Computer Science Canada So much for *that* debate |
Author: | wtd [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | So much for *that* debate |
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=12425024&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews |
Author: | MysticVegeta [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
wow I have a feeling this is gonna start one more not-so-great debate except on whether god exists or not... So I would like to stay neutral ![]() |
Author: | Andy [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: So much for *that* debate |
Deuteronomy 6:16 wrote: Do not test the LORD your God |
Author: | Delos [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: So much for *that* debate |
Andy wrote: Deuteronomy 6:16 wrote: Do not test the LORD your God Does it say anything about the smiting of stupid people? ![]() |
Author: | rizzix [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They'll smite themselves. |
Author: | Martin [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Well, this article settles it. I think that we can all agree that extreme religious people should not be allowed to play with lions. |
Author: | chrispminis [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I like lions ![]() |
Author: | Dan [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Well this dose help drawns theroy of the servial of the fitest. Stupied peoleop kill them selves off and thus help the gen pool by not creating more stupied peoleop. @Martin: I disagrea, i think we need more lions and less religious extermists. Think about it we slove the problem of over population of the earth, help keep the lions from going endarngerd, and improve the human gen poll. @WTD: Thanks, this made my day. |
Author: | Mazer [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
How about we stop poking religious people and go with all extremists? I was just reading an interview with Steve Ballmer today, and I can't help but imagine how entertaining it would be to see him in there with the lion. |
Author: | Ninja [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
well, very sad story indeed. All im going to say is that, even though im a hindu, i believe and respect every religion. Some people here may not agree with me, but thats ok. I dont wanna get in an argument about religion here and get into a big fight about it. Everyone has their own opinion on religion as well as everything else in their life, and i respect that.As for that guy, lets be practical now. God is a spiritual energy, and jumping in a cage of hungry tigers is just not something that anyone would wanna do. But then again, theres a lot of crazy people out there. |
Author: | md [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I think this is less a case of religion causing stupidity and more a case of stupidity finding religion. I vote we just feed all stupid people to lions. ![]() |
Author: | Dan [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Ninja wrote: well, very sad story indeed. All im going to say is that, even though im a hindu......
Just whonder what denomination of hinduism you subscrib to. I have been studying hindu and hinduism lattey and whould love to here your take on it. EDITED TO MAKE RIZZIX HAPPY SINCE SIPFIECTLY STATEING WHAT I MEAN IS JUST NOT ENOUGTH..... |
Author: | codemage [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:55 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The only thing this proves is that lions don't discriminate when it comes to "the other red meat". |
Author: | Ninja [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:33 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Well, due to my family background and history, our "Traditional" denimination would be Shavism (the God Shiva), but like i said, i believe in everything equally. In all hindu homes, they have a separate room or portion of the house for worshiping their gods. In india, and even here in Canada, we have one room separate for that. How our religion works is that we have small statues of Gods that represent them and then we recite hyms and prayers from our holy books, such as the rayamana (The life history of God Rama). Some of our friends back in india had statues of one God in their house only. The reason being every God not only represents their belief, but also a certain power. For example Goddess Lakshmi represents the goddess of Wealth. On the birth day of God Rama, people worship him and his wife, goddess Lakshmi, for bringing wealth in their house. Just like some people worship God Hanuman for strength and protection. Its really interesting like you said, because its really hard to focus on all of the Gods we have, so some people only choose one type. In ancient times, the warrior class used to worship God Hanuman for strength and protection at the time of war. I could get more into it, but my teacher just walked in lol..im at school right now im programing class. Hope this helps. If u have any more questions, feel free to ask bro. ![]() |
Author: | wtd [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:31 am ] |
Post subject: | |
For all the people taking themselves way too seriously, let me just say that I posted this in a spirit of humor. I myself am an atheist, but I do not believe the existence of any god or gods can be proven or disproven, even with lions. |
Author: | md [ Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: For all the people taking themselves way too seriously, let me just say that I posted this in a spirit of humor. I myself am an atheist, but I do not believe the existence of any god or gods can be proven or disproven, even with lions.
Surely the existance of god can be proven with lions! We simply haven't fed enough people to them! /me also points out that this was humourous... though feeding gullible/stupid people to lions might be entertaining... |
Author: | codemage [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:59 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: Surely the existance of god can be proven with lions!
