Can morality and consciousness be understood through the ideas of evolution and natural selection?

I am Sparky the Sun Devil,
No 1, see me? Right there.

Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan

So Jesus is the Son Devil thought so.......

Haha so the Ark of God became a winepress for winefat Jesus you're too much LOL

My parrot loves me. "I love you", "I love you"...

Morality, yes. It comes about as a combination of empathy and hierarchy. All social mammals demonstrate some primitive version of it.

Consciousness... Depends on how you define it. Intelligence, yes, sentients, obviously, even sapience... But as to why we have an "experience", no. Not by that alone... Though at the same time, neither theory is designed to do that.

What's your point?
Parrots are conscious. I don't know if they have morals but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

They do have pecking orders and obey them, and will defend friends and family. Not known for defending their owners, but it maybe they don't identify them as family the way dogs do.

I suppose you could train an "attack parrot" but that's kinda cheating.

You can argue they have some rudimentary morality, but conscious, beyond the medical definition, you can't even prove a human has consciousness, save yourself and only to yourself.

Jesus (my Parrot's name) has morals
and is conscious. O yea, He's alive!
Evolved and naturally selected.

The morals, insomuch as he has them, fine, it follows rules and has empathetic reactions. The awareness and sentience, sure, it's clearly aware and has complex reactions with some limited ability to work out puzzles and the like.

However, I challenge you to prove that either you or your parent have consciousness.

>parent
parrot* - though that'd work too.

My loving Lucifer loves me
So I love my Lucifer back.

Proof enough for me. OP, yes.

not really

Brb going to train my parrot to attack

their definitions would not change that much
>morality as the inclination to do something
>consciousness the self awareness of thinking species
But their aim would differ, with the new model you are suggesting the predators would be looked up as the ideal, this is what natural selection ultimately reduces into. the big dog eats the smaller dogs. evolution would once again take the bellicose path.

>However, I challenge you to prove that either you or your parent have consciousness
Before I walk into your trap, please give the definition of consciousness for which I have to prove the above.

>Evolved and naturally selected.
My guess is that for parrots artificial selection is also at play.

>animals are morally conscious
When does this meme end? Humans aren't even conscious.
If Evolution and Materialism are the case, there is no such thing as consciousness.
idiots compartmentalize.
Evolutionists and Materialists hate when you tear down their concept of consciousness.
They secretly wish to be above the animals, but publicly decry themselves as mere animals.
It's almost as if there's no evidence (where are the millions of fossils? >le rock and fuel. where are millions of other fossils?) and this is all one large long nosed conspiracy.

>Humans aren't even conscious.
Please explain why/how this is true

>If Evolution and Materialism are the case, there is no such thing as consciousness
Please explain why/how this is true

>Evolutionists and Materialists hate when you tear down their concept of consciousness.
What concept exactly?

Why can consciousness not evolve? Do you not recognize different levels of consciousness in different species?

>>Humans aren't even conscious.
>Please explain why/how this is true
Is a rock conscious because it submits to gravity?
Is water conscious because it boils when hot or freezes when cold?
>b-but humans make choices, water and rocks don't
No. we obey the universe just as they do, albeit in different ways.
>explain who this is true
Just did.
We are utterly subject to the laws of the universe, we are indistinguishable from rocks or water or any other type of matter in regards to "consciousness".
There's a reason it can't be explained by modern science, it's not modern nor is it scientific.
It is a comforting relic of the past, notice how atheists decry religion yet cling to consciousness.
Might be that they are much weaker and more stupid than originally thought.
>what concept
exactly
>why can consciousness not evolve
it is not compatible with a deterministic universe
>different levels of consciousness
I think you mean different complexities in the formulation of a material object. This merely means different complexities.
Are you mistaking consciousness for complexity?
And even so, there are objects more complex than "conscious" beings which we do not call conscious i.e. jellyfish, certain flora, the list goes on.

