Mr. Mushrooms said:

Having said that, however, we must admit that the "standard," as you like to call it, is a product of the mind, of which we only know one species that possesses it.

---

Quote:

I find it humorous that some with a built-in materialist defense mechanism look at all the technology that we have created and automatically discount it. 

---

Not quite sure what you're getting to with this one, but I know that I personally treasure technology and anticipate its crazy advancement.

fireworks_god said: Our conception of zenith, of being a culmination of evolution, might not represent the true nature of evolution and existence as a whole.

---

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Yet this doesn't negate the possibility of more advanced species elsewhere, previously, or the potential for us to be completely surpassed, even by species that we see and interact with on this planet here today.

---

Quote:

Consider other animal species. If you were to investigate any one of them as carefully as possible, you would find that the members of the same species, living in their natural habitats, manifest a remarkable degree of similarity in behavior. You might find differences in size, weight, shape, or coloration among the individuals you examined. You might find behavioral deviations here and there from what would have become evident as the normal behavior of that species. But, by and large, you would be impressed by the similitudes that reigned in the populations you examined. The dominant likeness of all members of the species would lead you to dismiss as relatively insignificant the differences you found, most of which can be explained as the result of slightly different environmental conditions. That dominant likeness would constitute the nature of the species in question.

Now lets consider the human species. Its members inhabit all the regions of the globe, under the most widely divergent environmental conditions. Let us suppose you were to visit all the human populations wherever they existed. Let us suppose the visit not be a casual one, but one in which you lived for a time with each of these populations and studied them closely. You would come away with the very opposite impression from the one you took away from your investigation of the populations from the other animal species. You were there impressed by the overwhelming similitude that reigned among its members. Here, however, you would find that the behavioral differences were dominant rather than the similarities.

Of course human beings, like other animals, must eat, drink, and sleep. We all have certain biological traits in common and there can be no doubt we share the nature of other animals. But when you come to their distinctive behavioral traits, how different one human population will be from another. They will not only differ in the languages they speak, you will have some difficulty in making an accurate count of the vast number of different languages you will have found. They will differ in their dress, in their adornments, in their cuisines, in their customs and manners, in the organization of their families, in the institutions of their societies, in their beliefs, in their standards of conduct, in the turn of their minds, in almost everything that enters into the ways of life they lead. These differences will be so multitudinous and variegated that you might, unless cautioned against doing so, tend to be persuaded that they were not all members of the same species.

Consider, the behavioral differences between one human race and another, between one racial variety and another, between one ethnic group and another, between one nation and another, these differences would seem to be dominant. It is this that might lead you to conclude that there is no human nature in the sense in which a certain constant nature can be attributed to other species of animals. Even if you did not reach that conclusion yourself, you might understand how that conclusion is plausible. Furthermore, unlike most other species of animals, the members of the human species appear to have formed subgroups that differentiated themselves, one from another. Each subgroup has a distinctive character. The differences that separate one subgroup from another are so numerous and so profound that they defy you to say what remains, if anything, that might be regarded as a human nature common to all.

---

fireworks_god said:

Quote:

I find it humorous that some with a built-in materialist defense mechanism look at all the technology that we have created and automatically discount it. 

---

Not quite sure what you're getting to with this one, but I know that I personally treasure technology and anticipate its crazy advancement.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

If evolution is responsible for the mind.  The realist school in general, and Dr. Adler in particular, do not think it can be since the mind is immaterial and evolution is a material process.

---

Quote:

Could there be aliens that are more advanced?  Possibly.  Are there?  Not likely.

---

I'm not certain what kind of system could have been used to determine this assertion of likelihood.

Quote:

Not if we understand the nature of man and the nature of animals.  In reference to other animals, Dr. Adler explains:

---

I'm prepared to offer my critique of this explanation; however at the moment my time is limited and I don't want to let that uncompleted task keep the rest from being posted. I think tomorrow I'll have the time.

Quote:

I was saying that the idea that man is no different from the animals regarding his nature is a materialist assumption and that, on the face of it, our ability with regard to technology is an undeniable evidence to the contrary based on our ability to conceptualize and create toasters ovens and hawt cars.

---

The rudimentary aspects of these skills can be observed in a variety of species on the planet. Its undeniable that humans are very deft in this particular skill-set and have taken it to quite this amazing extreme. However, personally, I acknowledge that there are other skills and traits that other animals exhibit exceptionally, while, at the same time, humans perform them dismally. To determine whether or not one species is a culmination of creation as versus other species based upon a strong bias for one species' particular strong points doesn't seem entirely valid to me.

fireworks_god said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

If evolution is responsible for the mind.  The realist school in general, and Dr. Adler in particular, do not think it can be since the mind is immaterial and evolution is a material process.

---

I'm not speaking of this as a matter of whether or not the mind itself manifests as a sole result of biological evolution. I'm speaking of evolution of reality itself, of existence as a whole, whether or whether not it is all "material".

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Then evolution might not be the best word to use.

---

I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Evolution is in absolutely no way proprietary to the theory of biological evolution. It refers to any kind of process of change and development and is commonly used in this general sense. I love the concept of evolution and utilize it frequently to gain full benefit of it's power, in terms of understanding and of personal evolution.