Surely it can. We just need someone to argue that lions are intelligently designed. /bait |
Author: | wtd [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Cornflake wrote: Surely the existance of god can be proven with lions!
Surely it can. We just need someone to argue that lions are intelligently designed. More intelligently than zoo-goers in Kiev, apparently. |
Author: | Clayton [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
but what about the people who believe in god so much and end up losing their lives over "him"? what does that prove or disprove? that person may be frowned upon by god, or there may be no god, so you never really know, also note that was good for a laugh ![]() |
Author: | md [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: codemage wrote: Cornflake wrote: Surely the existance of god can be proven with lions!
Surely it can. We just need someone to argue that lions are intelligently designed. More intelligently than zoo-goers in Kiev, apparently. Could not you argue that that's proof that god himself wasn't intelligently designed? 'Cause surely if God were intelligent he'd have made smarter zoo keepers. |
Author: | chrispminis [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Naw, guys you have to understand, that God needed that zookeeper in heaven, to take care of his exotic pets. Everyone has a purpose, and a time to die to do Gods bidding, just in this case, feed and pick up angelic giraffe poop. Lol On the topic of survival of the fittest, what are your views towards... Efficiency vs. Attractiveness What is in the end the more important factor? |
Author: | Anonymous [ Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
haha a man died. he shouldnt of tried doing that, maybe he was stoned or something... god wouldn't make him do that. or if he did truely believe in god, he should know miracles wont just happen like that... |
Author: | codemage [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:25 am ] |
Post subject: | |
chrispminis wrote: Efficiency vs. Attractiveness : What is in the end the more important factor?
Efficiency in the end. Attractiveness earns quite a few points in the middle though. They're instinctually linked, though. A brawny male lion with big shoulders, strong legs and long, sharp teeth is probably very efficient at its job - as well as being attractive to potential mates. |
Author: | md [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
chrispminis wrote: Efficiency vs. Attractiveness What is in the end the more important factor? There are lots of other factors too, however looking good gets you close enough for the rest to matter so it's probably most important. |
Author: | wtd [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:24 am ] |
Post subject: | |
In most cases, animals' ideas of attractiveness are innately geared to judging attributes that are key to survival, and survival of offspring. For human males, we often look at things like hips and breasts. Both play a role in the birth and nurturing of offspring. We've even adapted this to our fairly artificial society. Good looks, if not crucial to survival are going to get preferential treatment. The wife with the nice smile and pretty eyes stands a better chance of seeing a pediatrician in a timely manner. |
Author: | chrispminis [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
If one is efficient, one is more capable to pursue a mate. If one is attractive, one can sit around and wait for the efficient to come pursuing. Also, can this explain the promiscuity(?) of the art community, and perhaps the purpose of art? |
Author: | wtd [ Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I'm not fond of attributing all of human endeavor to instinctual mating drives. ![]() |
Author: | Dan [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: I'm not fond of attributing all of human endeavor to instinctual mating drives.
![]() Thank you wtd, i was just about to post a long rant that side just about that. I whould think we have evloed behond life and all our existance being solely about primitive urgeses. I whould like to think humans on average are above the shalow view that only the pysical maters at this day and age even if some aspects of socity do not seem to agrea. |
Author: | TheOneTrueGod [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:27 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Humans like to think that because its the easiest way to put us above animals. Though really, everything we do is driven by primitive urges. Wars are all about fighting to be the "alpha male", if you will. You work so you can earn money so you can eat, and therefore survive. School is the way that the "elders" teach us to "hunt" for food. Once you have food, you next start looking for a mate. Once you have a mate, you want children. Once you have children, you generally start training them for their life, and after that, you retire, and let the young'uns take care of you, by bringing you food. As for things like art, or drama, I personally don't see anything fancy about them at all, which, though it may seem shallow, kind of makes me wonder about how many people are just making up whatever they see in drama or art just to fit in. As far as fitting in goes, humans work together as a pack in order to get food / mates. If you don't fit in, you don't get either easily. |
Author: | Dan [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
TheOneTrueGod wrote: Humans like to think that because its the easiest way to put us above animals. Though really, everything we do is driven by primitive urges. Wars are all about fighting to be the "alpha male", if you will.
