Philosophy Reborn

Continuing on from my previous concepts... I have 2 basic theories...

1) The objective basis for moral and ethical behavior has its origins with the evolution of the human species. Those actions which provided the greatest advantage for survival were ultimately deemed "morally good".
2) As such, most of our actions are not determined by active "choices". Rather, we "react" based on our genetic predispositions. Humans have the unique characteristic of utilizing "will power" when external forces persuade us to act contrary to our genetic predispositions.

So one question (not yet addressed) is... How/Why have we developed such complex notions of free will, and the entire philosophical study of morality and ethics (deontology, consequentialism, etc...)? In other words - if my theory is correct, how/why are those other theories incorrect?

Evolution is responsible for producing variations in species which allow for greater adaptation and survival. Not all mutations are advantageous though; it's simply trial and error. Early, in a certain primates development, one species developed the capacity to "reason". That is - he/she developed greater mental capacities that allowed them to put more complex thoughts together. This lead to several other advancements: utilization of tools, language, specialization of duties, etc.... And although "reason" would prove to be a significant advantage, it would ultimately allow humans to diverge from the natural processes of "natural selection". In some ways, humans simply rebelled from evolution in much the same way we have recurring fears that computer AI may one day rebel against its human creators... that all-important concept of "self-awareness".

The strategic advantage brought about by "specialization of duties" ultimately allowed something new... spare time. Once humans were no longer in a constant state of survival, they had time to think. And their processes were probably no different than people today (relatively speaking of course). "Who am I? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Etc...?" This is when reason turned to one of its main faults... It attempted to explain the unknown using the only thing it had - what it sees every day. Thus the complex functions of nature were attributed to anthropomorphic creations...gods created in the image of man. Most of these early religions focused less on the moral and ethical issues of right and wrong, but instead merely attempted to explain the natural world as well as humans role and interactions within it. But as humans began to coalesce into larger communities and civilizations, these questions of morals and ethics became more pressing. As with today, most human beings have a good sense of right and wrong even without tremendous exposure to complex religious or philosophical ideas. But as with all other natural interactions - the question was "Why". Once again - humans turned to religion. So, before long religions like Zoroastrianism and early Judaism began preaching the notions of a "heaven" and "hell" - the idea that "bad or evil" actions would be eternally punished.

For hundreds, or even thousands, of years this was the basis for human concepts of morality. Certainly, minor details were different from one culture to another - but the primary concepts were the same. From time to time, there were certain individuals who attempted to explain behavior through other methods - a seemingly more logical, or even secular, approach. These people were ultimately called philosophers. But in many ways, I would submit that this was still not much different than what humans had previously done with religion. In short, the only real difference in religion and (what was to be) philosophy, was that philosophy did not "require" the concept of God to determine the basis of moral and ethical behavior. Certainly many philosophers still believed in a God of some sort - but they did not believe one had to rely on his existence to explain human behavior.

So...Philosophy (for me) is reborn. After all, it has every right to attempt to explain human behavior just as religion continues to do so. And it would certainly be foolish to think that my own notions (which I am currently blogging) are not themselves, philosophical ideas - of sorts. But I would submit that any philosophical or religious notion that implies humans have some greater capacity toward free will than we have hitherto exhibited, is inconsistent at truly understanding humans as an intrinsic part of the natural world.

It is the great irony that evolution produced our capacity for reason. Yet that very same capacity was responsible for our misperceptions of "self". I don't believe any philosophy or religion has yet successfully persuaded us (as a species) to act in contradiction of our natural predispositions. They are, instead, just anthropomorphic rationalizations of our genetically predetermined behavior. (Yes - there will always be examples to the contrary. But I submit that the human capacity of "will" plays a factor. But I would also point out the variations in the natural world as well. I've see lions and tigers show affection contrary to our notions that they are always killers.)

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

Alien Life (2)

We are currently looking for life on Mars and other planets - and looking hard. But as an ignorant observer, I wonder about the real probability of finding life - regardless how small. The conditions for life to begin are extremely rare (relatively speaking it seems). But when it does, it seems life will evolve and spread constantly. Earth has shown that life (in some form) exists in almost every conceivable spot on the planet - even the most harsh environments. And from what I can tell the environment on Earth 2 billion years ago when life began was certainly not the lush tropic filled world we see now; it would have been a barren wasteland. So....when I look at Mars, I have very little faith that we will find anything beyond:
1) Evidence that life may have once existed for a very, very short time
2) Any existing life is in an extremely early form of development like that of the Earth 2 billion years ago.

Regardless how harsh the environment on Mars - I cannot help but believe that if life had ever evolved millions or billions of years ago - it is a very high probability that the planet would be teaming with life, which would require very little effort to find/discover. The fact that we are having to search so hard indicates to me - very little chance of finding life. But of course, that doesn't mean will not find other interesting aspects (perhaps flowing water at one time).

Then again, I could be completely wrong...