 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)ijonspeches ...and 147 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614224 Today 6 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its all about enviroment adaptation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
everything fell in its place so nicely, the whole mechnism worked together and i got an idea of how everything actually 'IS'. .. oh truth where art thou? well, if there is nothing outside nature the spirit is part of the nature and hence a subject of science. we will understand someday i think with an aim for such finality, (which in someway is necessary for progress - though what is this progress measured against?) will always end in the same old problems of epistemology. that is if one want to establish how things "really" are - and that we can "know" this. this doesn't go to say these theories can't be of use or value though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Re: uncertainty principle - don't know the exact details, but its nice that it attempts to include ones personal involvement in theorising/experimenting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse... "I don't think bacteria have any consciousness or awareness whatsoever. They just don't have the hardware required to run that particular software." so, do you admit that you believe that there is a certain "software" that, whence assembled, consciousness is turned on in a single moment? a sort of key-code? if this is not the case, please illustrate the option i am not considering. to me that sounds like a human fantasy rather than a real function of nature. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I believe there are degrees of consciousness. And there are also things with no consciousness whatsoever. Like rocks, mushrooms, viruses, bacteria, and hippies. I don't know what the threshold is. I guess on the lowest level it would have to be multicellular, with some sort of central nervous system, no? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if it can look you in the eye, urging you to speak - perhaps? ahh.. the pikelet is back! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, it could call or write too. Pikelet - that is such a wrong word for pancake. It makes me thing of a small pickle, or a small, acrid fish. Is it pronounced with a long or a short i? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If this adaption thingy is true, does it mean that this is true aswell? : A specie (1) is faced with some selective pressure and over time becomes another specie (2), however some creatures of (1) does not adapt, but survives and remain (1). (1) who've remained (1) is later on faced with the same selective pressure that made the (1)-specie originally adapt and become the (2)-specie. Will specie (1) this time become specie (2), or a completely different specie? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
long .. as in hike. pike-let .. that might make it seem less acrid :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse, i can think of two options: 1. there are both things with and things without consciouness and thus there exists a critical "setup" of consiousness reception in which in a single moment consciousness is turned on (in which case we would be introducing into physics a new law or principle of sorts and i would be very interested in knowing the setup). 2. there is no critical setup because consciousness is at some level an inherent part of all things and therefore is not needed to be turned on. now, if there is another option, PLEASE illustrate. i've thought long and hard about it and cannot imagine any other solution and would REALLY like to know what the option is, if it exists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indigenous peoples, most or all of our ancestors, peoples that are close to the earth, people who are DOWN TO EARTH and not so removed from their environment have underdstood animism for so long. it is no surprise that as a result of removing ourselves from the environment so drastically--glass and metal soundproof bubbles to travel in, concrete walls to keep away the little critters that remind us where we (the whole human race i mean) have come from--that we lose our sense of the spirit around us that we are not in any way separate from. and we have the nerve to call ourselves the grounded ones. we've boarded ourselves up and let our heads enter the clouds, and WE are grounded?! why is it so obvious to me? if anything, i would hope that the notion of evolution would ring a bell and remind us of who we are, where we came from. but in the face of such an incredible discovery we still deny! it makes me sad. and we wonder how to bring peace and harmony to the world. we wonder what political strategy might do it. it couldn't be our fundamental understanding of who and what we are that is keeping us in discord could it? of course not. we just accept that were flawed and brush the responsibility of REAL progress aside. anybody want to take responsility? fuck you hippy, i don't want it. i want death. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
One should live as close to nature as possible. One should do what a human is built to do. Like all other species (try to) do. We shouldn't adapt ;) can you reply to my previous post, please? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
generally speaking, if the stress on the species was the same both times then the product should be the same. it works similar to this between species too.. for example. the bat and the bird and the insect and even some fish.. convergently evolved the ability to fly because they were subject to similar pressures. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, fish and then aquatic mammals are an example of that. I should know since I'm currently taking AP bio , but its called like convergant evolution or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
question: how does one come to make a distinction between what is and what is not natural? allow me to elaborate - would it be entirely incorrect to say that even objects which have not evolved on their own accord, but instead have been fashioned by a human being, are in essence natural, for the fact that they derive from natural resources and have been created by a being which came about through a natural process of evolution? since a human derives from nature, and so do the elements from which he creates the objects around him/her, are those things by extension also not natural? and even if you simply focus on human behaviour as such, can it be logically categorised as either natural or unnatural? what is the factor by which this distinction can be made, if at all? i suppose that it is as much an unsolvable dillema (in philosophical terms, at least) as the question of how we come to define what is and is not real. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think its mostly just a language problem. Generally, we say things made by humans are not natural, usually like with synthesized or manufactured things. That's all really. