|
hobowizard
beginner
Registered: 04/10/15
Posts: 192
|
How I see the world in ~500 years
#21919779 - 07/09/15 12:23 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Money. The love for it is the root of evil. Now... Now, it can't be removed from our life, because people need to work (we work for money > our p. much only motivation for now), so, we need to work to provide each other with service, food and all kind of things. Let me remind you of antique - there were many slaves back then, working for nothing while the citizens could do some intellectual work. But what if I told you that technologies are improving real fast? We, humans, create robots which are capable of more and more things day by day. It's just a matter of time till we'll see robots giving us drinks at a cafe and it's just a matter of time till robots do all the physical labor. Then... Ohhh, then we won't be needing to do these fucked up jobs anymore... Robots would do everything for p. much free! We would just need to simply find the best power source to provide them with. And then the money would not be required to exist. Then we would create true masterpieces because we would all be left with one job. The true job of human beings. Create.
Humans are made to create, we live for our enjoyment and we receive best enjoyment by creating something. Everyone will be a philosopher. Everyone will be creator. Everyone will be true human being.
That's how I see future.
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: hobowizard]
#21919924 - 07/09/15 12:58 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Robots are destined to take over and kill all the humans. Don't you watch movies?
--------------------
|
hobowizard
beginner
Registered: 04/10/15
Posts: 192
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Sun King]
#21919968 - 07/09/15 01:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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: hobowizard]
#21922540 - 07/09/15 11:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Couldn't agree more, although I doubt it will take 500 years to get there.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21922556 - 07/09/15 11:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
When manual labor is no longer needed the people in power will kill most of the humans. The money it took to have the Georgia guide stones built kinda makes me think it's serious business. Plus, the wealthy will no longer need the poor so it kinda makes sense anyway.
-------------------- 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
|
TEAMSESH
Stranger


Registered: 04/08/15
Posts: 203
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21922579 - 07/09/15 11:26 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Idk I personally DONT think we are natural creators we procreate and use other already created things to make new things . But being creators like god idk probably not.
our true nature is smash you with a rock or fighting for territory making baby's and eating and making baby's . I sometimes wish I lived in north America in the year 2000bc is there any history of north America 2000bc? probably hardly any illness much hair on my chest damn that be nice. Fuck flying cars fuck all that give me land food seeds of every edible plant and I'm good fuck the new world o want the stone age! Lol. What's this thread about again?
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: hobowizard]
#21923101 - 07/10/15 04:48 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Robots in 500 years?
Try robots walking in your street in less than 50 years, cars whizzing by with no driver. Yes in your lifetime.
It has already begun.
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
hobowizard
beginner
Registered: 04/10/15
Posts: 192
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: TEAMSESH]
#21923189 - 07/10/15 05:44 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TEAMSESH said: Idk I personally DONT think we are natural creators we procreate and use other already created things to make new things . But being creators like god idk probably not.
our true nature is smash you with a rock or fighting for territory making baby's and eating and making baby's . I sometimes wish I lived in north America in the year 2000bc is there any history of north America 2000bc? probably hardly any illness much hair on my chest damn that be nice. Fuck flying cars fuck all that give me land food seeds of every edible plant and I'm good fuck the new world o want the stone age! Lol. What's this thread about again?
you described a simple mammal and human isn't simple mammal, it's much more.
Quote:
Asante said: Robots in 500 years?
Try robots walking in your street in less than 50 years, cars whizzing by with no driver. Yes in your lifetime.
It has already begun.

I was talking in general >worldwide robots> every country lives the same as others, pure equality because everyone could have what the wanted p. much for free.
Edited by hobowizard (07/10/15 05:46 AM)
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: hobowizard]
#21924008 - 07/10/15 10:54 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
well lets see 500 years ago copernicus put forth his theory that the sun was central to our solar system not the earth. The compound microscope was also invented and used. 400 years ago the telescope was invented. Advances in math such as cubic equations, decimal notation and the development of the real number system, trigonometry and more.
From then until now we have seen exponential expansion on all knowledge regarding these concepts and more. We were for the first time able to conceptualize the microsphere and the macrosphere.
Going forward, it would be reasonable to say that our understanding of micro and macro will continue on its exponential expansion. I think that exploration and discovery of places and objects outside of our solar system will become normal. Our observation and understanding of subatomic particles such as quarks will continue in the same fashion, most likely exposing smaller and smaller pieces into infinity of whats makes up everything. We may fully understand string theory, or it may be replaced by that point. I believe will will start to see less and less silicone based technology and start to see more biological based technology. The idea of growing an organic computer is already being tested and brainets do exist now with a few mice. creating such things now leads to future questions of pushing the envelope to human brainets. Which also ties into the concept of human/tissue cloning and slavery and very matrix-like scenarios of humans plugged in for their resources.
Could be scary stuff
--------------------
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
|
Asante
Mage


