|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
evolutionists
#14022850 - 02/24/11 10:18 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
now, i believe in evolution, but i also believe that there is something more than a brain. im not here to beat that horse though.
the only thing that i see separates us from any animal, is the capacity for abstract thought. what would the evolutionary purpose for abstract thought be? and how could it further adhere to the rules of evolution by propagating itself through our species over these many years?
|
meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva



Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,380
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
|
Abstract thought is a precursor to innovation. If we all did the same shit our ancestors did, we'd still be living in huts. Thus, we evolved to have an ingrained drive for novelty. We like originality. This, itself, allows us to think outside the box, ready to take on any form of new adversary.
-------------------- 大开眼界
 
Hasta siempre, comandante.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
What meatcakeman said plus...
Abstract thinking is what makes us so much more powerful than the rest of the animals.
A neanderthal might learn from its mother that the plant with the triangle leaves is poison. Don't eat it or it will kill you. The end.
The human might learn the same thing from his mother, then abstract that if it kills people, it might kill animals too. So he puts it on a dart and shoots a monkey in a tree that he would otherwise have no chance of catching and eating.
Voila, the abstracter gets fat, has lots of kids who think in the abstract like their father, and a few millennia later you get iPods.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Diploid]
#14022998 - 02/24/11 10:44 PM (12 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't consider that abstract thought.
what either of you posted.
think more along the lines of patriotism, fame, morality. a triangle leaf is tangible, and so it is not abstract. do not confuse deduction or "thinking outside the box" as abstract thought.
|
meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva



Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,380
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
|
ohhh i see.. humanistic thought is a different subject indeed... to judge humanistic thought, you must try and perceive its humanistic worth. depending on how certain "though trends" pertain to human society, the "trend" could either be culturally useful or completely useless.
example: morality is a humanistic idea. thus, it does not naturally pertain to the rest of the universe. therefore, the universe could naturally do without it. but, in relation to humanity, morality is a collective library of human theory, including personal ideals relating to the concept of Self, familial ideals, societal ideals, and so on. this collective idea "bank" allows all members of society to have a common ground, which subconsciously familiarizes us to each other. now, we can create teamwork. i'm assuming such a idealogical commonality would pose as a necessity for humans as we grew from a collective of tribes to larger populations.
-------------------- 大开眼界
 
Hasta siempre, comandante.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
but our capacity for abstract ideas far predates the transition from tribes to cities.
even if evolution somehow justifies the existence of abstract thought, then it still seems that it is abstract thought for abstract thought's sake. even things like diplomacy are practiced by lower order species, but it once again is out of survival that it does so. same goes for mating rituals that while they have roots in abstraction, one can easily draw a line between it and sex and see why it flourished.
we have even found that we can instill the concept of currency in primates... but then again, while "value" is an abstract idea, it is completely entangled in survival, so that idea of value can be mistaken for simple acknowledgement of it being a tool of survival. for example: a monkey receives a token and when it gives it back to a handler, it receives a banana. well if enough monkeys believe in it, they can actually trade this token for sex, in which the female takes the token and gets food... before, the token would have no meaning, but now it is associated with food, therefor we cannot say that the monkey acknowledges an abstract value of the token, but rather plays this game as an instinctual response towards survival without even knowing it is playing a game.
|
meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva



Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,380
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
|
so you're saying humanistic ideals are only useful because they are instilled in us? yeah we were conditioned to play this little game, but some of us realize it is just a game. and since we are hand-fed these ideals, we can't do much but play by them. the decision is plain and simple. you must accept government and societal ownership in order to survive amongst the crowd, or left to fend by yourself. so, personally, it depends on the individual as to how one perceives certain "abstract" thoughts. imo, it's been engrained within our society for so long that we pretty much have to acknowledge its existence, to say the least. in such terms, our "abstract" thought becomes the muse to our own hallucinations.
-------------------- 大开眼界
 
Hasta siempre, comandante.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/dec/06/animalbehaviour
i really dont see how they consider that abstract thought. also it is still entangled in a primary function of survival. now if they made the dogs make a purely aesthetic choice, like choosing between two identical beds except one is leopard print and another zebra, then it would make a more affording argument for lower order species using true abstract thought void of instinct.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
some good shit meetcakeman, above your sig and below your reply.
|
auxiliary
Mr.



Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
mushiepussy said: above your sig and below your reply.
nice
--------------------
|
circastes
Big Questions Small Head


Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
Does anyone else see this kind of evolutionary theory as a kind of tautology? It's saying, "we evolved traits so we could better evolve traits." That's a tautology right? I always see it that way.
I think evolution is just a small slice of the story of what's happened to get us to the present moment. There's a greater theory we need to find that includes consciousness as primary and purposeful. Consciousness wanted to play a game.
Seems to me science in this vein just loves to put everything down, so we can all have an excuse to be bastards to eachother, or just satisfy our intellectual pompousity.
-------------------- My solitude... My shield... My armour... TESTED WITH FULL FORCE
|
4896744
Small Town Girl


Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 5,128
Loc: United States
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: now, i believe in evolution, but i also believe that there is something more than a brain. im not here to beat that horse though.
the only thing that i see separates us from any animal, is the capacity for abstract thought. what would the evolutionary purpose for abstract thought be? and how could it further adhere to the rules of evolution by propagating itself through our species over these many years?
You lack a good understanding of evolution. Even if you can't come up with a way that abstract thought can increase chances of survival, it could just be a result of another trait which does help with survival. Diploid's post is a perfect example of traits that would help survival that could easily create your definition (although poor) of abstract thought as a by product.
-------------------- Live your Life!
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: circastes] 1
#14029461 - 02/26/11 09:25 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There's a greater theory we need to find that includes consciousness as primary and purposeful.
This is a very telling sentence here and it gives your bias away which has been obvious to me for a long time. There may be a very good reason we have not found serious evidence for this greater theory.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Perhaps you are not evolved enough to get The Greater Theory...
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Gosh, I never thought of that?
I'm sure Circastes did though.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
circastes said: I think evolution is just a small slice of the story of what's happened to get us to the present moment.
Why do you think that?
Quote:
circastes said: There's a greater theory we need to find that includes consciousness as primary and purposeful.
There is? What kind of evidence backs up the assertion that consciousness is "primary and purposeful"? What do you even mean by that?
Quote:
circastes said: Consciousness wanted to play a game.
How do you know that? What kind of game? How are you defining 'consciousness' here?
Quote:
circastes said: Seems to me science in this vein just loves to put everything down...
Why does it seem that way to you?
Quote:
circastes said: ...so we can all have an excuse to be bastards to eachother, or just satisfy our intellectual pompousity.
What does evolutionary theory have to do with people being bastards to each other? Why do you think evolutionary theory has to do with people wanting to satisfy their intellectual "pompousity"?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
meatcakeman
the search for bodhisattva



Registered: 07/03/07
Posts: 8,380
Loc: el sol
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
mushiepussy said: some good shit meetcakeman, above your sig and below your reply.
what are you talking about? the link?
-------------------- 大开眼界
 
Hasta siempre, comandante.
|
Farfetchedchild
Stranger


Registered: 06/12/10
Posts: 62
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
There is always a chance abstract thought was just kind of carried along with our increased problem solving skill. Traits often carry along other traits, like friendliness and floppy ears.
|
auxiliary
Mr.



Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 2,278
Loc: Thatoneville
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
|
--------------------
|
circastes
Big Questions Small Head


Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14042934 - 02/28/11 03:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
circastes said: I think evolution is just a small slice of the story of what's happened to get us to the present moment.
Why do you think that?
Quote:
circastes said: There's a greater theory we need to find that includes consciousness as primary and purposeful.
There is? What kind of evidence backs up the assertion that consciousness is "primary and purposeful"? What do you even mean by that?
Quote:
circastes said: Consciousness wanted to play a game.
How do you know that? What kind of game? How are you defining 'consciousness' here?
Quote:
circastes said: Seems to me science in this vein just loves to put everything down...
Why does it seem that way to you?
Quote:
circastes said: ...so we can all have an excuse to be bastards to eachother, or just satisfy our intellectual pompousity.
What does evolutionary theory have to do with people being bastards to each other? Why do you think evolutionary theory has to do with people wanting to satisfy their intellectual "pompousity"?
Well more than mere biological collisions have taken place. Intelligence is at work here.
Because I've experienced consciousness first-hand defining and redefining this world. Primary in that it is another universal constant or force, like say the strong/weak nuclear and gravity, and is just as evident - but it is not physical. Purposeful in that it has created order and also seeks purpose at least in humans, suggesting it has a goal.
I can't see anything else happening when consciousness is one in all things. I am defining consciousness here as an all-pervading singular (and never in plural) awareness which can manifest things like 'matter' or 'waves' as per its imagination.
I might be going after a straw man, but evolutionary science especially doesn't want a mystical, magical, interesting or livable world. It wants to put everything in a box with as little labeling and information as possible. It seems it's trying to match our stupid lives with its vocubulary.
Well if the world is just inert matter creating things by accident and this is all a kind of mistake, then why not just blow the shit out of eachother for money and oil?
Or, we want to just dominate this world will our intellect and since a world with any wonder or interest in it would make that a tougher enterprise, so it's all cut out before it can begin, just take how demonised something that's pretty much a sacred experience like mushrooms, is. It's all insanely cut down to brain chemicals in their view, completely missing the point but giving this trend a chance to continue so we can at least pretend to have the answers.
As it is, we don't know squat.
-------------------- My solitude... My shield... My armour... TESTED WITH FULL FORCE
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
but evolutionary science especially doesn't want a mystical, magical, interesting or livable world.
How did you come by that notion?
As it is, we don't know squat.
Then don't be too sure of your theories on consciousness.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Ygor
Cyberite Sybarite


