Just checking in on the fish

[TENYEARS]

So one of the fish has it's own forum, nice. Is the bowl bigger or does it just have mirrors?

Waiting..... or not.

[BoulderHead]

Hi Tenyears !

Have you allowed yourself to be lured back into the bowl? [:D]

[TENYEARS]

What bowl? I see only fish doing squareouts in an ocean with no begining and no end, no top and no bottom.

[FZ+]

And hello again to the fish that thinks he is a ruler.

[Mentat]

TENYEARS, I had not yet noticed your absence. You seemed as active as ever.

However, I have a question to ask you: If we are the fish, in a bowlless bowl (with no top or bottom or sides), then isn't our reach limitless? IOW, aren't we as free as we could ever hope to be? After all, if you happen to escape an infinite bowl, what space have you left for "swimming"?

[TENYEARS]

Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl. And yet what is it that we're reaching towards? What is there to attain ... if not the art of Zen? [;)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

What difference does it make then that we are in a "bowl" and you claim (claim, mind you, as you've proven nothing of the sort) that you are not. If you can realize beyond that which you realize, then you are "outside of the bowl". Until you realize that which you do not realize, you will never leave the "bowl", and realizing without relizing is self-contradictory/paradoxical, thus logically impossible.

[Iacchus32]

Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?

Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic. Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point. [;)]

[TENYEARS]

Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point. [;)]

That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is [:)].

[jammieg]

Whatever limits or restrictions we can percieve or imagine we will find a way to break them, although I would like to know more accurately what those restrictions are.

[Royce]

Yet if I know no boarders there is no threshold to pass through. It is we who create our boarders thus our thresholds thus limit our reach. This mentat is what I have been trying to tell you in other ways in other threads. We may be in reality in a fishbowl. But our reality is only in our minds.
Greetings Tenyears Good to hear from you again.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is [:)]. Except that science has defined the limits, and this is what most people adhere to, at least on this forum anyway. [:)]

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, that is exactly my point. Science at that point becomes nothing but a fact in a game of jepordy. Disjointed images and symbols. Truth requires one to go beyond that and not by dismissing what is obviously true and esential, but by that which is not.

Take IQ for example. I have always known it was a function of all human beings to have absolute intelligence. In 1987 I became a witness to it in a state of certainty. Only now there was a study of IQ and found it to be a function of nature VS nurture and it was found that nurture was found to be statistically a great factor in IQ. Obviously science is really not to swift for this to not have been done for so long.

Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.

But there would be no threshold - nor, indeed, any borders - if the bowl is (as you say) without top or bottom or sides.

[TENYEARS]

Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.

If you were really correct, you would address my objections direcly, instead of side-stepping them. I don't know if you've noticed yet (though I credit you with an at least average intelligence), but the members of the PFs (for the most part) are not disuaded by your mystic comments that serve as a smoke-bomb to disguise your escape of logical discussion.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you. Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."

[Zantra]

I think TEN is suggesting that we're going in the wrong direction- that we need to rely on common sense, but not so much of logic. I can't grasp it's exact intent, because there's no context.

I know I've made some jokes about this (glug glug) but I'll adress it seriously now. I know the reference you're making, I've heard it made in other terms. You're basically saying that even if we reached the limits of the bowl an escaped beyond, we would not understand because it's so foreign to us. Science is a tool. But we must realize that like any other tool, it's only as useful as the person using it. And it has it's limitations. Science isn't complete, but many people use it as if it were. However we are not limited completely. The only limits are those of our imagination, and that is limiless as long as we keep improving it. We must realize finally that there is no bowl, that in fact our bowl is the universe, and we may only go as high as the water allows us, but if we've run out of water, then we must add more;) It's all very zen

Life is but a play, the earth is a stage, and we are the poor, poor players that walk upon it.

[BoulderHead]

If we escaped our bowl might we end up out of water?

http://www.toons.artie.com/ransfrans/arg-o1de-sme11ie-fishe.gif

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a refering to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

There is no symbiotic relationship.

There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.

[Zantra]

Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

As far as you not sharing your ideas with us, I can't fathom why- I don't think you'll find a more receptive bunch to new ideas than here on this forum.

[TENYEARS]

Zantra, it is not that I do not want to share, it is that in doing so you lose because it becomes an object to your experience and not true knowlege. It's kind of like showing the the last five minutes of a movie without the sound or the sound with out the picture. It takes the zest right out of your search. People like to make it on their own steam. I know I do. If I post the logic some say I do not have and attempt to goad me into, what will you have? To some degree it is dangerous.

Look at Hitler, he took the words of neeeeeeeee chi and transformed them into a dream of a perfect people. Sick as it was there is some aspect of truth in the idea, but what he did relatively speaking was so out of context with the actual realization of ne that it was rediculous. Ah, gotta go.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done. Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. i'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die

[steppenwolf]

oh and ten years... i'll check in on you in a minute, with my fist, until you cry, there.

[Royce]

Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.

