born, basically there are multiple, countless versions of earth and the universe, which mirrors this one. However the fundimental differences between each and every version is that there are changes. If one person is white in one version, they are black in another. If one person is good, the other is evil.

    The soul however is a link to each and every mirror version. For example, I have a soul. Thus I have a link to the worlds though which I can only travel once my brain functions are put to sleep and basically in sleep mode. There is however only one soul for a group of people. My other versions all share my soul, which basically is a link. When one sleeps, the link gives visions of the other worlds, basically which are dreams.

    When one dies, that soul doesn't die, but that link does. Thus the other versions live like normal and are uneffected by the death of another version. It is my belief that one of those sudden jerks that you get, dreaming that you fell off a cliff or bridge, basically means one of the link has broken. So in essence a person dead in this world is dead but the soul is still alive for the other versions. Ghosts or stuff are broken links that don't terminate properly or the soul transports the linker towards broken link resulting in that person seeing the dead person which is in fact not the dead person they know.

    The concept of the Soul going to heaven is actually partly true. This is where the soul goes to await rebirth in which the soul waits for its turn to be back. It can be fast it can be slow depending on how soon the peron it belongs to is born. Thus the resemblance in others like a baby or a child resembling the grandfather closely is infact the same soul.

    Thus there is a soul, but it is like a link between you and the other worlds.

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Anime.

    Glal on
  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists. Which also times into time travel, there is no ability to go forward, but to go back there is no proof that you end up in the exact same world you took off. Of course, currently there is no ability to go the speed of light and unless we find a way, we never migh break though. That a time travel don't exist.

    However your existance and the existance in the world is proof enough that another earth in another parallel world must also exist. Souls however defy this as they provide a link to the many instances of a person.

    This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    20070716.jpg

    Glal on
  • Options
    DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists.

    Wait... what? Extra terrestrials may exist, and since they may exist parallel worlds must exist?

    Daenris on
  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Also, I would like to add, Souls are not physical nor do they govern us on our actions. No one can steal anyones soul because it is impossible. However, there are instances where ones opposite self, might influence the others in the matter of love, hate, anger or emotions. Thus the idea of a soul mate is more likely the ideal one of the versions ideal mate that they found and that is transfered toward the other links.

    Think of it as the Soul being a large transmitter while yourself and the others are like receivers and mini transmitters.

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Daenris wrote: »
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists.

    Wait... what? Extra terrestrials may exist, and since they may exist parallel worlds must exist?

    That right there is where the brain poisoning begins.

    Souls being a-dimensional is not exactly a concept I've seen before.

    Edit: If souls aren't physical, nor do they govern our actions, how do they influence us? Seriously, what.

    Burnage on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Non-materialist explanations of the soul are unlikely to actually explain anything. This doesn't make them uninteresting but they all tend to boil down to question begging "How do I know if it is OK to turn off the computer I just made that is an exact replica of me down to the atom?" or various versions of "OMG how can we have morals without God--everything will go straight to hell".

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Daenris wrote: »
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists.

    Wait... what? Extra terrestrials may exist, and since they may exist parallel worlds must exist?

    The existance of extra terrestrials means that others also exist and their existance is also governed by the parallel worlds. If a certain person exists in this, our universe, there will and must be other links (whether dead or broken) to the Soul.

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Non-materialist explanations of the soul are unlikely to actually explain anything. This doesn't make them uninteresting but they all tend to boil down to question begging "How do I know if it is OK to turn off the computer I just made that is an exact replica of me down to the atom?" or various versions of "OMG how can we have morals without God--everything will go straight to hell".

    I would disagree with this. I'd say that a materalist view of consciousness is actually more likely to consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious; the dualist can always argue that just because something is physically similar to a human brain, that does not necessarily mean that it has a mind.

    Similarly, dualism doesn't necessarily indicate theism.

    The main problem with dualism in my mind is that if it's true, then by definition there's no evidence for it - which is obviously problematic. Getting down to basics, I'm probably more of a neutral monist than anything.