Registered: 03/01/11
Posts: 57
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
circastes said: Because I've experienced consciousness first-hand defining and redefining this world. Primary in that it is another universal constant or force, like say the strong/weak nuclear and gravity, and is just as evident - but it is not physical. Purposeful in that it has created order and also seeks purpose at least in humans, suggesting it has a goal.
If this force is not physical, then how does it interact with the physical world? If it does interact with the physical world, then in what measurable way does it do this?
Quote:
circastes said: I can't see anything else happening when consciousness is one in all things. I am defining consciousness here as an all-pervading singular (and never in plural) awareness which can manifest things like 'matter' or 'waves' as per its imagination.
You can define consciousness like that if you want, but I'm not sure what it adds to the discussion. Either you have a physical world made of matter and waves, mass and energy; or you have a "consciousness" which imagines a physical world made of matter and waves, mass and energy. Occam's razor would suggest the former option.
Quote:
circastes said: I might be going after a straw man, but evolutionary science especially doesn't want a mystical, magical, interesting or livable world. It wants to put everything in a box with as little labeling and information as possible. It seems it's trying to match our stupid lives with its vocubulary.
Well if the world is just inert matter creating things by accident and this is all a kind of mistake, then why not just blow the shit out of eachother for money and oil?
Well, because we evolved to be altruistic. Some of us, at least.
Quote:
circastes said: As it is, we don't know squat.
We know a huge amount of things. The ridiculous level of understanding that we have, the huge amount of detail and control that we have over the world is made manifest in front of you now, in your computer.
-------------------- Flowers gathered in the morning, Afternoon they blossom on. Still are withered by the evening, You can be me when I'm gone.
|
wondercat
Dashing


