Quote:
Quote by: Lullaby Chainer  The only name I can find is Abbas, which doesn't really help much.
We have. Condoms are proof of that.
Living things are also material objects.
A rose does not have a lot of "agency". What they meant by agency is an organism's ability to respond to it's environment not like non-living objects would. A cheetah has agency because it can change directions while running without external forces pushing it that way.
The brain is where the agency originates. In plants (in terms of growing towards sunlight) I'd say it originates from chemical functions organized in ways you'd never find organized in a rock.
It's about "overlooking agency" being more dangerous than a false positive. In other words, thinking something with agency is an inanimate object is far more dangerous than thinking an inanimate object is something with agency. This is a HIGHLY possible evolutionary trait as it has Darwinian advantage. |
First you said that agency is free will, one the part of a cat to change directions while running with free will. Then you said that in a plant that same agency is when a plant is influenced by the sun to grow in that direction. A contradiction in meanings for the same word, as I see it.
If a rock came at me I might duck even if it could not think about attacking me like a bear might do, so how can determining the difference between a rock and a living thing give you any advatage? The idea expressed in that clip on U tube is okay if you stay within a very tiny framework but once the frame is expanded the idea will degenerate.
I cannot see just how Darwinian advantage would be the cause of someone believing in an unseen thing such as God or some supersition.
As you suggested. Are you suggesting that people respond to metaphyscial envrionment or being like we responded to the physical environment? Is U Tube suggesting that we learned how to respond to the metaphysical dimension in a certain way because that is how we learned to respond to the physical world to find food or to avoid becoming food for another creature?
Or, is the U Tube anology another way to discribe the Eve and the Serpent story as related in the Bible. Deception being misstaken for the real thing?
Deception is an important Darwinian advantage in nature and it represents security for those being preyed upon, and also so for the hunter, such as the alligator that pretends to be just another log in the river, waiting for food to come down for a drink of water.
I do not see how that interview which lasted only a short time could relate anything in it's totality and therefore cannot prove or disprove anything nor can it represent a good explaination for why people attend church on a Sunday morning. Can a sand pebble explain a mountain?
No.