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,797
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: nuentoter]
#21924041 - 07/10/15 11:07 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Almost everything that changed in the last 500 years, changed in the last 50 years.
2025 is gonna be
-------------------- Omnicyclion.org higher knowledge starts here
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: hobowizard]
#21924238 - 07/10/15 12:14 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you described a simple mammal and human isn't simple mammal, it's much more.
You're right. No other mammal has ever expressed such horrific behaviors as us. Psychopathy, genocide, etc.. No other mammal has ever been so sick.
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Tropism] 1
#21924786 - 07/10/15 02:03 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
no other mammal has ever had such beautiful insight either. Music, art, literature, etc..
--------------------
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
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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]
#21925703 - 07/10/15 06:48 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're right. No other mammal has ever expressed such horrific behaviors as us. Psychopathy, genocide, etc.. No other mammal has ever been so sick.
Not true. Lots of other animals are worse than us. Take chimps for example. The probability that a chimp will die at the hands of another chimp is, and always has been higher than within homo-sapiens, even at our most violent times.
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21928203 - 07/11/15 10:03 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You have anything to back that up? Not that it really addresses the illness I mentioned, only good old fashioned murder, which is not outside the box for any species.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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] 1
#21930498 - 07/11/15 07:38 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You have anything to back that up?
Yes, read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" Not only are many other animals much more violent than we are, but humans are actually becoming increasingly more peaceful. We are likely living in the most peaceable time in history.
Quote:
Not that it really addresses the illness I mentioned, only good old fashioned murder, which is not outside the box for any species
Quote:
No other mammal has ever expressed such horrific behaviors as us. Psychopathy, genocide, etc.. No other mammal has ever been so sick.
Genocides happen in all sorts of species all the time, don't you watch nature shows? And as for psychopathy, I sincerely doubt the rates of psychopathy in humans is significantly different from any other mammal species.
Humans are by no means the sickest mammalian species ever, nor are we the most violent, nor are we the most genocidal. I don't know why you are suggesting this. Yes it's true that modern technology allows us to kill more easily and in larger numbers than with other species, but if other species had access to the same technology we would likely see even worse results. As far as our instincts, moral sense, empathy etc. we are in no way any more evil than many other species (including other mammals).
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21930537 - 07/11/15 07:48 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Conflict is often followed with lots of grooming.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21930677 - 07/11/15 08:17 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
So you think that because man is not the most despicable animal, he is excused for his sins?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
So you think that because man is not the most despicable animal, he is excused for his sins?
Sins? Do you mean that in the religious sense?
I'm also not just talking about men, but women also. We should strive to be as ethically good as we can, even if that means overcoming our primitive apish urges. In no way am I trying to excuse humans for the awful things we have all done, I'm just pointing out a fact that is often forgotten: Humans are animals too. We aren't special in kind, we are just animals that evolved to have opposable thumbs, and a more developed brain than other animals. We aren't especially morally good or especially morally bad when compared with other animals. The very fact that we are able to recognize the errors of our ways allows us to correct our innate, instinctual behavior, as we see happening almost all around the world. This is a good thing.
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: secondorder]
#21932743 - 07/12/15 10:15 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said: Yes, read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" Not only are many other animals much more violent than we are, but humans are actually becoming increasingly more peaceful. We are likely living in the most peaceable time in history.
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.
Quote:
Humans are by no means the sickest mammalian species ever, nor are we the most violent, nor are we the most genocidal. I don't know why you are suggesting this. Yes it's true that modern technology allows us to kill more easily and in larger numbers than with other species, but if other species had access to the same technology we would likely see even worse results. As far as our instincts, moral sense, empathy etc. we are in no way any more evil than many other species (including other mammals).
I have never seen another animal commit a genocide. A genocide is an organized extermination, an expression of a collective will. I haven't seen another animal with (seemingly) the communicable capabilities except maybe that of dolphins. Even in cases of natural species-to-species hate that doesn't add up to a genocide. Humans typically hate mosquitoes and will eradicate them from their home and habitat if possible, but this is separated from genocide by a wide-margin.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: How I see the world in ~500 years [Re: Tropism]
#21934585 - 07/12/15 06:21 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Insofar as I can tell, Tropism is totally right. Man is the only critter that exterminates, and this separates us from the other critters in the most dubious fashion.
Above, you can substitute "man's atrocities" for "sins." I feel that in a primary sense they are interchangeable here.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
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.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



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
|
DottoreWolfe
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.
|
Kurt
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.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


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
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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.
|
Kurt
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.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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!
|
Kurt
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?
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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)
|
nuentoter
conduit



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
|
Tropism
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.
|
Kurt
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)
|
Tropism
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.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



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.
|
|