If hummans where the same as aniamals we whould not have contioness and slef awerness. Becues we have this it gives us the ablity to step behiond that of such desiers. The fact that we are having this debate at all proves that or that this site exists at all dose. If we where only driven but such deisrers then we whould not see things like the buddist, hindu and jain movmentes from indian or any others that are soley about limiting and geting ride of primal urges and we also whould not see the delvopment of things like art or any fourm of charity or giving in the world. TheOneTrueGod wrote: As for things like art, or drama, I personally don't see anything fancy about them at all, which, though it may seem shallow, kind of makes me wonder about how many people are just making up whatever they see in drama or art just to fit in. As far as fitting in goes, humans work together as a pack in order to get food / mates. If you don't fit in, you don't get either easily. I don't get how art is just fiting in. For it to be just fiting it, it whould have to exits to begin with. And if it existied to begin with some one had to have done it to start with thus proving that in some way there where above the animal level. Also if you look at chlidern playing befor all of the social brain washing sets in you will notice alot of what they do is highly creative and art like. Everything form creating imagnery worlds to drawing pictures and crearting other arts and crafts. Thess chidlern are not doing so becues they think it makes them fit in but becues they are driven by the part of us that dose not make us animals. The contness and creative sides that also drive us. Inaddtion to thess points, as i was talking about befor i think relgion is a good indaction that we have somthing above the coman being on erath. Descipte that some relgiones can do negitve things they all complite existscen and deal with moral codes witch almost all talk about limting thess eratly desieres and becues pure with out the animal part. In fact most relgiones belive that if some one is pure enougth they will leave the last pysical parts that bind them to the eraly direses that link us to the animals and that we will asnended to another realm free of such things. If we where just a bouch of animal direses with a psyical body why whould we complicate such things? It dose not help any of our direses, in fact it aucatly hinders them. Also in many cases it is not about fiting it or compling to socity. The fact that we have any kind of plisopical thought at all shows a spreation. Also as i mentioned before the fact that we have charity in the world and giving to others with out excpecting anything back also goses agisted the primal urges theroy you have. And fianly if i was only driven by primal ugres at my core why whould i be here debating this? What could be gained form it? And more so what could be gained from going to this site and helping and deabting in general. If anything i lose moeny and time from it. So it is not excatly fufulling my ugres here. P.S. i think we should rember that the highkery of needs is not the same as primal urges althougth the lower levels are close to the same. |
Author: | chrispminis [ Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Haha, I dont like attributing all of the worlds everything to evolution, and I like to put myself above animals. But what is consciousness and self-awareness. It is known that certain organisms lack self awareness (They dont know they exist), but how do we know only humans are aware...? Isnt imagination really just the ability to simulate a situation beforehand, most likely to improve upon mistakes or run throught social interactions? I mean sure we use imagination for much more, but thats the side effect. Its like orgasm is used to encourage copulation, but there is the side effect of masturbation or oral sex etc. It is said that the human brain is only as developed as it is because we are a very social people. We need to remember the behaviours of many different people, remember our place, and remember who to trust, and who will backstab you. Things dont always come about in the most efficient ways. Not only is it survival of the fittest, but also the luckiest. Situations favor certain things, or sometimes, just dont punish them. Basically its survival of whatever survives, but obviously those that have the will to survive and the abilities to aid this survival will have the tendency to survive. Of course, primal urges cant be the only factor all the time. Altruism can be explained, (perhaps you are actually furthering your well being as well), but also societies with altruistic members tend to thrive, and do better than societes who compete amongst themselves, thus these societies survive, and so we are left with mostly nice people (i hope). There will always be exploiters who take advantage of the short term, by exploiting. Art has always had a powerful effect on human life. Although a bit of it is fitting in, it could also be related to the handicap idea (theory?). If two men race, and they tie... but one of them was carrying a sack of potatoes. Obviously you see the guy with the sack of potatoes as superior since he accomplished the same as the other guy, but with a heavy load. Of course while you can have varying degrees of health, otherwise survival is survival, and basically everyone who is alive is almost tied. So of course the ones with a slight handicap are favored as the stronger ones. This explains things such as antlers, no bones in human penis etc. If one guy is doing just as well as another guy, but he has the spare time to make pretty things, he is probably better at what hes doing. So yeah. my thoughts. feel free to completely rebuke them but whatever. |
Author: | Dan [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:30 am ] |
Post subject: | |
chrispminis wrote: Haha, I dont like attributing all of the worlds everything to evolution, and I like to put myself above animals.
