Twackius (August 2, 2008 at 5:53 am)

No worries dude. It did become kind of a chore then. Not sure we achieved much but it was fun.

pkmbyte (August 1, 2008 at 11:47 pm)

Thanks for the discussion. It's gone too far it's become a chore. I'm making a documentary so I'll just send you copy instead of trying to explain it. You'll be waiting a while so don't wait in anticipation. I know you will be though.

Twackius (August 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm)

No. Social species don't necessarily have society. Wolves don't have society but they are a social species. Humans were a social species from day one because we evolved from other social species.Benefit of the species is governed by natural selection not moral instinct. Moral instinct was selected for by natural selection. It wouldn't have mattered if moral insinct never formed but humanity would be very different. However moral isntinct did form so your point is null and void.

pkmbyte (August 1, 2008 at 2:50 pm)

Are you saying that we were social species from day one? Sounds a bit creationist. The moral traits have to have come first, society was a result. Saying the non altruistic qualities die out is correct but that is because the society has already been established. I was switching between origion and present day. It's only benefitial because there is moral awareness or instinct. Benefit of the species is governed by moral instict and therefore it wouldn't matter if moral instict was never formed.

Twackius (August 1, 2008 at 2:09 pm)

nope. No rhyme or reason. It's just that social species who don't develop altruistic qualities die out. The reason it is a benifical trait is so that members of a pack don't tear each other to pieces over territory and mates.

pkmbyte (August 1, 2008 at 7:46 am)

To my understanding the only reason it would be a necessary trait would be because moral instinct benifits moral instinct. It benefits itself. If there was no moral awareness of action then there would be no need for moral instict. It is a necessary trait in a social species. This is in fact format. If there was no moral instinct then there would be no social species. You could say that the social aspect is a product of moral instict. You imply that sociology has some meaning or has a goal to it

Twackius (August 1, 2008 at 5:49 am)

No, it's absolutely necessary evolutionary trait in a social species. It benefits the species to be 'moral' towards each other.

pkmbyte (July 31, 2008 at 10:12 pm)

Can you not see?? If we don't mean anything then there's nothing worng with killing someone or there is nothing good about being nice to someone because it is essentially an illusion and means absaloutly nothing!! It is an anomoly! How can such an unorthadox moral instict be created in this really materialistic reality? It's so unecessary.

Twackius (July 31, 2008 at 8:45 pm)

Of course it was "created" by evolution but it's hardly an anomoly. It can be seen to varying degrees in all social animals.Yes, we don't mean anything, so what? I really fail to see why this is such an issue for you.

pkmbyte (July 31, 2008 at 5:09 pm)

Thats what I'm saying. Your only explaining morality (focusing on it's explination) and I'm telling you that it's a hole in sceptic conclusion. While you may be focusing on morality, I'm trying to tell you that science should see morality as no diffrent to a disease, visa versa. It's just genetics, it was created by evoloution according to present science we don't mean anything and we are just an anomoly.