Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #21934950 - 07/12/15 08:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

It's not violence that clues into an animal's sickness, it is the intent it was done with. Violence serves many purposes and many other species even seem to enjoy it as sport or out of boredom, they don't however seem to suffer from as chronically from the variety of mental conditions that have violent tendencies.




"Mental Conditions" are just categories that we diagnose people into based on the way they think and behave. Wouldn't an enjoyment of violence as sport, or a will to violence out of boredom classify these animals as psychopaths?
It might just seem like other animals don't suffer as chronically from mental conditions that cause violent tendencies because we don't have psychologists analyzing and diagnosing each and every animal to characterize any mental conditions they may have. (This is partially because it's not easy to communicate with most other species). I don't think there would be any significant difference between levels psychopathy (and other mental conditions) in humans and in most other mammals, because no selective pressures against such violence-causing mental conditions come to mind (that apply to other mammal species, but not to us).

Quote:

I have never seen another animal commit a genocide. A genocide is an organized extermination, an expression of a collective will.





Quote:

The chimp warfare described by this study, and previously by famed primatologist Jane Goodall, includes all the behaviors that we as humans consider to be the very worst: killing, torture, cannibalism, rape, and perhaps even genocide. The adult males of a social group, which usually number about 30 to 50 in size, daily patrol the edge of their group's territory. They will often kill any male or young chimpanzees they find, sometimes eating or physically brutalizing their victims in a manner that some researchers liken to torture. In some instances, one group will "invade" and annex the territory of another, killing all but the adult females, who are forced to incorporate into the dominant group. The idea of chimp genocide may sound strange, but they are one of only three animals that has been observed wiping out entire social groups. The other two are wolves and humans. Given that humans and chimps are so closely related, and our genocidal records so pronounced, it stands to reason that this common behavior may be more than just coincidental.

(referencing a study posted in "Current Biology")





Quote:

I haven't seen another animal with (seemingly) the communicable capabilities except maybe that of dolphins.




Agreed


Remember that humans have technology, like nuclear weapons, guns, satellites, drones, chemical weapons etc. AND language, which gives us the ability to label and categorize one another more easily, leading to seamless constructions of in-group/out-group thinking (the most effective way to suppress ones empathetic urges). We are also more intelligent than most (if not all) mammals. This allows us to make precise decisions as to what harm we do, to whom we do it (and which out-groups), where we do it, and when we do it. These abilities have given us the Holocaust, the Inquisition and other awful atrocities. Please do not be mistaken, my position is not that humans never act bad morally, it's that we are not different in kind to other animal species.

Just imagine how Chimpanzees, Seals, Dolphins etc. would behave if they had the same language abilities, opposable thumbs, and technology that humans do. I think it's a fairly easily answered scenario. They would behave quite similarly to the way we have behaved. There would be a spread of beautiful, loving, angelic creatures, to evil, psychopathic, tyrants. Just like there is in the human species.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
    #21935643 - 07/12/15 11:48 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

All those eons of evolution leading to this, and all it takes are a few bad apples to rot the barrel. It's hard to imagine where we might be in 500 years considering where we were 100 or even 50 years ago. We are still in the dark ages, but it may not always be so... though I suspect we'll out do ourselves before we leave our animal nature behind.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDottoreWolfe
Doctor Wolfe


Registered: 02/21/15
Posts: 201
Last seen: 5 months, 12 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Rahz]
    #21935706 - 07/13/15 12:09 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I absolutely agree with your outlook(hopefully they don't use human treadmills as the energy source). I think we will also become one universal nation without borders, I really hope we don't ever become that, as it would be a fertile environment for the spawning of fascism (if you think our votes don't count now, you just wait).


--------------------
Everything I post should be regarded as wholly fictitious or hypothetical, nothing I post has any basis in reality.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
    #21936133 - 07/13/15 06:13 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I'm not sure what I think about the idea of becoming less animal and more human, or Stephen Pinker's notion that we are (evolutionarily?) overcoming violent tendencies, but I think your last argument is pretty sound Second Order. I agree that psychopathic or "sick" tendencies are not uniquely human.