>Is a rock conscious because it submits to gravity?
>Is water conscious because it boils when hot or freezes when cold?
Are you fucking stupid? Nobody thinks human beings are conscious because we respond to stimulus (which is already different from and more complicated than than a rock falling or water freezing) - after all, crystals, plants and bacteria all respond to stimulus and nobody thinks they're conscious. People think human beings are conscious because they KNOW that THEY THEMSELVES are conscious, because they have subjective experiences.

You're questioning "I think, therefore I am." It would literally be easier to get most people to accept that they were brains in vats, that all of history was made up by the Jews, and that the gov't was secretly run by lizard people, than it would be to convince them that they weren't conscious. And to be clear, this isn't a case of you being the Only Sane Man, it's just that most people are a good bit more sensible than you are, apparently.

>There's a reason it can't be explained by modern science, it's not modern nor is it scientific.
Consciousness can't be explained by modern science because it's exceptionally hard (perhaps impossible) to empirically study, and because, consequently, many scientists regard it as a matter for the philosophers and deliberately shy away from it.

>it is not compatible with a deterministic universe
Because, of course, as the leading physicists and mathematicians and philosophers of our age have all agreed, the universe is definitely deterministic.

Stop posting.

>If Evolution and Materialism are the case, there is no such thing as conciousness.

>Japanese bird cooking spaghetti cameo

"What! no 'Dig or Die'? O my Ghosh!"

Jesus my Parrot

Mavorlous, simply Mavorlous.

>different and more complicated
>still the same thing
m8
>they know that they themselves are conscious
based upon what?
>experience
What is experiencing?
The rock is experiencing the fall.
The water is experiencing the temperature.
>KNOW
this is where the problem begins, there is no "know" in this scenario, it all merely an illusion with an illusion of an illusion which makes people think that seeing past it (which they aren't really) vindicates knowledge.
>You're questioning "I think, therefore I am."
Yes.
It is a tautology
>can't be empirically studied
because it doesn't really exist, friend.
>definitely deterministic
are there any alternatives?
Explain how any other alternative would even work? It would just be uncontrolled chaos which isnt really chaos but appears so because it can not be reasoned by Man?

Why are we chained to materialism?

glad to see the larping community is still active

Waiting on that 3rd Drilling Permit.
How many Cores do they need?
Sure is getting Holier though.

Augered twice Meself mate.
Well w/Ralphy Raoul Wally.

>Can morality and consciousness be understood through the ideas of evolution and natural selection?

Barret, P.H. et al., eds. (1987) Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st ed., London: Murray, 1871.
Darwin, C. (1874) The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., London: Murray, 1874. (1922 reprint is used.)
Dennett, D.C. (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Simon and Shuster, 1995.
de Waal, Frans (1996) Good Natured, Harvard University Press, 1996.
Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press, 1984.
Shurman, J.G. (1887) The Ethical Import of Darwinism, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; 3rd. ed., 1903.
Uchii, S. (1996) Evolutionary Theory and Ethics [in Japanese], Kyoto: Sekaishiso-sha, 1996. English abstract
Uchii, S. (1997) "The Origin of Morality" [in Japanese], Kagaku (Science Journal) 67-4, 1997. English abstract
Uchii, S. (1998) "From the Origin of Morality to the Evolutionary Ethics, part I" [in Japanese], Tetsugaku Kenkyu (Journal of Philosophical Studies) 566, October 1998. English abstract
Uchii, S. (1999) "From the Origin of Morality to the Evolutionary Ethics, part II" [in Japanese], Tetsugaku Kenkyu (Journal of Philosophical Studies) 567, (forthcoming)1999. English abstract
Wilson, L.G., ed. (1970) Sir Charles Lyell's Scientific Journals on the Species Question, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.

G. Willy Wally

Evolutionary Ethics, so-called.
mercatornet.com/features/view/so-called-evolutionary-ethics/20775

Oy, oy. I thought this thread was about the Ten Commandments under Stonehenge below Heel Stone, my bad.

Sorry OP.