Sorry, got some catching up to do during my once-per week posting opportunity...
Wow! You are thinking backwards. You must answer the question "why does sex feels good?"
Actually, I
did ask that question, and it is one for which science has no answer.
If patting our heads was central for getting our genes passed on, then that would feel really damn good.
This is not demonstrated by science, and that was my point. You respond by reasserting it without showing how it has been verified as scientifc fact. It is just one of many philosophical assumptions scientists make. It is the premise of materialism that drives some scientists to reduce every aspect of human reality to mechanistic processes, and the irony is that they feel no need to make a scientific case for it. They declare it so, and so it must be.
It is an agenda to make simple-minded anti-religios people think humans are nothing unique, just plain ole animals, downplaying the huge physiological differences and overplaying the similarities. Why are some so intent on equating humans with just any other lifeform? Because religion says we as humans are privileged, special, and created in the image of God? Apparently so. Some are desperate to use science to undermine this notion and they leap to these conclusions before the science is there to back it up.
Recently science has been infected with a handful of bigots who went into the field with the stated intention of undermining belief in God. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are not the only ones. Evolutionary biologist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA admitted this:
"I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that. I asked myself what were the things that apear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs."
Physicist Steven Weinberg, another outspoken atheist has stated the same overt bias,
"the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious beliefs and I am all for that... I think it may be the most important contribution we can make.. Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization...this is one of the things that in fact has driven me in my life"
My question is how do people who admittedly go into science with a sociological agenda in mind, expect their conclusions to be taken as objective and science-based? They are using science for their own malicious purposes. Is ths supposed to be a respectable use of science?
Why is sugar sweet? Hint: Calories. Evolution.
"Sweetness" isn't intrinsic to sugar.
What? The first statement makes no sense whereas the second statement doesn't address anything I said. Of course sweetness is not intrinsic to sugar, but you haven't even begun to explain why sugar tastes good to us. "Calories" is your explantion? That isn't science my friend. Not everything that tastes good is necessary for our replication.
Again, we procreate because the process feels too good. Th ss what we can state definitively, and anything beyond that is pure speculation. Enjoyable sex is why the human population continues to grow. That, and religion apparently, since atheists can't seem procreate enough to ensure their own continued existence (i.e. secular nations are decreasing in size as atheism increases).
Why does sex feel good? Science can explain how sensations travel from the sex organs to the brain, but it doesn't explain, why these sensations are pleasurable.
As Polkinghorne once argued. To ask, "why is that water boiling?" might be answered by science in terms of temperature and molecules, but another answer is perfectly valid and outside the realm of science. Why is it boiling? "Because I want a cup of tea." The science of materialism has tunnel vision, is extremely limited, and is by its very nature incapable of explaining all aspects of human reality, even those aspects that really matter to us as individuals.
Dawkins regrets ever coming up with his robot analogy as people usually misinterpret it to mean that genes are somehow actually directing evolution.
No, he regrets it because it is an analogy that is fatally flawed, and he doesn't have the gonads to admit being wrong. His cohort Daniel Dennett has adopted this argument and taken it to another level by calling humans robots and zombies. For him consciousness doesn't even really exist; it is just an illusion we created! What an idiot.
Also he got wrapped around his own axle with the term 'selfish', his intention was simply to limit the effects of a gene to its own frequency in the genepool of the next generation.
Again, Dawkins was wrong about the selfish gene and has been forced to take evasive measures. But he can't do so by saying, "I was wrong." His throat isn't large enough to swallow the amount of pride necessary for that. Remember, Dawkins and Dennett insist on calling themselves "brights" because they operate on the assumption that they are smarter than theists. So they can't accept the prospect of being proved wrong by one. It would disrupt their arrogant sense of reality. So when they are proved wrong, they just reinvent their original argument and say they were just kidding or being metaphorical or misunderstood, or whatever they can do sidestep the dilemma.
So then every other organism on the planet that desires sex does so because they made a conscious decision to like it, or due to their instincts?
Why the hell would we want to explain human procreation in terms of what mice in Indonesia or bears in Alaska do by instinct? We know humans consciously seek to have sex. We cancomunicate with humans, experiment with this thesis and make predictions. We know humans act consciously during sex. Throwing "animal instinct" into the mix sheds light on nothing. Indeed it just adds mud to the water.
And this reveals a faulty premise in your model. An assumption unsupported by science. Now I proved that that only kind of sex humans have is conscious sex, and yet you're still trying to base it on initial instincts. Why? Because that is what Dawkins says, despite the lack of scientific evidence for it. As I said to Tarski, this is not something verified by any scientific method known to man. I have challenged you, Tarski and JAK to illustrate the procedure by which this assumption was verified as scientific fact, and all of you have essentially ignored the request. But keep callng it "science" if it makes you feel better.
Do instincts only apply to animals? I hate to break it to you, but humans are animals too.
I hate to break it to you, but even Darwin said humans are different from animals in that we have a sense of morality and a conscience.
It seems rather obvious to me that instincts come first, and consciousness comes second (in the process of interpreting instinctive impulses).
You don't even know what instincts are, nor can you identify them outside of conscious awareness.
That you'd attempt to dispute this says more about your desire to debate than it does your interest in being accurate or truthful.
But you haven't established the truthfulness of this. I never disputed the existence of instincts, but only the claim that humans procreate because it is strictly a matter of genes selfishly seeking to make it to the next generation. This is asinine. All I asked is that you show me the science. But you can't do it. Not even Dawkins or Tarski can do it. But I suspect you'll continue to call it science. We see a lot of this around here.
Then you aren't looking for it. I can't say I find this particularly surprising.
Is this your confession to having blind faith in claims not based in science? So what makes you any different from a religious whacko? I have asked for evidence for this particular Dawkins tenet, in numerous forums, and the responses are typical and humorous. Essentially attack me and forgo the request to provide the science.
You think it's your conscious that directs giving you wet dreams and boners? Seriously? Do you mean to use the word 'conscious' interchangeably with 'will'? Just because you think something doesn't mean you are trying to think it. If boners were willed, why would anyone need Viagra?
This is incoherent. Care to rephrase? Of course we are conscious during our dreams. Do you really think it is our instincts that cause morning wood? I have said nothing about "will," but refer to sexual awareness. Men get aroused in diferent ways, and others have a hard time with stamina, which is what viagra was designed for. It increases stamina, it doesn't create sexual attraction. You can take enough viagra and end up humping a fire hydrant, but I don't think we should attribute that to genes. And you never addressed the analogy of the blind man, which essentially refutes your argument that instincts come first.
Again, if you really think that your consciousness directs your instincts, well... there's nothing anyone can say to you. I imagine you'd have a very hard time finding anyone with any knowledge on the subject backing you up, but so be it.
Directing instincts? I didn't say that. The funny thing about this last statement is that it shows just how ignorant you really are of the argument by Dawkins. If you were, then you'd never have made this statement because Dawkins makes it perfectly clear we can consciously rebel against our genes/instincts. Steve Pinker said the same thing when he said he is childless because he chooses to be, despite the fact that his genes urge him to procreate. Of course, he can't show how science says our genes "manipulate" us to procreate to begin with. Nor can anyone on this forum, apparently.
But hey, it is science because.... well, it just is.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