Registered: 07/25/10
Posts: 476
Loc:
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Ygor]
#14061983 - 03/03/11 06:33 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i agree with circastes, evolution is just boxing us in a world of social darwinism. perhaps there's truths to it, like adaptation, but for the most part, its trying to make the system of life objective.
i forget who's sig it is, but it says something along the lines of 'we are all experiencing a single consiousness subjectively' and i agree.
personally i think evolutions trying to falsely simplify too much, and deny the part of us that is alien. yes, i believe we are partly descendents of aliens. look at a picture of a chimp skull and ours, and try to tell me that the our angles and proportions would have really evolved from that.
I also think that we don't know anything, except how to manipulate systems in systems, relatively. Evolution is usually supported by those who value knowledge over wisdom, if you know what i mean. i consider myself stupid, but at least i have the happiness of believing in mystical, magic, wonderous magnificence that cannot be explained by a theory, even though there are is recognizable scheme to most of these things, which could be called synchronicity.
science is useful in its relativity, but evolution if just a collective lie with some convincing 'evidence' that we can use it as the perfect excuse to propel ourselves in the rat race and destroy our ethics. what happened to brotherhood and helping one another?
mushrooms definately helped me tear down some socially acceptable walls, and now i realize how harmful they were and how unhappy they made me. those walls held me back from marveling as much as i do now.
so many people now are so bent on phycicality, and tangible evidence, and material fact, they don't see how that is all interconnected with the world of the spirituality, even if that part appears invisible at times, maybe we just have to start looking at things in a different way.
if we look at everything as infinite, alot of big questions get answers, or they just become futile.
did what i just wrote make any sense or did i spiral off in weird tangents? ahahaha.
--------------------
it truly is an illusion- your senses are just perceiving the varying vibrations in different ways- its holography; a representation. "Nothing" is easy - Mooji
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
look at a picture of a chimp skull and ours, and try to tell me that the our angles and proportions would have really evolved from that.
If you are gonna claim that, then step back and look at the big picture. The theory of evolution by natural selection does not only claim that chimps and us have a common ancestor - we have a common ancestor with cows, dogs, pigs, whales and even birds and reptiles. Its also very likely that we have a common ancestor with plants and fungi. The biochemical evidence that all/most earth life shares a common ancestor is staggering. If there is to be any claim of alien influence it must be reconciled with that. That puts the hypothesized alien influence all the way back to the beginning billions of years ago, as the first form of life on earth. There is speculation and research going on with respect to the idea that life started on earth by being transported here from a meteorite.
Angles and proportions are nothing, we evolved from single celled organisms billions of years ago.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
personally i think evolutions trying to falsely simplify too much, and deny the part of us that is alien. yes, i believe we are partly descendents of aliens. look at a picture of a chimp skull and ours, and try to tell me that the our angles and proportions would have really evolved from that.
which part of us is alien exactly?
How can you think evolution simplifies things when you don't even understand it? It complicates things compared to anyway else you look at it. The principal of natural selection is simple, but it's process and implications are complex and profound.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
|
those who value knowledge over wisdom, if you know what i mean.
wtf do you mean?
i consider myself stupid
thanks for saving me the trouble
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
look at a picture of a chimp skull and ours, and try to tell me that the our angles and proportions would have really evolved from that.
If you are gonna claim that, then step back and look at the big picture. The theory of evolution by natural selection does not only claim that chimps and us have a common ancestor - we have a common ancestor with cows, dogs, pigs, whales and even birds and reptiles. Its also very likely that we have a common ancestor with plants and fungi. The biochemical evidence that all/most earth life shares a common ancestor is staggering. If there is to be any claim of alien influence it must be reconciled with that. That puts the hypothesized alien influence all the way back to the beginning billions of years ago, as the first form of life on earth. There is speculation and research going on with respect to the idea that life started on earth by being transported here from a meteorite.
Angles and proportions are nothing, we evolved from single celled organisms billions of years ago.
Hmmm, appeal to incredulity vs accepted scientific knowledge....
This one's a tough call, I'm gonna have to think on it.
(btw, yeah, the allegation that we evolved from a chimp is flat wrong as diecommie mentions. This seems yet another case of anti-evolution believers arguing against incorrect theory. )
|
wondercat
Dashing


Registered: 07/25/10
Posts: 476
Loc:
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: johnm214]
#14063385 - 03/03/11 10:03 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
lloyd pye. i know most people don't, but i agree with his logic.
--------------------
it truly is an illusion- your senses are just perceiving the varying vibrations in different ways- its holography; a representation. "Nothing" is easy - Mooji
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
circastes said: Well more than mere biological collisions have taken place. Intelligence is at work here.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Quote:
circastes said: Because I've experienced consciousness first-hand defining and redefining this world.
What exactly do you mean by this, and what do you think it proves?
Quote:
circastes said: Primary in that it is another universal constant or force, like say the strong/weak nuclear and gravity...
How do you figure that consciousness is universal?
Quote:
circastes said: ...and is just as evident - but it is not physical.
You're saying that consciousness is just as evident is the weak/strong nuclear forces? How do you figure? Do you have any proof that it's not phsycal?
Quote:
circastes said: Purposeful in that it has created order and also seeks purpose at least in humans, suggesting it has a goal.
In what way are you saying has consciousness created order? Why would you think that it has a goal? 
Quote:
circastes said: I can't see anything else happening when consciousness is one in all things. I am defining consciousness here as an all-pervading singular (and never in plural) awareness which can manifest things like 'matter' or 'waves' as per its imagination.
That is a fucking retarded definition of consciousness. 
Quote:
circastes said: I might be going after a straw man, but evolutionary science especially doesn't want a mystical, magical, interesting or livable world. It wants to put everything in a box with as little labeling and information as possible. It seems it's trying to match our stupid lives with its vocubulary.
Science doesn't want anything, science is just a sophisticated method of discovering phenomenon.
Why do you say "our stupid lives"? 
Quote:
circastes said: Well if the world is just inert matter creating things by accident and this is all a kind of mistake, then why not just blow the shit out of eachother for money and oil?
 