    Burnage on
  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Daenris wrote: »
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists.

    Wait... what? Extra terrestrials may exist, and since they may exist parallel worlds must exist?

    That right there is where the brain poisoning begins.

    Souls being a-dimensional is not exactly a concept I've seen before.

    Edit: If souls aren't physical, nor do they govern our actions, how do they influence us? Seriously, what.

    They are a transmitter, sending signals of love, hate, anger and all that towards the other versions. If one version is angry, those that have the strongest link, i.e sleeping, will have angry dreams. Do those that have such dreams act on it? They might and might not. All the soul does is transmit emotions but doesn't govern you to act or dismiss on them.

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ...and on what do you base this belief exactly

    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists. Which also times into time travel, there is no ability to go forward, but to go back there is no proof that you end up in the exact same world you took off. Of course, currently there is no ability to go the speed of light and unless we find a way, we never migh break though. That a time travel don't exist.

    However your existance and the existance in the world is proof enough that another earth in another parallel world must also exist. Souls however defy this as they provide a link to the many instances of a person.

    This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

    are you drunk?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    Hey K_A, I think maybe your ideas about souls is nicely encapsulated at this site

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    This is some trippy shit.

    Wash on
    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • Options
    Katchem_ashKatchem_ash __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey Qingu asked what souls are, and I answered him. I don't think that my views are trippy or anything. Just because there is no current proof or even if such proof can be obtained, doesn't mean its invaild. Its a theory and as such it cannot be tested with our current technology.

    Katchem_ash on
  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Hey K_A, I think maybe your ideas about souls is nicely encapsulated at this site

    You... you realise you've probably just quintupled their traffic for the day, right? I mean, I'm just telling you you've done a bad thing today.

    Burnage on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Hey K_A, I think maybe your ideas about souls is nicely encapsulated at this site

    You... you realise you've probably just quintupled their traffic for the day, right? I mean, I'm just telling you you've done a bad thing today.

    The truth must get out, Burnage. What the hell do you know about 4-harmonic corner days anyways? You're just a layman - this dude is an expert.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Glal wrote: »
    Describing the levels below is what recursion means in the first place.
    No it doesn't. Recursive functions contain the level below, they don't necessarily describe or organize the level below.
    The second you'll have to go into a bit more detail for.
    And I've described the abstraction of symbols. I don't think you're actually reading my posts.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Non-materialist explanations of the soul are unlikely to actually explain anything. This doesn't make them uninteresting but they all tend to boil down to question begging "How do I know if it is OK to turn off the computer I just made that is an exact replica of me down to the atom?" or various versions of "OMG how can we have morals without God--everything will go straight to hell".

    I would disagree with this. I'd say that a materalist view of consciousness is actually more likely to consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious; the dualist can always argue that just because something is physically similar to a human brain, that does not necessarily mean that it has a mind.

    Similarly, dualism doesn't necessarily indicate theism.

    The main problem with dualism in my mind is that if it's true, then by definition there's no evidence for it - which is obviously problematic. Getting down to basics, I'm probably more of a neutral monist than anything.

    A materialist very well might consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious because it very well might be. By the time we can make exact replicas of ourselves, I suspect that killing and/or enslaving them will be a non-issue. I don't think it is a coincidence that our present materialist (Darwinist) understanding of human beings has occured at the same time we as a species are questioning the morality of our behaviour with respect to other species. Twenty years ago Michael Vick doesn't go to jail for dogfighting.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    WashWash Sweet Christmas Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey Qingu asked what souls are, and I answered him. I don't think that my views are trippy or anything. Just because there is no current proof or even if such proof can be obtained, doesn't mean its invaild. Its a theory and as such it cannot be tested with our current technology.

    It's just kind of out there, KA. Like, I've pondered the existence of parallel universes as much as the next guy, but saying you believe this is the soul's function is quite a leap.