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is something that I have had many arguements about over the last few years. It worries me when people start describing human behaviour as unnatural, or 'outside nature'. I can see little evidence that we are anything other than natural beings, concieved, born, living, and dying according to the same natural 'laws' as the rest of nature. Yet time and time again I hear people talking of our ability to control (mainly destroy) nature, and how, as 'supreme beings', we should strive to conserve the world and the universe in a state of eternal ...1960 (for want of a better time/expression). I don't dispute the fact that we are able to influence and control certain elements within our environment, and we are able to do this on a seemingly larger scale than all other animals, but that does not put us outside of nature, or mean that our actions are unnatural. (Unless you believe in God.... then things are a little more confused). Some conservationists piss me off alot when they start banging on about protecting this area or that speices from the evils of Mans actions. I don't have a problem with protecting our environment, or preserving speices, but I do have a problem when the suggested reason for this preservation is that we are unnaturally affecting that environment, and that what we are doing is wrong. Many conservationists should get off there high horse and realise that the real reason that we need to conserve our environment is for our own benefit, and not because we are so hideously unnatural that we will end up destroying ourselves and the rest of the world. At the root of the matter is that we are animals, and we want to survive, and while we may make mistakes in the short term that result in this forest being destroyed or that fish being made extinct, in the long term we will come to understand our position in nature, and work with it for the benefit of our speices, and the rest of the natural world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can see little evidence that we are anything other than natural beings, concieved, born, living, and dying according to the same natural 'laws' as the rest of nature. We are not natural beings. Humans do not live the way they are "constructed" to. Humans are not meant to live in the type of society that we live in now, also we are (obviously) not meant to cook food before eating it. This is a problem many do not realize. But the closer an animal lives to their natural 'existence'; the better they feel. Taking away the freedom/natural 'existence' of an animal is just pure evil... If you do not agree, think again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If we are not natural beings then what are we? And what is it that has caused us to become this unnatural thing? Are you suggesting that something outside of the universe that we see around us has affected us to the point that we have become superior to the world around us? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, sorry. We're very much natural beings, but our behaviour is not natural. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'Humans are not meant to live in the type of society that we live in now' Are we supposed to live in any kind of society? What type is the 'right' type? Should we go back to the hunter/gatherer society of our ancestors? Before or after they started using tools? Other animals have societies, and use tools to improve their chances of survival... what makes us any different? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Our behaviour is a product of our being and our environment. Both of which you have said are natural... so where does unnatural part of our behaviour come from? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are we supposed to live in any kind of society? depends on how you define "society". What type is the 'right' type? Should we go back to the hunter/gatherer society of our ancestors? Before or after they started using tools? I meant in my previous post that the structure of the society is what is unnatural. Many other things are unnatural aswell, but let's leave them out for the moment. Other animals have societies Again, that depends on how you define "society". I guess I am more thinking of a 'modern society', eventhough I just say society. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Our behaviour is a product of our being and our environment. Both of which you have said are natural... so where does unnatural part of our behaviour come from? Our behaviour is a product of the culture we grow up in, as we do not grow up in nature. So the unnatural behaviour (obviously) comes from the culture we grow up in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Even when not discussing natural/unnatural behaviour; societies, as they are today, aren't good for most of the people who live in them - they are only good for the few people who are in power (e.g. through owning/$$$). If you do not agree... think about it, in a bigger perspective. Societies decrease individual freedom, and e.g. forces you to pay for food. - It is defineatly not the way it should be. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
perhaps you should read back a few posts? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes i said it before, hence you are right :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
some suggestions: humans are by no means extraneous to nature, as they have derived from it and continue to be a part of the cycle of life. the mere fact that as human beings we have a greater influence on our environment (and i mean this in both an immediate sense and a more broader definition of the term 'environment') than any other species on earth does not put us on a pedestal which vindicates us above nature. this does not necessarily mean that how we come to interact with our environment cannot be defined in positive and negative terms, in as far as the survival of the species is concerned - in certain instances, we may be striving towards self-annihilation, where as in others we strive towards self-sustenance, but neither case cannot be defined as an instance of unnatural behaviour. the notion that something is "unnatural" is a purely academic and an absurd one at that. even if we come to completely devastate our planet and wipe out every living being on the face of the earth (including ourselves), nature will be no more better or worse for that fact - it will simply continue to be. simple logic would dictate that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for humans to think themselves as having a special place in the universe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that is very interesting from a philosphical point of view (and it is a nice thought) but it can obviously also serve as an argument for the bush administration (for example) to cancle the kyoto agreement. and this is where another thing comes in: men have imagination and thus we have a choice (because we can imagine the consequences) and that implies responsibility and this again implies the need for principle in a moral sense (e.g. morality) and all in all this is the line we draw between nature and mankind. We are different, we are responsibility. There is no logical reason for morality but we decide to choose it. to sum up - nature will be. but it is our fate to be what we are, we mustn't deny our responsibility (very interesting remark, btw) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*are responsible. man, i want an edit button |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cheffe: i do agree with what you have written, but you are making a self-contradictory statement by implying the following: "nature will be. but it is our fate to be what we are, we mustn't deny our responsibility " if, as you say, human beings are capable of making choices for reasons of being able to foresee (at least to a partial degree) the outcome of their actions, then by this virtue, it implies that we can choose either to destroy ourselves and everything around us, or preseve ourselves and our environment. neither will be a 'wrong' or a 'right' choice, but just that - a choice. making choices does not carry with it the implication of morality. nature is amoral in and of itself. we