Then why are you using them? Why aren't you living in the forest some where wearing nohting and living off the land only? You say you do not put you'r self above animals yet you do. I also bet you have a harder time killing a human then an animal. chrispminis wrote: But what is consciousness and self-awareness. It is known that certain organisms lack self awareness (They dont know they exist), Aucatly almost every organisms on this earth other then hummans dose not have self awareness. There may be only 2 epections and thos are very big maybes witch i disargea with. chrispminis wrote: but how do we know only humans are aware...? The fact that you can ask that proves that we are. chrispminis wrote: Isnt imagination really just the ability to simulate a situation beforehand, most likely to improve upon mistakes or run throught social interactions? Nope, if anything that whould be memeory. But even memeory is not just that. chrispminis wrote: I mean sure we use imagination for much more, but thats the side effect. Its like orgasm is used to encourage copulation, but there is the side effect of *********ion or oral sex etc. Ummmm, no. Imagination is not a side effect and an orgasm function is not sex but to interract with the pysical world. The fact that we have sexual acts that can not resulet in copulation should prove that we are difrent form animals alone. It is not a side effect. A side effects is an unintenataly resoutle of somthing unrealed. This is both inintenal and realted to humanas have an self awwerness. chrispminis wrote: It is said that the human brain is only as developed as it is because we are a very social people. Who says this? And if it is ture it is assuming evlepotion is ture witch you just put down at the top. chrispminis wrote: We need to remember the behaviours of many different people, remember our place, and remember who to trust, and who will backstab you. Before hummans had a fullly devopleted self awserness and contioness this was true. But even then memeory was used for much much more. Simpely memeory is a tool, it's exsitance alone dose not prove anything about primeal urges but it's useage dose. I could list of 10000s of examples of the usages of memeory that do not help in surivial in any way. For example i just studtey for my mid term in world relgiones, this corses is not even part of my main progam and will not help or server my primral urges in any way. In fact studying for it goses agist them. chrispminis wrote: Things dont always come about in the most efficient ways. Aucatly they usesly do in the end, we just are not there yet nessarly. But if you look at the world and all of it's systems both small and large it is very effcient with all things considered. chrispminis wrote: Not only is it survival of the fittest, but also the luckiest. In reality there is no such thing as luck, or even randomness. This is why computers have a very hard time making turely random numbers. Our best atmptes at random numbers have been using sound in a room or pic of a laval lamp. But even thess are prictictable with enouth math. chrispminis wrote: Situations favor certain things, or sometimes, just dont punish them. Basically its survival of whatever survives, but obviously those that have the will to survive and the abilities to aid this survival will have the tendency to survive. Wow you just conurdicted your self so many times in there and basiclky just side "survival of the fittest". Tho we should think about what darwine ment by "fittest", he did not simpley mean the strongest pysical but the ones able to apatated best to the everment at hand. chrispminis wrote: Of course, primal urges cant be the only factor all the time. Altruism can be explained, (perhaps you are actually furthering your well being as well), but also societies with altruistic members tend to thrive, and do better than societes who compete amongst themselves, thus these societies survive, and so we are left with mostly nice people (i hope). There will always be exploiters who take advantage of the short term, by exploiting. What??? You just totaly undermind your own point now...... chrispminis wrote: Art has always had a powerful effect on human life. Although a bit of it is fitting in How is it fitting in? Rarely do i see aritests on t.v. or put above the likes of athletes and actors. In fact most artests don't fit in to socitey well at all. And why whould making art help surival at all? If anything it goses agested the primal urges. chrispminis wrote: , it could also be related to the handicap idea (theory?). If two men race, and they tie... but one of them was carrying a sack of potatoes. Obviously you see the guy with the sack of potatoes as superior since he accomplished the same as the other guy, but with a heavy load. Of course while you can have varying degrees of health, otherwise survival is survival, and basically everyone who is alive is almost tied. So of course the ones with a slight handicap are favored as the stronger ones. This explains things such as antlers, no bones in human ***** etc. If one guy is doing just as well as another guy, but he has the spare time to make pretty things, he is probably better at what hes doing. Not only did that not have anything to do with "fiting in with art", it had no point relavent to this debate and was just random. chrispminis wrote: So yeah. my thoughts. feel free to completely rebuke them but whatever. I find it funny that you can aruge what you do when there have been masive movments in the past and prensent to free ones self of primeal urges completly. I find it hard to blive that we are just driven by primeal urges when millions can blive in the teachings of buddhaism, jainism and hinduism and many others with all teach agisted what you are saying. |
Author: | Mazer [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:00 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: chrispminis wrote: Haha, I dont like attributing all of the worlds everything to evolution, and I like to put myself above animals.