    Wash on
    gi5h0gjqwti1.jpg
  • Options
    ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey Qingu asked what souls are, and I answered him. I don't think that my views are trippy or anything. Just because there is no current proof or even if such proof can be obtained, doesn't mean its invaild. Its a theory and as such it cannot be tested with our current technology.
    Like the ability of extra terrestials existing, thus parallel worlds must always exists. Which also times into time travel, there is no ability to go forward, but to go back there is no proof that you end up in the exact same world you took off. Of course, currently there is no ability to go the speed of light and unless we find a way, we never migh break though. That a time travel don't exist.

    what does this mean?

    I'm seeing:

    1. ET = parallel worlds = time travel? Huh?
    2. some sort of connection between traveling at the speed of light and time travel?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Options
    GlalGlal AiredaleRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    Glal wrote: »
    Describing the levels below is what recursion means in the first place.
    No it doesn't. Recursive functions contain the level below, they don't necessarily describe or organize the level below.
    [edit] Actually, I'll bother actually slogging through previous posts tomorrow, I can't be bothered to today.

    Glal on
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thus the resemblance in others like a baby or a child resembling the grandfather closely is infact the same soul.

    So uh... what if the grandfather is still alive?

    Also for any time-cube doubters, KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Non-materialist explanations of the soul are unlikely to actually explain anything. This doesn't make them uninteresting but they all tend to boil down to question begging "How do I know if it is OK to turn off the computer I just made that is an exact replica of me down to the atom?" or various versions of "OMG how can we have morals without God--everything will go straight to hell".

    I would disagree with this. I'd say that a materalist view of consciousness is actually more likely to consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious; the dualist can always argue that just because something is physically similar to a human brain, that does not necessarily mean that it has a mind.

    Similarly, dualism doesn't necessarily indicate theism.

    The main problem with dualism in my mind is that if it's true, then by definition there's no evidence for it - which is obviously problematic. Getting down to basics, I'm probably more of a neutral monist than anything.

    A materialist very well might consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious because it very well might be. By the time we can make exact replicas of ourselves, I suspect that killing and/or enslaving them will be a non-issue. I don't think it is a coincidence that our present materialist (Darwinist) understanding of human beings has occured at the same time we as a species are questioning the morality of our behaviour with respect to other species. Twenty years ago Michael Vick doesn't go to jail for dogfighting.

    We 'as a species'? That's a pretty bold claim - I'd argue that the vast majority of homo sapiens still see themselves as superior to other animals, and are in no way questioning the morality of that belief.

    Ask yourself honestly, how many carnivores do you know?

    Burnage on
  • Options
    DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    Thus the resemblance in others like a baby or a child resembling the grandfather closely is infact the same soul.

    So uh... what if the grandfather is still alive?

    Well clearly that's the same soul... it's just being shared within one dimension instead of between parallel dimensions... yeah... or something.

    Daenris on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    What the hell is going on? Glal's "Anime" response should have ended that subdiscussion.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Burnage wrote: »
    Non-materialist explanations of the soul are unlikely to actually explain anything. This doesn't make them uninteresting but they all tend to boil down to question begging "How do I know if it is OK to turn off the computer I just made that is an exact replica of me down to the atom?" or various versions of "OMG how can we have morals without God--everything will go straight to hell".

    I would disagree with this. I'd say that a materalist view of consciousness is actually more likely to consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious; the dualist can always argue that just because something is physically similar to a human brain, that does not necessarily mean that it has a mind.

    Similarly, dualism doesn't necessarily indicate theism.

    The main problem with dualism in my mind is that if it's true, then by definition there's no evidence for it - which is obviously problematic. Getting down to basics, I'm probably more of a neutral monist than anything.