Quote:
circastes said: Or, we want to just dominate this world will our intellect and since a world with any wonder or interest in it would make that a tougher enterprise, so it's all cut out before it can begin, just take how demonised something that's pretty much a sacred experience like mushrooms, is. It's all insanely cut down to brain chemicals in their view, completely missing the point but giving this trend a chance to continue so we can at least pretend to have the answers.
What do you mean by "missing the point"? Who decides what "the point" of experiencing mushrooms is?
Quote:
circastes said: As it is, we don't know squat.
As it is, science has brought us shit like cars, computers, lasers, and GPS, so it turns out that we actually do know a shitload of stuff.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14065730 - 03/04/11 11:08 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
We didn't evolve from monkeys, but we evolved from the same thing they evolved from. So we are closely related, more so to apes.
it has created order and also seeks purpose at least in humans, suggesting it has a goal.
Your personifying nature. Nature doesn't work like the mind, it is thoughtless and it certainly doesn't have any goals. The universe is more of a machine than anything else, a continuous cycle of births and deaths. People, stars, galaxys, even the universe itself, all are finite in time and when their time is up they are recycled(thanks to the laws of physics)to create a new life form, star, galaxy, or universe.
No supernatural guidance necassary, no purpose necassary.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
mushiepussy said: We didn't evolve from monkeys, but we evolved from the same thing they evolved from. So we are closely related, more so to apes.
We are apes...
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
mushiepussy

Registered: 02/06/11
Posts: 1,198
Loc:
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14069471 - 03/05/11 02:22 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
speak for yourself pimp
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Hell nah, I'm humanity's spokesman.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14069878 - 03/05/11 07:55 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why didn't "abstract thought" stop when it was clear that humans could survive in nature? My guess is that socialization caused competition - so even when the elements were defeated we still had each other to best. That sort of explains our need to "destroy" one another. We became our own enemies.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
junkyardgod said: Why didn't "abstract thought" stop when it was clear that humans could survive in nature?
What do you mean? Abstract thought is what assisted us in surviving in nature, without that ability our relatively defenseless, fragile bodies would just be easy prey.
Quote:
junkyardgod said: My guess is that socialization caused competition...
All creatures compete against others, either directly or indirectly..it's pretty doubtful that socialization caused competition, there would be competition of some sort amongst us even if we weren't social.
Quote:
junkyardgod said: ...so even when the elements were defeated we still had each other to best. That sort of explains our need to "destroy" one another. We became our own enemies.
What "need to "destroy" each other"?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14070043 - 03/05/11 09:13 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
junkyardgod said: Why didn't "abstract thought" stop when it was clear that humans could survive in nature?
What do you mean? Abstract thought is what assisted us in surviving in nature, without that ability our relatively defenseless, fragile bodies would just be easy prey.
Quote:
junkyardgod said: My guess is that socialization caused competition...
All creatures compete against others, either directly or indirectly..it's pretty doubtful that socialization caused competition, there would be competition of some sort amongst us even if we weren't social.
Quote:
junkyardgod said: ...so even when the elements were defeated we still had each other to best. That sort of explains our need to "destroy" one another. We became our own enemies.
What "need to "destroy" each other"? 
It did more than simply assist us - that's not the question. What I'm asking is why our thought process didn't stop evolving at a certain point? What drove humanity forward? At some point I think nature on Earth stopped being our 'primary threat' and our own ideas took its place. You can hardly call Humans vs. Other Creatures a competition anymore. On a basic level, sure, they still compete for their survival. But we control or have the means to control every available resource on the planet. Their survival is as much under our control as our own. By our "need to destroy" I mean humanity seems to have an underlying drive to be better itself at the expense of its surroundings. Our need to expand doesn't REQUIRE us to destroy but we do it anyway out of convenience. We're aware of the consequences of our actions yet we choose to destroy things anyway. What gives, humanity? At what point exactly did we evolve into heartless parasites?
Note that the next smartest animals alive are highly social beings - whales, dolphins, apes, elephants. Social beings have more interaction and therefore a greater need for competition to prove they're the 'fittest to survive'/'possess the best genes for reproduction'. Humanity is way beyond this point, but I think that's the key - the idea to stick together.
Edited by junkyardgod (03/05/11 09:30 AM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
At what point exactly did we evolve into heartless parasites?
We have always been this way, just like each and every species on the planet.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
At what point exactly did we evolve into heartless parasites?
We have always been this way, just like each and every species on the planet.
What balances us out though? Certainly not any creature currently alive, certainly not our Earthly elements! Is global warming a valid elemental threat, or is it caused by ourselves? Universal elements are the main threat now and all of our eggs are in one basket. Mankind recognizes this and so we continue to exploit our resources to bring us nearer to the goal of galactic expansion aka survival on a Universal scale, not just on Earth.
If another species were to exploit its resources, the next year there would be less food and thus more deaths. No other animal has managed to achieve independence from the cycle of life like humanity has.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Humanity has in absolutely no way achieved independence from the cycle of life.
I dont know what you are getting at... Every species grows in population until it reaches the current environment's carrying capacity. When the environment changes, carrying capacities change and populations grow/shrink. Humans have done well with the end of the ice age, and have been growing for a few thousand yeas. When we reach our carrying capacity, our population will stabilize. This is predicted to happen in only a couple hundred more years, barring any other significant change to the environment.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
|
My point is I don't think we're going to stop growing. Our planet's limitations won't stop us - our abstract thought, our hunger to grow is beyond the need to merely survive. So back to my main question, where did this drive come from? Why did evolution put this into us? I think it's more than just survival...
Edited by junkyardgod (03/05/11 10:06 AM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
My point is I don't think we're going to stop growing
How is that even possible? No matter how much abstract thought we have, there is a finite amount of resources and space for us in the universe.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
|
Well, as it stands the Universe is constantly expanding...we don't know just how finite our resources are. In fact, I think there are too many resources for our 'abstract thoughts' to even imagine...
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
junkyardgod said: It did more than simply assist us - that's not the question. What I'm asking is why our thought process didn't stop evolving at a certain point?
Obviously because it aided us well in survival--don't you know how evolution works?
Quote:
junkyardgod said: What drove humanity forward?
What exactly do you mean?
Quote:
junkyardgod said: At some point I think nature on Earth stopped being our 'primary threat' and our own ideas took its place.
Why do you think this at some point?
Quote:
junkyardgod said: You can hardly call Humans vs. Other Creatures a competition anymore. On a basic level, sure, they still compete for their survival. But we control or have the means to control every available resource on the planet. Their survival is as much under our control as our own.
So just because we're better at competing on this planet than other creatures, this means that there is no competition between us? 
Quote:
junkyardgod said: By our "need to destroy" I mean humanity seems to have an underlying drive to be better itself at the expense of its surroundings. Our need to expand doesn't REQUIRE us to destroy but we do it anyway out of convenience. We're aware of the consequences of our actions yet we choose to destroy things anyway. What gives, humanity? At what point exactly did we evolve into heartless parasites?
All animals are like that, it's just life, breh. 
Quote:
junkyardgod said: Note that the next smartest animals alive are highly social beings - whales, dolphins, apes, elephants. Social beings have more interaction and therefore a greater need for competition to prove they're the 'fittest to survive'/'possess the best genes for reproduction'. Humanity is way beyond this point, but I think that's the key - the idea to stick together.
What do you mean by "way beyond this point", and what are you saying the idea to stick together is the key to?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
junkyardgod
A psychedelic mess.