You say you do not put you'r self above animals yet you do. ??? |
Author: | wtd [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: If hummans where the same as aniamals we whould not have contioness and slef awerness.
The only thing humans have over (some) other animals is the opposable thumb. Give dolphins that advantage and the human species would be royally boned. |
Author: | Dan [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:34 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Mazer wrote: Hacker Dan wrote: chrispminis wrote: Haha, I dont like attributing all of the worlds everything to evolution, and I like to put myself above animals.
You say you do not put you'r self above animals yet you do. ??? Ok, that one i miss read, was eraly in the morning =p. wtd wrote: The only thing humans have over (some) other animals is the opposable thumb. Give dolphins that advantage and the human species would be royally boned. I whould say that the opposable thumb maybe be a peruesict for a spefies to become self awaser and devlop tehconly but it dose not mean they have to or will if they have one. Also i think it is clear that what spreaetes hummans from animals is self awerness and a fully devlopedt continess. I very much doubth that dolphins understand what is above the waters inwitch they live. |
Author: | wtd [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:32 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: Also i think it is clear that what spreaetes hummans from animals is self awerness and a fully devlopedt continess. I very much doubth that dolphins understand what is above the waters inwitch they live.
I'm pretty certain my dog is fully self-aware and conscious. He also possesses as good an idea of what surrounds him as his senses can provide. I can say no more for myself. Observation shapes the world in terms of my senses. It does not tell me the actual state of the world. |
Author: | Dan [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I am not going to draw out a long debate but simpley i disagrea with the idea that animals have full self awserness. Since this whould be very hard to prove either way i will just leave it at my option and acpected that others have differing ones. |
Author: | Boo-chan [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:35 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It all depends on how you define self awareness. If you use it to mean an awareness of how you feel(pain, hunger etc) then I'm pretty sure that all but the most basic of creatures have it. If you take it to mean an understanding of why you take certain actions and why you think certain ways, then I believe that noone can be really self aware. I know I'm not truly self aware, introspection does have its logical limits since it depends on a unbiased observer which is impossible to have. A more important question would be why does it really matter whether animals are self aware or not? To be honest it appears that you are attempting to state your superiority over animals since you have self awareness and they supposedly don't. There really isn't anything wrong with that since its a rather human impulse, I myself judge others based on skill at Halo ![]() |
Author: | TheOneTrueGod [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Er, i'm pretty sure self awareness is the realization that you exist as an individual. Take the ant, for example. It doesn't know that it exists as an individual. If it sees itself in a mirror, it won't know that the reflection is itself, and it will think the reflection is another ant. |
Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
that may or may not be, if an ant knows its job (in the colony the worker ants for example) then how could it not be self aware? it has to know its there if it knows what its specific job is, but animals having self-awareness can be argued from both ways so... but anyway, i believe that all living animals (except extremely basic) have a self-awareness, and i have a hard time believeing that something can live and not have any idea about what he/she/it is, it just doesnt seem right or logical |
Author: | Tony [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
TheOneTrueGod wrote: If it sees itself in a mirror, it won't know that the reflection is itself, and it will think the reflection is another ant.