    A materialist very well might consider a computer replica of a mind to be conscious because it very well might be. By the time we can make exact replicas of ourselves, I suspect that killing and/or enslaving them will be a non-issue. I don't think it is a coincidence that our present materialist (Darwinist) understanding of human beings has occured at the same time we as a species are questioning the morality of our behaviour with respect to other species. Twenty years ago Michael Vick doesn't go to jail for dogfighting.

    We 'as a species'? That's a pretty bold claim - I'd argue that the vast majority of homo sapiens still see themselves as superior to other animals, and are in no way questioning the morality of that belief.

    Ask yourself honestly, how many carnivores do you know?

    I thought about clarifying that. I certainly don't mean the entire species. Still, moral questions about how to treat animals are a lot more prevalent since it became OK to think of humans as animals. Thinking of humans as animals is pretty recent. Steven J. Gould could never really get over the hump and in the mid 70s when EO Wilson published Consilience, he was set upon by the Harvard townsfolk with torches and pitchforks. People like to make a special exception for humans and human consciousness and almost all non-materialist discussion starts with consciousness as an axiom and then congratulates itself upon reaching consciousness as a conclusion. Bonus points for enough steps in between so your audience has forgotten the premise when it reads the answer.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    BuchwaldBuchwald Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I am a Knower of 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour Days that occur within a single 4 corner rotation of Earth.

    that is beautiful. it is just so dumb.

    Buchwald on
    "That theory is just the looniest of a whole bunch of complete nonsense that is spouted by Amanda Winn Lee and her cohorts in the Audio Commentary."
  • Options
    GoatmonGoatmon Companion of Kess Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Tarantio wrote: »
    Related question: Consider a computer model of a human brain, accurate to the last molecule. The particles are written in this program to obey the exact same physical laws as in the natural world- so it should essentially run itself.

    Would that simulation become sentient?

    Would it be murder to turn it off?

    Heheh.
    20061005mopexd2.jpg

    Goatmon on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204


  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Still, moral questions about how to treat animals are a lot more prevalent since it became OK to think of humans as animals.

    I'm probably being pedantic here, but there are quite a few cultures where vegetarianism is promoted heavily - buddhism, hinduism, etc. "How should we treat animals?" is not a question that suddenly became more prevalent after Darwin. I'm pretty certain there are a fair few native American traditions where humans are considered the same as animals, as well.

    Burnage on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I thought about clarifying that. I certainly don't mean the entire species. Still, moral questions about how to treat animals are a lot more prevalent since it became OK to think of humans as animals. Thinking of humans as animals is pretty recent.
    I agree, and actually, evolution forms a large part of the basis of Singer's argument in Animal Liberation, which is sort of the founding doctrine of the modern animal rights movement. I think a materialistic viewpoint goes a long way to combat the moral provincial-ness that permeates a lot of philosophy, with the assumption that humans are special and demarcated from all other animals (or matter).

    Qingu on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Still, moral questions about how to treat animals are a lot more prevalent since it became OK to think of humans as animals.

    I'm probably being pedantic here, but there are quite a few cultures where vegetarianism is promoted heavily - buddhism, hinduism, etc. "How should we treat animals?" is not a question that suddenly became more prevalent after Darwin. I'm pretty certain there are a fair few native American traditions where humans are considered the same as animals, as well.

    I might have been pushing the animal thing since I'm thinking from the perpective of my western culture. In any case, your responses suggest to me that we agree on some deeper level and I'm just not making my point clearly. I was just going to mention that moral proscriptions against humans killing each other are pretty recent cultural developments in the history of the species. Were cannibals "conscious"? The turning off of computer = murder connection will not occur when we determine they are conscious, but rather when computers exhibit enough human attributes and interact with humans to the extent that enough of us develop emotional attachments to them.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    Still, moral questions about how to treat animals are a lot more prevalent since it became OK to think of humans as animals.

