Carey, Just when I think this forum has gone well beyond the point where anyone has anything interesting to say, someone comes up with a post that actually contains thoughts and ideas worth considering - like your post that this is in reply to.

I realize that what I am saying goes against the CW and also that any premise that demotes the role of intellect in human discourse will be seen as insulting to many. But, that only reinforces my contention that we all believe what feels good and use our brains to justify it. It doesn't feel good to violate the CW. We instinctively feel that others will ridicule us and say mean things to us - as you and Fred and JB do to me continuously. Likewise, it doesn't feel good to think that our logical arguments are often just extensions of our identity beliefs - made to defend them. It's interesting that my ideas violate different core beliefs in each of you and so you each try to attack me and my ideas from different positions - although you do gang up occasionally.

You said, Your most fundamental identity belief is in rationalism and scientific process. Are you ready to accept some supernatural theory of soul or spiritual possession of human minds in place of the currently incomplete explanations of human nature offered by evolution and neurobiology? Of course not.

No matter what Fred says that cleverly tries to make a toe-hold for such an explanation - you will find a rational way to discredit it. You think you are offering rational alternative explanations and giving Fred a lesson in evolutionary theory. Really though, there is nothing you could say that would shake Fred's belief in a theistic basis for human nature - his fundamental identity belief. And certainly by now, you know that.

Note that your discussion with Fred is a microcosm of the ID debate raging elsewhere. While the audience is limited here, I believe the motives, the kinds of arguments and emotions being felt by both sides are quite similar. This similarity in patterns (emergent networks some might call them) tells me that something important about human nature is going on here.

So, the interesting question to me is why do you persist? I propose it is because Fred's ideas violate your core belief in rationalism - and your answers are to provide you the emotional satisfaction of responding to that emotional insult. As a scientist you have the tools in your possession to do a pretty good job of that. But aside from the tacit approval of JB and perhaps Todd, and the emotional satisfaction that comes from that, you know your tools will do nothing to cause Fred to change his core beliefs. As you said yourself, Please, do not read my posts as insults. There's no way I can honestly discuss this without violating both the CW and your personal belief that you only make arguments for rational scientific reasons. Both of those views will be interpreted emotionally as insults (or perhaps condescension) by most who are exposed to them. That's not my purpose. I really think this is an important idea that explains many perplexing aspects of human behavior. I'd even say it's possibly an important missing link in evolutionary psychology that has been well insulated from discussion and consideration by our human natures (and our cognicentric view of the mind) that it hopes to explain.

I am trying to get past that wall. I am finding however, that even in a forum supposedly dedicated to objective discussions of human nature and psychology, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to do. No doubt, much of that difficulty is the result of those times when I have responded angrily to what seemed like provocation at the time. As I have said before, usually right after I responded, I regret those and would retract them if I could.

I still hope that we could discuss these things (that I believe are very important concepts) without the emotional discomfort that I know they produce.

(I follow up on this on the other thread "Implications of Somatic Behavior Choice".) Link

Margaret