well just "another ant", not a "reflection of another ant". Heh ![]() Anyways, this has to do with capasity of understanding. If you introduce some new technology (in this case mirror), would one be able to understand how it works? We understand how mirrors work. Though what about taking it a step further - full 3D, real-life projection of ourselves? And instead of simply mirroring our physical movement at an instance, this projection will instead mirror our persona: behaviour, the way we act, things we say, etc. Would you be able to be aware that this is a mirror render of your persona? |
Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
well, if that rendered persona was exactly like you in every way, one would have to assume that it was a "reflection" (for want of a better word) of him/herself/it. as i stated before, i support the theory that all living things are self-aware, so assuming that no two things are the same, you should be aware that the "reflection" is not real and a duplicate of oneself |
Author: | Cervantes [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
SuperFreak82 wrote: well, if that rendered persona was exactly like you in every way, one would have to assume that it was a "reflection" (for want of a better word) of him/herself/it.
What if it were a clone? But would a clone behave exactly the same? How much can environment change? Nature versus nurture. I suggest we all go watch Trading Places (no, I did not say Trading Spaces). |
Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
good point, as cloning is a somewhat illegal activity in many countries, many people dont know what they would be like, however, here is my take on things: if you are a clone you look exactly like whatever you were cloned from. now lets go to being an infant, when you are born you dont really have a set personality, your personality is reflected upon influences in your life, so that being said, if the same is true for a clone, their personality and the way they act is most likely dependant upon whomever or whatever he/she/it is surrounded by. in my opinion, if a clone is surrounded by a bunch of murderous goons, that clone is going to become a murderous goon too (i am of course talking about the clone of a human however circumstances comparable by species can also be taken into account), even if the person cloned was voted the most unlikely to do harm to someone. that is my take on that, but it is purely opinion, feel free to argue ![]() |
Author: | chrispminis [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Wow, ok Dan..all these quotes are from Dans post... Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Haha, I dont like attributing all of the worlds everything to evolution, and I like to put myself above animals. Then why are you using them? Why aren't you living in the forest some where wearing nohting and living off the land only? You say you do not put you'r self above animals yet you do. I also bet you have a harder time killing a human then an animal. Misread like you said. just another disclaimer, my post was not an argument, it was a statement of my beliefs and for the most part *fact*. I said I dont LIKE to attribute. But in my post youll see I often explain stuff with evolution. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
But what is consciousness and self-awareness. It is known that certain organisms lack self awareness (They dont know they exist), Aucatly almost every organisms on this earth other then hummans dose not have self awareness. There may be only 2 epections and thos are very big maybes witch i disargea with. Self-awareness = knowing that one exists right? I am pretty sure a lot of other animals namely mammals are self aware then. Unless you are talking about something else. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
but how do we know only humans are aware...? The fact that you can ask that proves that we are. Another misread? I said ONLY. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Isnt imagination really just the ability to simulate a situation beforehand, most likely to improve upon mistakes or run throught social interactions? Nope, if anything that whould be memeory. But even memeory is not just that. No... Im pretty sure thats imagination... the ability to simulate situations in your head? Maybe to make it clearer, the ability to simulate situations that havent necessarily happened. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
I mean sure we use imagination for much more, but thats the side effect. Its like orgasm is used to encourage copulation, but there is the side effect of *********ion or oral sex etc. Ummmm, no. Imagination is not a side effect and an orgasm function is not sex but to interract with the pysical world. The fact that we have sexual acts that can not resulet in copulation should prove that we are difrent form animals alone. It is not a side effect. A side effects is an unintenataly resoutle of somthing unrealed. This is both inintenal and realted to humanas have an self awwerness. Ok another misread? I said the side effect is that we use imagination for much much more... and in this case it is a side effect, because it was not the *intended* purpose of imagination or orgasm. We dont have orgasm to enjoy masturbation, but to enjoy copulation. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
It is said that the human brain is only as developed as it is because we are a very social people. Who says this? And if it is ture it is assuming evlepotion is ture witch you just put down at the top. Sigh... At the top I was merely saying that I dont like to say that evolution completely rules my life, but I have always said that I believe in evolution and its huge effect. And as to who says it, I think it was Richard Dawkins, but I may be mistaken. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