If I understand what you are saying, perhaps it could be said in a similar line that evils are "memes" that get further exploited by the scope of human rationale for accidental or stupid reasons. Violence is drawn out through common thinking and cooperation that is just following orders, or statistical permutations, or industrial processes. Apes "present" or "display" and it is not a whole lot different than human symbolic reflection or ideology.

As Hannah Arendt put it, I think fortunately or unfortunately, it's the banality of evil that stands out most to me. Sure there is probably a degree of pathology that only humans can achieve through sheer intelligence, but that doesn't pan out in terms of the consequences. I don't think intent is anything to resent humans for, even if it is a criteria to adjudicate in some instances.

In other words at a certain point who cares how someone gets off? It's not the intent, it's the consequence I would be concerned more about, and the primary factor in that is something that is just ignoble and more than a few words on that doesn't need to be said.

I'd say the real question about humans is how they can forget, push to an unconscious, and to ignore the implications of what they are doing. That is the unique capacity. Not consciousness, but repression. I don't know how you'd consider and weigh it. Statistically? A cold, inhuman stare?

Second Order, do you have any larger sections from Stephen Pinker to chew on, that could make a convincing case for the basis of human virtue, beyond the abstract you noted? Before I'd be convinced of something really nice to say about humans, I think I'd have to read a bit. For now I am skeptical. Sure we have sharp edges being warn off, but how do we distinguish that from becoming slaves to our liberal institutions and caging ourselves to be soft pawed consumers? I'd be genuinely interested in that thesis though...

I'd also throw out that the book for reference, I read that introduced me to chimp politics, (somewhat more cynical than Mr. Pinker, I think) which changed the way I think about human nature. He also questioned the argument of evil as having so much to do with intent. It was a library book (can't quote it or anything) I read a while ago called "The Philosopher and the Wolf", by Mark Rowlands... It had some venturesome and bold things to say.

Not that I agree with every argument, or his life decisions, but it is an authentic story about philosophical life... I ended up looking up on him and the tough guy is a bleach blond haired california softie today writing essays in analytic philosophy.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Kurt]
    #21936214 - 07/13/15 07:21 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
Sure we have sharp edges being warn off, but how do we distinguish that from becoming slaves to our liberal institutions and caging ourselves to be soft pawed consumers?




Good question.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Kurt]
    #21936238 - 07/13/15 07:35 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Second Order, do you have any larger sections from Stephen Pinker to chew on, that could make a convincing case for the basis of human virtue, beyond the abstract you noted? Before I'd be convinced of something really nice to say about humans, I think I'd have to read a bit. For now I am skeptical. Sure we have sharp edges being warn off, but how do we distinguish that from becoming slaves to our liberal institutions and caging ourselves to be soft pawed consumers? I'd be genuinely interested in that thesis though...




The Better Angels of our Nature is a gigantic book, filled with statistics, hypotheses to explain said statistics, history, paradigm shifts, commentary on religion, drug use (and the drug war), politics, genetics and much more. Cutting out a couple of key quotes to summarize a particular theory or book works 90% of the time, but Pinker's magnificent piece of work lies in the remaining 10%. Needless to say that it is one of the most thorough and comprehensive works I'm aware of.

His theory is very simple: "Violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species' existence." He argues this point with an enormous mountain of evidence in his side. I have the audio book if you want me to send it to you?

Let me make it clear that he does not argue that human nature is changing toward states of higher morality, or that human nature is changing at all.

What we are experiencing is likely just our "sharp edges being warn off". Systems, technologies, and rules are being put into place to enforce moral codes with more effectiveness. It is becoming easier and easier to be a good moral person, and it seems to me as though this trend will continue. At some points in history, including today, there are situations where it takes a hero to be a good moral person; one may have to sacrifice their life, their financial security, or their reputation in order to avoid doing harm to others, or in order to help others that are in need. At other times, in other situations, it only takes a Plebeian to be a good moral person, because the system that they find themselves in allows them to improve the lives of others with barely any hard work or sacrifice.

Our systems are changing (mostly for the better), but I see no reason to think that human nature is.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
    #21937809 - 07/13/15 03:28 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Gotcha.