do not have an obligation to our own species to continue human existence - only in as far as we choose to do so (on an individual as well as a collective level) does this come into play. to clarify my point: choice does not equate to necessity. the moment something becomes 'necessary', the notion of there existing such thing as 'choice' goes out the window. this is not to say that i support either the dubya administration or the destruction of life on our planet - i'm just merely stating the laws of logic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nature is amoral in and of itself. yes. but we are not only part of the nature, we are more (i think you agreed on that). the possibility of choices (to whatever degree they might be forseeable) does not imply the necessity of morality (you are right so far), but the possibility. and we choose morality. there is NO logical reason for that choice, it even is outside nature (in the sense we used the word). laws of nature are formulated in a more or less logical fashion (logical statements are forms of laws of nature, something like when A and B then C) and hence nature is to be understood logically. You see i give no reason at all for the choice above. i can't, because the reason as well as the choice are outside nature. As long as i use the language i describe nature with, i can't even express the problem. that's what wittgenstein means with 'If we have solved all problems of science, our real problems haven't even been touched' (i have given the quote above, i'm translating so it is a little different now i think). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually, the point i was attempting to make is that humans are very much a part of nature, and by no means above it. i therefore would not agree with the statement: "but we are not only part of the nature, we are more". nature is self-contained - nothing lies either below or (perhaps especially) above it. everything is on an essentially level plain - all subject to the cycle of creation and destruction. logic, reason, thought, consciousness, self-awareness, rationality, choice, etc. - are all a part of human nature, and since humans arise from it and are both the object and the subject of nature and its laws, just as much as everything else in the universe, the only possible conclusion to draw from this is that all things are natural. however, and again, i could not stress this enough, natural does not necessarily equal good. nature is neutral and 'good' and 'bad', just as anything to do with language, are very subjective terms. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nothing is outside of nature. "natural" does not me good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"let us now discuss the mental attitude: the mental must always stay calm; you must let nothing move you - be it good or bad; but when the mental cannot be moved, there is no longer good or bad - there just is. when there just is, you have the power to form and shape; so now, witness: the wrath of the math" - jeru the damaja one thing i will definitely agree on: it is this sort of a healthy exchange of viewpoints, life experiences and knowledge which goes on here which makes life a joyous, interesting and worthwile experience! xltronic.com messageboard owns! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nature is simply the way of reality. that which is natural is not in conflict with the forces of physics. therefore, to say that humans are above nature or more than nature is to literally say they humanity is supernatural. that we are more divine than that which we trample is underlying our discord with earth. in our belief this belief we are a disease to the living planet. we do not have to be a disease if we recognize the equality between us and the planet and everything it contains. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed :) it is also this sort of exchange which may save humanity. no outside force will save humanity. only individual actions and attitudes can save humanity. it starts with mutual education such as this. the future of humanity is the responsibility of no one but ourselves. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So do you think that humans have adapted to where we are now; how we live our lives now; and that humans behave "natural" (--> meaning they do what they were constructed to do)? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anythng humans do is natural, including paving the entire planet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
define: "what humans were constructed to do" what is this thing we were created to 'be' or 'do'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we weren't consctructed to do anything. it is our own will. you can't blame what we do on anyone but ourselves. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fuck humanity. My dog lives better than humans do. He sees life for what it is, and does definetly not complicate things more than they have to. All humans are born with something we call pride. I say fuck Pride. Pride makes us stupid and ignorant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks for posting! define: "what humans were constructed to do" what is this thing we were created to 'be' or 'do'? I mean that humans has an ideal environment, just like all other species do. >>>We were constructed for this environment.>>> So... the question again, and please answer it again, as I think you misunderstood it; Do you think that humans have adapted to where we are now--how we live our lives now--and that humans do what they were constructed to do? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
replace "constructed" with "forced" as in by the forces of physical nature and you are right. this assumes no free will though. which is to assume we can do nothing. which is to say, back to the drawing board for me 0_0 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
have you been reading everything? i pretty much tore down human pride. the only pride i have is as a part of the entire universe. i place myself above nothing, for i am everything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
unless! unless the forces of physical nature are not separate from will... it seems to be the only answer. stephen hawking talks of this universe being one of infinite possibilities... maybe it is will guiding the universe that we experience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
replace "constructed" with "forced" as in by the forces of physical nature and you are right. this assumes no free will though. which is to assume we can do nothing. which is to say, back to the drawing board for me 0_0 I didn't get this post... sorry... can you elaborate? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you ask whether or not we were "constructed." to be constructed sounds as if some thing constructed us. the only thing that constructed us is the forces of phsyics. to me it sounds clearer to say that "we are a result of the forces of physical nature" i am refering to such forces as gravity and electromagnetivity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you ask whether or not we were "constructed." sorry that was not the question. The question was if you think humans live in their ideal environment, and if they behave* ideally (for themselves that is; I mean if we behave in what would be the ideal way for us, in the way we would feel ideal). * sleep ideal, eat ideal, etc... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if i understand your question correctly... i am of the opinion that we currently live in a state far from ideal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