We need to remember the behaviours of many different people, remember our place, and remember who to trust, and who will backstab you. Before hummans had a fullly devopleted self awserness and contioness this was true. But even then memeory was used for much much more. Simpely memeory is a tool, it's exsitance alone dose not prove anything about primeal urges but it's useage dose. I could list of 10000s of examples of the usages of memeory that do not help in surivial in any way. For example i just studtey for my mid term in world relgiones, this corses is not even part of my main progam and will not help or server my primral urges in any way. In fact studying for it goses agist them. Sigh... I addressed this earlier, you are agreeing with me. These are the side effects i was referring to earlier... Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Things dont always come about in the most efficient ways. Aucatly they usesly do in the end, we just are not there yet nessarly. But if you look at the world and all of it's systems both small and large it is very effcient with all things considered. Agreed, but key words, dont always. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Not only is it survival of the fittest, but also the luckiest. In reality there is no such thing as luck, or even randomness. This is why computers have a very hard time making turely random numbers. Our best atmptes at random numbers have been using sound in a room or pic of a laval lamp. But even thess are prictictable with enouth math. There is for our sakes. Is not the decay of radioactive material random...? Correct me if Im mistaken. Also, it is still luck for arguments sake since the organism cannot change it, and has no power to influence the outcome. Like a tree falls down, and it happens to be under it at the time. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Situations favor certain things, or sometimes, just dont punish them. Basically its survival of whatever survives, but obviously those that have the will to survive and the abilities to aid this survival will have the tendency to survive. Wow you just conurdicted your self so many times in there and basiclky just side "survival of the fittest". Tho we should think about what darwine ment by "fittest", he did not simpley mean the strongest pysical but the ones able to apatated best to the everment at hand. Im not trying to disprove survival of the fittest...Here I am merely saying that not only must one be fit. But one must have the will to survive. Aka. not emo. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Of course, primal urges cant be the only factor all the time. Altruism can be explained, (perhaps you are actually furthering your well being as well), but also societies with altruistic members tend to thrive, and do better than societes who compete amongst themselves, thus these societies survive, and so we are left with mostly nice people (i hope). There will always be exploiters who take advantage of the short term, by exploiting. What??? You just totaly undermind your own point now...... um i dont see how but ok. Here i was addressing what someone said in a previous post. Something about altruism. Cant remmeber but yeah. I was explaining it from a evolutionary point of view. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
Art has always had a powerful effect on human life. Although a bit of it is fitting in How is it fitting in? Rarely do i see aritests on t.v. or put above the likes of athletes and actors. In fact most artests don't fit in to socitey well at all. And why whould making art help surival at all? If anything it goses agested the primal urges. I am referring to the flourishing art community that many overlook. Although I see your point. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
, it could also be related to the handicap idea (theory?). If two men race, and they tie... but one of them was carrying a sack of potatoes. Obviously you see the guy with the sack of potatoes as superior since he accomplished the same as the other guy, but with a heavy load. Of course while you can have varying degrees of health, otherwise survival is survival, and basically everyone who is alive is almost tied. So of course the ones with a slight handicap are favored as the stronger ones. This explains things such as antlers, no bones in human ***** etc. If one guy is doing just as well as another guy, but he has the spare time to make pretty things, he is probably better at what hes doing. Not only did that not have anything to do with "fiting in with art", it had no point relavent to this debate and was just random. Um if you reread the wording preceding this bit, youll see it makes sense and is relevant. Im trying to explain art from an evolutionary point of view. And it doesnt have anything to do with fitting in with art, because I was trying to explain it without having to use social acceptance as the argument. Quote: chrispminis wrote:
So yeah. my thoughts. feel free to completely rebuke them but whatever. I find it funny that you can aruge what you do when there have been masive movments in the past and prensent to free ones self of primeal urges completly. I find it hard to blive that we are just driven by primeal urges when millions can blive in the teachings of buddhaism, jainism and hinduism and many others with all teach agisted what you are saying. Sigh... wasnt that what I was saying earlier? That is isnt always survival of the fittest. And conditions favor/ do not penalize those who follow these selfless religions... If it were a more brutal world at this time, they would probly not fair as well, but as we live in our modern *friendly* society, these people are not at any evolutionary disadvantage. Primal urges to maim fellow competitors are definitely not favored. So there. I think half of what was said was just misunderstanding but yeah. |
: |