Vorkosigan

The question is can an organism behave in ways that are survival conducive and reproductively efficient and have sensory and cognitive faculties which radically misrepresent how things are in the world. It seems obvious that it can. Plantinga's examples of silly belief/desire sets show this.

Plantinga's examples are hypotheticals. They show nothing except the limits of Plantinga's imagination. Give us five real-world examples, or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Consider Smith again. He has radically false beliefs about the world yet his behavior would allow him to survive just as well as someone with true beliefs. This would hold whether you are simply talking about merely surviving or whether or not you are talking about reproducing.

We've already gone over why Plantinga's example of Smith fails. For multiple reasons. Not one of which you have responded to.

Downplaying the roles of beliefs in evolution doesn't help the opponent of the argument. It simply allows Plantinga to argue more forcefully that true beliefs need not be correlated with survival conducive behavior and reproductive efficiency.

We're not downplaying them. We're saying they have NO ROLE AT ALL. Once again, for your benefit, BELIEFS DO NOT EVOLVE. It's the cognitive machinery that evolves, and that gives a very precise and accurate picture of the world.

"Oh...so beliefs play no role in evolution? Great..so they don't have to be true in order for us to survive and reproduce. And naturalism has no means of insuring that our beliefs are largely true."

You're a troll aren't you? Either supply us with five built-in false beliefs that actually exist in the real world, or quit trolling.

And once again the argument depends on a realist conception of truth. You can accept various forms of antirealism with regard to truth and avoid the argument.

By all means believe an anti-realist position. Kiss your god good bye too.

One last point: It is true that the existence of various deities would not insure that our sensory and cognitive faculties represent the world as it really is. The deity might be evil and desire to deceive us. Maybe as a big joke. But the God of western theism is supposed to be perfectly good or omnibenevolent. Deception for no good reason seems immoral so this particular god would likely give us accurate senses/cognition.

ROTFL. Or else trick you into thinking he had.

Can we have real-world examples of Platinga's claims, please? 5 built-in beliefs that are false.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Vorkosigan:

What is a "built-in belief" and why do you think Plantinga's argument depends on them?

Vorkosigan

Plantinga's argument is that beliefs -- not faculties -- have evolutionary implications. In order for that to occur, beliefs must be built in, hardwired into the human brain so they can be passed on from generation to generation. Evolution cannot act on something that disappears within a few days or hours.

What is "Built in?" Some cognitive processing mechanisms are hardwired -- for example, the image your retina throws off is upside down, so there's a device in your visual processing system that flips it rightside up for processing. That one is built in. Similarly, there's another device in your brain that corrects for changes in the angle of sunlight as the sun passes through the sky. You'll discover this device if you park a blue car under a flourescent street light at night -- what color is it?

So now I am waiting. Give me some examples of false beliefs -- not instincts or processing biases -- built into the human brain. In fact, why don't you start by showing some beliefs that are built into the human brain? We can then discuss whether they are false.

Also, please answer my previous question. I have answered all yours faithfully. Is it only humans that did not evolve, or is god assisting all organisms with neurons, from spiders to Da Vinci?

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Vorkosigan:

Saying our sensory/cognitive faculties are more relevant than our beliefs with regard to evolution is like saying the physiology of my hand is more relevant to evolution than is grasping. Grasping is a function of the physiology of my hand. Similarly, beliefs are a function of my sensory and cognitive faculties. That's what they do. They give us a representation of the world. Our beliefs are just those statements about the world we are inclined to hold as true. It is our map of how things are.

Just as grasping is what hands do (among other things), forming representations of reality (ie beliefs) is what my sensory/cognitive faculties do.

First, many of our beliefs last for most of our lives. Secondly, grasping comes and goes as well (you aren't always grasping something). However, that does not mean it is not significant with regard to evolution. The same holds true of our beliefs.

I don't see that Plantinga's argument says anything about "built-in" beliefs. He merely points out that the representations of reality generated by our sensory and cognitive faculties need not be accurate in order for us to survive. His examples demonstrate this.

The argument would apply to any organism with sensory and cognitive faculties that are presumed to represent reality as it actually is.

Vorkosigan

Saying our sensory/cognitive faculties are more relevant than our beliefs with regard to evolution is like saying the physiology of my hand is more relevant to evolution than is grasping. Grasping is a function of the physiology of my hand. Similarly, beliefs are a function of my sensory and cognitive faculties. That's what they do. They give us a representation of the world. Our beliefs are just those statements about the world we are inclined to hold as true. It is our map of how things are.

I agree that beliefs are a function of sensory and cognitive apparatus.

Just as grasping is what hands do (among other things), forming representations of reality (ie beliefs) is what my sensory/cognitive faculties do.

Agreed. However, just as your hands can grasp all sorts of things, so your cognitive faculties can hold all sorts of beliefs.

First, many of our beliefs last for most of our lives. Secondly, grasping comes and goes as well (you aren't always grasping something). However, that does not mean it is not significant with regard to evolution. The same holds true of our beliefs.

Beliefs do not evolve. Do you know of any beliefs that are built-in and transmitted to the next generation? If they are not built-in, how could they evolve? What evolves is the cognitive and sensory apparatus.

I don't see that Plantinga's argument says anything about "built-in" beliefs. He merely points out that the representations of reality generated by our sensory and cognitive faculties need not be accurate in order for us to survive. His examples demonstrate this.

Taffy, his examples demonstrate nothing. They are hypotheticals. You need to demonstrate the actual existence of many such beliefs caused by erroneous processing of reality by our cognitive faculties.

Regardless of whether beliefs last an hour or a lifetime, beliefs are ephemeral. What counts are behaviors in adaptive situations; situations that recur over evolutionary time-scales. Do beliefs last over evolutionary time-scales?

Several posters have already shown why Plantinga's ideas fail, but I'll go over them again.

-- you can't run from a tiger, it is faster than you. So Smith's beliefs do not enable him to survive. The proper way to handle a tiger is to stay out of its way, use a weapon, or get help.

-- if, in Smith's view, running away is the proper way to demonstrate affection, then groups that properly domesticate animals will soon outreproduce Smith and his descendants, giving their advantage in obtaining resources.

-- who would want to breed with a man with such bizarre beliefs. Do you think a human who thought running was good way to display affection would make a good mate?

In other words, Smith and his descendents would be outcompeted by members of his own species or eaten by tigers, and would soon disappear.

In a real human brain, cognitive faculties have costs. It "costs" Smith space and energy to have evolved this unusual belief about tigers. What other functions have suffered as a result of Smith's brain building this bizarre faculty? Either (a) this belief has no fallout for any other behavior of Smith's or (b) it does.

If (a), then Smith's brain has built into it a definition of "tiger," "kitten," and "pet," in the very least. Plantinga's argument is that this evolved. Nonsense. What were the selective pressures that produced this peculiar set of beliefs? Does Plantinga know of actual examples?

Further, people will see that Smith behaves strangely around kittens AND tigers. They won't want to be around him -- if you went tiger hunting with Smith, he wouldn't be there to support you at crunch time. And you couldn't domesticate cats with Smith. So who'd want to interact with Smith? His "tiger" gene would soon vanish from the population. You can't argue that there are no kittens around -- the belief evolved in relation to kittens, so they must exist in his immediate environs.

If (b), then the issues are obvious and we pointed them out above with the examples of mating and domesticating animals.

The argument would apply to any organism with sensory and cognitive faculties that are presumed to represent reality as it actually is.

So you are saying that natural selection has no effect on the cognitive faculties of any animal. Why is this true of cognitive faculties and not others?

Vorkisgan

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>