Posted: Jul 01, 2018 11:28 pm
jamest wrote:Thommo wrote:Evolution is not a metapysical assumption, it's an observed process backed by evidence.
Any evolutionary theory which advocates that 'we' are who/what we are as a consequence of physical causes is by default a metaphysical theory as it posits that we are who/what we are as a copsequence of physical origins.
Manifestly untrue. If humans can be mental representations and animals can be mental representations, as idealism would posit for example, then the evolution of one to the other would also be a mental representation and still compatible with idealism. Or solipsism, or dualism or any other metaphysic.
The point is that evolution isn't an assumption, it's derived from careful study of observations. It's a well developed and evidence based theory.
jamest wrote:I personally don't deny that there is evidence of multiple physical changes amidst physical life. What I do deny or object to is that physical things cause this. Therefore, it's frozen badger time for anyone who insists that 'we' are the product of physical causes as far as I'm concerned, unless someone here establishes that there's more to 'us' than being a physical thing.
Thus far you're the only one making any insistences about physical things or metaphysics. It is precisely your assumption that evolution means physicalism and physicalism means assumption that makes you so poorly placed to tell other people that metaphysical assumptions are devoid of value. The only one castigated by your charge is you.
jamest wrote:
It may also be worth pointing out that a) You're not replying to a post that says anything about humans "merely" being anything and b) you're in no position to say that "metaphysical assumptions are utterly devoid of value to reasonable people".
a) She definitely implied that physical causes explain 'us' and our behaviour. I won't be wasting my time with anyone who denies this.
I suggest you just try reading that again. It appears to me that I'm pointing out she didn't say humans are "merely" anything, and it also appears to me that on rereading her post she didn't.
jamest wrote:b) Any cunt with a modicum of reasoning power is qualified to inform you that assumptions are devoid of value with someone who seek answers from reasoning.
Whilst I won't bother to disagree, my point was that evolution is not, in fact, an assumption but a well evidenced theory, and that you - in assuming that evolution necessitates physicalism were the one making assumptions and thus you are the only one who needs to understand your lesson.
jamest wrote:Don't waste my time in this thread any more with your fucking political approaches. Address the problem, not the contributors.
I did, and I am.