Well, I am not sure where I fit in in this actually, and I may have to cop out to theoretical investment. I'm a mind your own plot of land kind of simpleton in some ways.

I'd like to see the arguments against your last post which mentioned chimp politics.

About Stephen Pinker; I like that he argued against the "Blank Slate" as a theory of consciousness. Maybe that leads him to practical conclusions about nurturing.

At least we are able to raise significant questions about human nature...

A book I have been trying to get ahold of (also incidentally suggested to me as against blank slate theory) is biophelia.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Kurt]
    #21939230 - 07/13/15 08:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

About Stephen Pinker; I like that he argued against the "Blank Slate" as a theory of consciousness. Maybe that leads him to practical conclusions about nurturing.




Another must-read!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
    #21939386 - 07/13/15 09:26 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Hmm maybe I'll check that one out. If you have a digital copy let me know.

Hey, wouldn't it be a cool thing to start a critical reading group around here?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Kurt]
    #21939859 - 07/13/15 11:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Yeah I do. PM me your e-mail, I'll send the audio-book too if you want.

And yeah man I'd love that.


Edited by secondorder (07/13/15 11:12 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenuentoter
conduit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder] * 1
    #21941173 - 07/14/15 08:57 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

I think that actually is a great idea. I second the stickied post for a recommended reading group


--------------------

The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know.  - @entheolove

"I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for"  - Georgia O'Keefe

I think the word is vagina


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
    #21942654 - 07/14/15 04:09 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Mental Conditions" are just categories that we diagnose people into based on the way they think and behave. Wouldn't an enjoyment of violence as sport, or a will to violence out of boredom classify these animals as psychopaths?





This is the psychology of a human, it is not immediately applicable to another species.
Especially consider that traditional psychology practices are only a century and half old it coincides with the practice requiring a species who has reached a certain level of sustainability in their society.
So when/if chimpanzee ever evolved into a tribal and consequently societal species and a high enough percentage of citizens are meeting this level of comfort and sustainability (removing immediate threats from environment, providing adequate food shelter and enjoyment) we/they can start analyzing and documenting the psychology of their species.

Imo I doubt very much that while in the grips of mother nature mental conditions of humans are applicable.
Even if humanity somehow took a step backwards a few tens of thousands years into the harsh world of survival I imagine these behaviors are less and less conditional to anything except that of you and your family/tribe staying alive.

Quote:

Just imagine how Chimpanzees, Seals, Dolphins etc. would behave if they had the same language abilities, opposable thumbs, and technology that humans do. I think it's a fairly easily answered scenario. They would behave quite similarly to the way we have behaved. There would be a spread of beautiful, loving, angelic creatures, to evil, psychopathic, tyrants. Just like there is in the human species.




This is entirely speculative and no it is a not a fairly easy scenario.
What is easy is for a human to project their humanity onto other creatures that express personality, and (as we do with each other) run off the assumption that everything must be alike us for that is easiest to comprehend.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Tropism]
    #21943385 - 07/14/15 06:43 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Where is the burden in asserting the traditional psychological model?

Tropism, you are arguing for these psychological considerations in a positive sense. It seems to me that you are avoiding the inclusion of animals in the particular consideration you are yourself speaking to in an arbitrary way. I don't see how the generality and convenience of this structural model of psyche stands to deny that animals have mental patterns that are significantly and sufficiently analogous to speak of. Is there a strict difference?

It is not that difficult to see a correspondence between chimp and human psychology. (I posted a video earlier). Suffice to say there is a whole lot to see in the mirror, namely in how humans try to gain and structure of power in such a the similar way. Beaurocracy can just as much be a game. These are the exact same "mechanisms", that psychologists speak of, only in this case it is what a naturalist narrative is calling "displaying". It's all the same herd mentality.

Thinking of a psyche always in terms of a method for interrogation, a way of getting at that hidden kernal of the id, or animal instinct, can perhaps move us to think that there are stricter boundaries than there are, (in spite of the general aura of psychologists) I'd say consider what the general structure of the model supposes. It situates the id as something hidden and mystified, as the kernal of things, which we seek. Perhaps in one consideration it's something shameful to bring out into the open, or perhaps in another it's some nature we are supposed to wish to return to, but generally it is some boundary of consciousness the psychologist takes to cross. That boundary was conceived of for the expedience of the psychoanalytic method, not because it has general validity.