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 443
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: evolutionists [Re: Poid]
#14070929 - 03/05/11 01:20 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I feel like at some point our ingenuity stopped being solely for survival. I feel like we've evolved to the point of overcoming the basic elements of Nature, which gives us time to ponder useless questions; curiosity now seems to be the driving force behind our genius. We crave to know the Unknown. Instead of Nature being our primary threat and humanity asking questions to survive, we now ask questions that are so abstract that they cannot possibly aid in survival. Gods? Infinity? Parallel Universes? Extra Dimensions? There are so many theories out there that have NOTHING to do with survival (even if they can be explained away in a survival sense). When did we reach this point in evolution?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
|
Quote:
junkyardgod said: I feel like at some point our ingenuity stopped being solely for survival.
What do you mean?
Quote:
junkyardgod said: I feel like we've evolved to the point of overcoming the basic elements of Nature, which gives us time to ponder useless questions; curiosity now seems to be the driving force behind our genius.
When was it not? 
Quote:
junkyardgod said: We crave to know the Unknown. Instead of Nature being our primary threat...
Are you saying our primary threat is unnatural? 
Quote:
junkyardgod said: ...and humanity asking questions to survive, we now ask questions that are so abstract that they cannot possibly aid in survival. Gods? Infinity? Parallel Universes? Extra Dimensions? There are so many theories out there that have NOTHING to do with survival (even if they can be explained away in a survival sense). When did we reach this point in evolution?
Many animals do things to entertain themselves, this isn't very profound; I'm not sure when we reached this point in evolution.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|