[Psudo]

D'Souza was mocking the idea that we are automations of evolution, which he claimed Richard Dawkins asserted. You and he agree.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hitch and Kim. Sounds like a new animated Disney movie.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

D'Souza was mocking the idea that we are automations of evolution, which he claimed Richard Dawkins asserted. You and he agree.

--------------------

This is Dawkins: “we have the power to turn against our creators. . . . Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs.”

So what the hell are you talking about?

[Psudo]

It's philosophical logic. If we are nothing but an evolution of complex chemical reactions, how can we do anything but what our component chemical reactions compel us to do? How can the statement "we have the power to turn against our creators" be possible unless there is more to a person than physiology? D'Souza believes the start of Dawkins' book and the end of it logically contradict each other.

You said otherwise, namely: "Medicine and Technology puts us outside the normal Evolutionary process. Not completely, but enough to thwart it." To me, it sounds like you're saying we invented free will for ourselves. That is not a "painfully obvious" assertion.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

It's philosophical logic. If we are nothing but an evolution of complex chemical reactions, how can we do anything but what our component chemical reactions compel us to do? How can the statement "we have the power to turn against our creators" be possible unless there is more to a person than physiology? D'Souza believes the start of Dawkins' book and the end of it logically contradict each other.

You said otherwise, namely: "Medicine and Technology puts us outside the normal Evolutionary process. Not completely, but enough to thwart it." To me, it sounds like you're saying we invented free will for ourselves. That is not a "painfully obvious" assertion.

I figured as much, but this all has to do with the Brain and Intelligence. I have read neither book, don't know much about D'Souza except have heard the name from time to time, but have watched numerous Dawkins' speeches. I can assure you that Dawkins is not contradicting himself. It is likely that D'Souza simply rejects part of Dawkins' argument(I'll guess Dawkins' explanation for Sentience...so he can insert God/Higher Power in there instead)and thus it appears to him that there is contradiction.

I wasn't speaking of Free Will at all, just didn't realize it was part of the discussion.( probably because I only had that small quote to work with) I was discussing more Physical Evolution. That said, Free Will is just a result of our Intellect and is not even exclusive to our species.

[Psudo]

If a deterministic universe is all there is, how is free will possible at all?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Psudo wrote:

If a deterministic universe is all there is, how is free will possible at all?

To build on that point, if a deterministic universe is all there is, and our existence is merely a result of some very long odds being beat, then what is the point of existing at all other than to pass on our genetic material before we expire?
Let's face it, we may be more advanced but in many ways we are still just as dumb as our ancestors.

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

what is the point of existing at all other than to pass on our genetic material before we expire?

Unless we have free will, I don't see what value that has to us. It would be better described as inevitable than purposeful.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

If a deterministic universe is all there is, how is free will possible at all?

They are not related.

[Psudo]

The same question restated: How can you choose if everything is predetermined? What real choices can there be if the end result is already unalterably set? Unless you plan on using the word "multiverse" at some point, they are absolutely related.

[sandorski]

Psudo wrote:

The same question restated: How can you choose if everything is predetermined? What real choices can there be if the end result is already unalterably set? Unless you plan on using the word "multiverse" at some point, they are absolutely related.

Everything is not pre-determined.