Quote:

The mind of man, as defined by having a mind, has been the same since the day he became man.  A few thousand years ago we had Aristotle.  Few people now understand his thought.  Gee, does that mean we're going backwards?  lol  You say "humans have evolved."  Did they?  Or was there a point in history when a hominid became a human, i.e. had a brain with a mind?

---

The difference upon which I elaborated was concerning the manner in which the experience of the existence of the mind variates as the environment in which the mind interacts varies.
What I'm saying is that, even if the basic nature of the mind, and the brain, and the physical body as a whole hasn't changed too much in centuries, millennia, the content of this experience has always changed, as it has evolved, which would reference an evolution of and in the mind itself.
I see your point regarding Aristotle and how only a select number of people can more or less understand his way of thinking, which I personally consider to be a matter of how many people actually follow through with an intention to learn from his works, as well as a subsequent question of how exactly that process of learning ensues.
Which, I think, brings me back to my point on this, that we're faced with the question of how the experience of the mind differs as the environment in which the experience takes place differs. There's no "Aristotle" base mode of operation that is established for everyone as soon as someone named Aristotle comes along and has his experience of his mind. It's a question of the course a life takes and how the interaction between that life and its environment further develops both the life and the environment.
So, yes, humans have evolved, as we've continued to propagate ourselves across time and to each accumulate new experiences in different environments. The mind certainly hasn't been the same as its been experienced by billions of different humans in all kinds of different scenarios and circumstances.

Regarding a point in history when a monkey-type creature suddenly was bestowed with a mind, I don't personally see it happening in this way, although I have no means of determining the actuality of what happened. I see too many parallels in the form and function amongst many present life-forms on this planet and consider awareness to be something that expands and contracts with the course of the development of life itself, as the variables change.

I think its a question of whether or not other aspects of nature are having an experience. Are they, or aren't they?
If they are, they're having some manner of producing such an experience. This would indicate a mind to me.

Quote:

I've been pretty clear about why I use the word culmination.  It's purely logical.  To restate it: if mind sets the standard, then, by the same reasoning, the mind IS the standard.

---

Quote:

  I don't know how much of a reader you are but two great books that explain both concepts, i.e. man's primacy in nature and the immateriality of the mind, are The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes and Intellect: Mind over Matter.  Both are written, of course, by Dr. Adler.

---

I read, but it'd be some time before I'd have any kind of opening for reading one of these books, especially if it wasn't translated from English. I'll keep them in mind though.

Quote:

I understand.  But, conversely, to deny it seems like a refusal to accept ones place in creation.

---

To deny the extent of our skills, in and of themselves, you mean? You'd be right there 'cause its our nature. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. Not this set of particular situation exactly as it is right now, but I mean the role technology has in our lives and being in the perpetual transition of more understanding and more, preferable application. I also advocate promoting the evolution of other life-forms on this planet to have some fun with us.

Dr. Adler said:

Consider other animal species. If you were to investigate any one of them as carefully as possible, you would find that the members of the same species, living in their natural habitats, manifest a remarkable degree of similarity in behavior. You might find differences in size, weight, shape, or coloration among the individuals you examined. You might find behavioral deviations here and there from what would have become evident as the normal behavior of that species. But, by and large, you would be impressed by the similitudes that reigned in the populations you examined. The dominant likeness of all members of the species would lead you to dismiss as relatively insignificant the differences you found, most of which can be explained as the result of slightly different environmental conditions. That dominant likeness would constitute the nature of the species in question.

Now lets consider the human species. Its members inhabit all the regions of the globe, under the most widely divergent environmental conditions. Let us suppose you were to visit all the human populations wherever they existed. Let us suppose the visit not be a casual one, but one in which you lived for a time with each of these populations and studied them closely. You would come away with the very opposite impression from the one you took away from your investigation of the populations from the other animal species. You were there impressed by the overwhelming similitude that reigned among its members. Here, however, you would find that the behavioral differences were dominant rather than the similarities.

Of course human beings, like other animals, must eat, drink, and sleep. We all have certain biological traits in common and there can be no doubt we share the nature of other animals. But when you come to their distinctive behavioral traits, how different one human population will be from another. They will not only differ in the languages they speak, you will have some difficulty in making an accurate count of the vast number of different languages you will have found. They will differ in their dress, in their adornments, in their cuisines, in their customs and manners, in the organization of their families, in the institutions of their societies, in their beliefs, in their standards of conduct, in the turn of their minds, in almost everything that enters into the ways of life they lead. These differences will be so multitudinous and variegated that you might, unless cautioned against doing so, tend to be persuaded that they were not all members of the same species.

Consider, the behavioral differences between one human race and another, between one racial variety and another, between one ethnic group and another, between one nation and another, these differences would seem to be dominant. It is this that might lead you to conclude that there is no human nature in the sense in which a certain constant nature can be attributed to other species of animals. Even if you did not reach that conclusion yourself, you might understand how that conclusion is plausible. Furthermore, unlike most other species of animals, the members of the human species appear to have formed subgroups that differentiated themselves, one from another. Each subgroup has a distinctive character. The differences that separate one subgroup from another are so numerous and so profound that they defy you to say what remains, if anything, that might be regarded as a human nature common to all.

---