(Sep 20, 2017 06:19 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 20, 2017 04:44 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
Thanks.
ok, so your referring to group co-operation of survival instincts of primates.
They operate as a group. sharing food benifits them to gain food when they have none.
though the examples are in captivity and so are extranious of learnt behaviours manipulating a survival instinct... aka dawinism by survival of those who share food with the group...
in the wild primates co-operate to gain food and share parental processes.
again darwinian by survival of those that share food and maternal control of babys.
passing on the gene that shares parental control & sharing food.
i would suggest the test must be carried out while both primates have excess food.
observing them to see if they habitually share food while not needing any and if that is autonomic or fluidly behavioural.
as you refer to morality a good example is new human mothers.
they seek to create and maintain a social system of socialism.
mean while some male humans advocate individualism of resources and moral ideology.
it could be argued that males have genetically inherited the process of being selfish which provides their genetic liniage being carried on.
This heard behaviour for best survival is not what i would define as morality.
excellent points of dicussion to observe the interaction of capitlism(resource individualism[selfishness]) Vs socialism(resource sharing).
Trading what is in excess to gain something of non survival based need is a slightly different aspect of higher brain function and probably atributes more so to play and discovery where finding new food sources have been the genetic requirement while others of the species starve to death/die-out.
Watch the video I left quoted again. It does not demonstrate sharing or cooperation. It only illustrates one monkey's sense of being treated unfairly relative to another. You can even see the "cheated" monkey throw away food it happily accepted just moments earlier. That shows it is a dynamic response.
New human mothers are not predisposed to socialist systems. Where do you come up with this nonsense? O_o
And how would complete selfishness provide for genetic lineage? Absentee fathers are the biggest predictor of drug use, crime, depression, etc..
The interaction between capitalism and socialism is that only formerly/partially capitalist systems can peacefully support a socialist system for any significant duration. Evidence....every socialist system in history.
(Sep 20, 2017 07:11 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]But Syne, just like with any other religion, panentheism unnecessarily introduces a supernatural deity.
You can still experience connectivity without having to invoke a divine agency. Personally, I think awe is a form of self-transcendence. I also think that you can acknowledge your insignificance in a larger scheme of things without feeling insignificant. Unlike you, I don’t view such vastness as an extension of myself. I view myself as an extension of the vastness. There are many things in life that I am able to love and enjoy without having to have them love me in return, e.g., wind, sunlight, water, food, landscapes, experiences, and even people. Everything doesn’t have to be tied up in a neat little bow, Syne. You can still have some form of personification if you need to. The majority of people probably think of it as a parental figure, but Nietzsche thought of it as a woman. I like to think of it as an interactive field. Occasionally, I think of it as a man, depending on my mood. My point is that you can love life without having to invoke a divine agency.
No, panentheism doesn't require anything but a deist creator...no more supernatural than the Big Bang.
Do you really want to discuss your paltry idea of transcendence again? O_o
It is irrational, at best, to consider yourself an "extension of the vastness" that already encompasses you.
Who ever said you couldn't love life without a divine agency?
Quote: (Sep 20, 2017 04:44 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Who said panentheism was anything more than speculation? That would be like saying the debate between monism and dualism is settled. I can conclude whatever I like. Nothing says that my own, personal conclusions must be compelling to others.
Here’s what I don’t get, Syne. You know that a majority of them claim that they have access to god’s mind in some context or another. If they were like you, and just admitted that they were just speculating, then they wouldn’t feel so compelled to impose their ideology on others, but they’re not like you. So, why do you defend them? Why dabble in Christian apologetics ?
In terms of compelling evidence, it is speculation, but I do have access to things others seem completely unaware.
I don't "dabble", I am a Christian apologist...just not a Christian. "Impose"? You mean by telling people about things you think? Like you're doing here, posting on a forum? O_o
(Sep 20, 2017 07:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The same way a concentration of synapses separates humans from animals.
Why would the concentration of this hypothetical Godstuff result in freewill? There's nothing even intuitively appealing about such an explanation. Are you saying Godstuff is like synapses? In what way? Why not strive for parsimony and say freewill emerges magically from concentrated synapses? At least there's empirical evidence for synapses.
I said "panentheism
could be conceived as monist", not that it is. And the concentration of the monist substance is just a further speculation in the vein. Personally, I think that both monism and dualism are both true. One in the sense of fundamental principles and one in the sense of our anthropocentric perspective. Both have legitimate meaning in their own context.
(Sep 20, 2017 08:50 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: [ -> ]hhmm...
if that were a theological fact then it would detract from Godly omniessence.
Thus it would render god to a 3rd person aspect, which ... probably upsets an awful lot of religious people sentivities.
LOL! Are you really that clueless? Religious people very often DO think of god as a 3rd person perspective.