Psychologists imo are not "generally" consistent for this because they often assume the validity of the theory (structure) and the power of interrogation in terms of the structure in a circular way.

I think we would be much too quick to argue for something necessarily falling outside of our consideration. It is popular to impress that we marginalize animals or instinct, but maybe it's the theory that suggests it most of all as it's "structure"? Maybe on the other hand we can look right at something in a way, rather than insisting on being haunted by animal instinct.

I think the structure theory of consciousness is arbitrary, and conveniently assumed to exclude a scope of animal psyche. I would argue it is possible to consider mammalian psychology (there are such connections to make) or perhaps chimp politics, within the scope of theory.


Ever read Nietzsche?

Quote:

These English psychologists whom we have to thank for the only attempts up to this point to produce a history of the origins of morality —in themselves they serve up to us no small riddle. By way of a living riddle, they even offer, I confess, something substantially more than their books—they are interesting in themselves!

These English psychologists—what do they really want? We find them, willingly or unwillingly, always at the same work, that is, hauling the partie honteuse [shameful part] of our inner world into the foreground, in order to look right there for the truly effective and operative factor which has determined our development, the very place where man’s intellectual pride least wishes to find it (for example, in the vis inertiae [force of inertia] of habit or in forgetfulness or in a blind, contingent, mechanical joining of ideas or in something else purely passive, automatic, reflex, molecular, and fundamentally stupid)—what is it that really drives these psychologists always in this particular direction? Is it a secret, malicious, common instinct, perhaps one which cannot be acknowledged even to itself, for belittling humanity? Or something like a pessimistic suspicion, the mistrust of idealists who’ve become disappointed, gloomy, venomous, and green? Or a small underground hostility and rancour towards Christianity (and Plato), which perhaps has never once managed to cross the threshold of consciousness? Or even a lecherous taste for what is odd or painfully paradoxical, for what in existence is questionable and ridiculous? Or finally—a bit of all of these: a little vulgarity, a little gloominess, a little hostility to Christianity, a little thrill, and a need for pepper?

. . . But I’m told that these men are simply old, cold, boring frogs, who creep and hop around and into people as if they were in their own proper element, that is, in a swamp. I resist that idea when I hear it. What’s more, I don’t believe it. And if one is permitted to hope where one cannot know, then I hope from my heart that the situation with these men might be reversed, that these investigators and the ones peering at the soul through their microscopes may be thoroughly brave, generous, and proud animals, who know how to control their hearts and their pain and who at the same time have educated themselves to sacrifice everything desirable for the sake of the truth, for the sake of every truth, even the simple, bitter, hateful, repellent, unchristian, immoral truth. . . . For there are such truths. —




Edited by Kurt (07/14/15 09:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Kurt]
    #21945994 - 07/15/15 06:23 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Great post, Kurt.
Not sure I can really follow up at the moment, and I know not where the burden lies.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Tropism]
    #21946256 - 07/15/15 08:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

If you can't argue your point well, then just cross your fingers and hope that Kurt agrees with you. For he will argue your point with such depth and thoroughness as to embarrass Kant.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Survival of the Fittest vs. Genocide
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 4,185 33 02/23/08 12:28 AM
by OrgoneConclusion
* War, genocide, starvation. Are these our friends?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Icelander 7,914 87 02/28/08 08:19 AM
by Boots
* Technology and the distant future BrainChemicals 976 5 07/06/07 12:20 PM
by zoidberg215
* genocide. uriahchase 691 9 01/27/05 07:34 PM
by Jellric
* All technology should be abolished: (moved from Information Gap)
( 1 2 all )
Lakefingers 5,472 27 06/05/07 01:41 AM
by Lakefingers
* The evolution of human and technology... MOTH 1,118 11 02/24/05 09:13 AM
by CJay
* Feeling energy from technology hot48yearolds 1,172 5 02/07/07 01:31 PM
by dickdeadly
* Can technology fix the problems technology created upupup 1,812 19 12/13/02 09:51 PM
by Floydian

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,034 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.