    I'm probably being pedantic here, but there are quite a few cultures where vegetarianism is promoted heavily - buddhism, hinduism, etc. "How should we treat animals?" is not a question that suddenly became more prevalent after Darwin. I'm pretty certain there are a fair few native American traditions where humans are considered the same as animals, as well.
    I think he was just talking about in the West and in Western philosophical circles. As far as I know, the Hindu/Buddhist/Jain attitudes towards animals comes from the idea that you can be reincarnated into them, and they into you. Also possibly the avoidance of suffering. But in a manner of speaking, eastern religions did extend the idea of a soul into animals. Whereas in the Mesopotamian religions only humans have the blood/breath of deities in them (and maybe djinn).

    Edit: also, animist/Native American traditions hold that everything has a soul, even including rocks. Respect to prey animals was essential or their souls would avenge themselves upon you from the spirit world.

    So now that I think of it, I wonder if you're wrong, mightypuck—animism is certainly as old as any Mesopotamian religion, if not older; Hinduism is as old as Judaism. It almost seems like humans once had a very broad understanding of who had souls, which got narrowed and narrowed as Mesopotamian religions grew in influence. I also wonder if this "human-only" soul idea was connected to the rise of agriculture. I'd have trouble enslaving animals for work and food if I thought they had souls like me.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The turning off of computer = murder connection will not occur when we determine they are conscious, but rather when computers exhibit enough human attributes and interact with humans to the extent that enough of us develop emotional attachments to them.

    Firstly I agree that there isn't a whole lot of disagreement between us, if that makes sense. But I also want to say that, sadly, I don't think that the computer=murder connection will occur to a huge number of people even when we have emotional attachments to them. I've met some Oxbridge-level philosophers who have point-blank denied that animals are conscious; irregardless of whether machines become sentient and/or empathetic in the future, I think it will take much, much longer before the average person accepts them as such.

    Burnage on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Burnage wrote: »
    The turning off of computer = murder connection will not occur when we determine they are conscious, but rather when computers exhibit enough human attributes and interact with humans to the extent that enough of us develop emotional attachments to them.

    Firstly I agree that there isn't a whole lot of disagreement between us, if that makes sense. But I always want to say that, sadly, I don't think that the computer=murder connection will occur to a huge number of people even when we have emotional attachments to them. I've met some Oxbridge-level philosophers who have point-blank denied that animals are conscious; irregardless of whether machines become sentient and/or empathetic in the future, I think it will take much, much longer before the average person accepts them as such.

    Well, by the time we create replicants we might be able to turn them on and off without noticing a distinction. If we can I can imagine all sorts of ethical quandries (like can you turn them off forever). If we can't, we'll have learned a lot about consciousness.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Hey Qingu asked what souls are, and I answered him. I don't think that my views are trippy or anything. Just because there is no current proof or even if such proof can be obtained, doesn't mean its invaild. Its a theory and as such it cannot be tested with our current technology.

    It's just kind of out there, KA. Like, I've pondered the existence of parallel universes as much as the next guy, but saying you believe this is the soul's function is quite a leap.
    To call that a theory is incorrect, if you mean a scientific theory. A theory must be falsifiable. This means that I have to be able to prove you wrong or disprove it in some way (or at least make the attempt). I cannot say you are wrong or right, but I can say that you do not have a theory. This is why religion really has no realm in science to begin with. Scientists that try to disprove the existence of god are just as stupid as the zealots who attempt proving the existence of god.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Is someone here trying to endorse Social Darwinism?

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism and everything to do with one group of individuals trying to game another group of individuals. Darwinism has nothing to say about morality (unless you mix it with some Marxist--or Hegelian teleology
    I know shit about philosophy so apologies if I'm off base here
    like Robert Wright did in Non-Zero).

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism and everything to do with one group of individuals trying to game another group of individuals. Darwinism has nothing to say about morality (unless you mix it with some Marxist--or Hegelian teleology
    I know shit about philosophy so apologies if I'm off base here
    like Robert Wright did in Non-Zero).
    That was the point. Social Darwinism is stupid and you would be pretty stupid to think that kind of philosophy is ever valid or applicable.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
Sign In or Register to comment.