Under extreme conditions a species may have a population explosion until its environment can no longer sustain it. It will befoul its environment with waste products until it kills itself off. Or if the extreme conditions are unfavorabe the species may die off completely and become extinct. We as a species were nearly wiped out long ago. our total population was estimated to be below 10,000.

Under stable conditions a species will eventually reach stability with other species in its particular nitche this may of course take hundreds of generations. It is rare that an environment will remain stable that long for such a stability to be reached.

We are now experiencing a population explosion and are befouling our environment. Soon we will exceed the abiliy of our planet to support such a large population and billions of us will die. Thus starting another cycle.

It does not have to be a catstrophic die off but by natural attrition of old age etc with a greatly reduced birth rate and environmental responsiblity. One way or another billions must and will die and not be replaced. Why isn't this obvious to everyone who took high school biology?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. i'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this? [;)]

[Royce]

Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature.

[TENYEARS]

Yes, the truth is not so fun is it. I had a dream a few months back and was not pleased. It was just a dream. I was in ocean waters and it was pure sludge, it was floating every where and there was not fish. I went in the water and it was even difficult to swim. I was helping someone. Then I was back upon the land watching posion pour into the oceans. I was looked to with some sort of status that those who were part of the process that were polluting were trying to convince me that it would be ok that it always has in the past. What a sick feeling.

The societies of man which lived in accordance with nature were mostly tribal societes and only tribial societys. The american indians understood the hoop of life. This was not only a beyond the skin realization, but a learning experience also. For example the herding of animals off of cliffs was a supposed hunting practice. A tribe can only eat, carry and treat so much food. I believe and do say believe that due to there practices large scores of game were wiped out and caused hunger to many tribal societies. They learned from their mistakes and slowly developed the practices which were used by the american indians for thousands of years until they were all but wiped out by the late a 19th century. This extinction of course was caused by an inferior way of life.

One may argue all the points one wishes with these statements, but they are true and it will be our undoing.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature. And yet if everything were a manifestation of God, who's to say that we don't represent God on the "highest level" -- "created in His own image" -- as we "step out" of the Garden and face that which has evolved towards us in our own likeness (more specifically the apes). Yet where everything -- even the apes -- seems to be an all inclusive part of nature, except for us that is. [;)]

Whereas just as there are evolutionary forces brought into play, represented by Mother Earth, there is also a static element in the whole equation, representing that which would be most like God Himself, the sun. In which case you have the predetermined characteristics of the Father, the sun, and the volitile evolutionary characteristics of the Mother, the earth. Indeed, if man were created in God's image (hence predetermined), then it would suffice to say that everything which is evolutionary in origin, would have arisen to support God's "introduction of Himself" into nature. In which case there has to be a "genetic lineage."

If you read the beginning of the book of Genesis, you can see how readily the idea of this fits in well with that.

[Royce]

In the King James version and in the American Standard version there are two versions of creation in the beginning pages of the book of
genisis. To which one are you refering.
If God greated the niverse to evole wouldn't he set it in motion to evolve toward his purpose thus evolving man once the ecology could support him and bestowing him a soul in his, God's image.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.
What makes you think Dams are natural? Also, you are straying somewhat from how natural selection works - the evolutionary process does not envision a specialisation, and seek to create entities that are good for it. Your view would be interesting if we are talking about some kind of designed live, but that isn't so. We have simply a generation of random genetic data, which we reject or accept deending on how well it works, not how well it fits a particular plan.

But it's a moot point, as mankind is full of adaptations. Just so common to use we don't notice.

We have different skin colours, adpating us to particular lattitudes.
We have smooth skin, adapting us to mostly hot weather, and water travel.
We have opposable thumbs and dextrous hands, adapting us to tool use.
We have an immune system adapting dynamically to the environment we live in.
We have complex social circuitry in our brains, adpating us to collective living.

Creatures always expand out of their domain - or at least attempt to. That from early times brought evolutionary success.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
In the King James version and in the American Standard version there are two versions of creation in the beginning pages of the book of
genisis. To which one are you refering.Didn't know there was more than one version. I almost always refer to the King James version if that will help?


If God greated the niverse to evole wouldn't he set it in motion to evolve toward his purpose thus evolving man once the ecology could support him and bestowing him a soul in his, God's image. Yes, I do believe this is what I was trying to say above. In which case I think it may be just a matter of timeframe, which I would say occurred about 10,000 years ago. At the "Dawn of Civilization."

Also, if man is not living in accord with nature -- which, I don't see how anybody can dispute -- then that coincides exactly with his fall in the Garden of Eden. And what did he fall to? ... The Tree of Knowledge. And why did he fall? ... Because he was playing God. In other words, "all brains and no common sense." And the saga of the fall of man continues, even unto today ...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
What makes you think Dams are natural? Also, you are straying somewhat from how natural selection works - the evolutionary process does not envision a specialisation, and seek to create entities that are good for it.I don't think I'm saying this at all. The fact of the matter is, a beaver is well suited to building dams, irregardless. Which, if he hadn't developed a broad tail and sharp teeth -- evidence of his adaptation through evolution -- he probably wouldn't be that good at it. In which case it does make him a specialist.


Your view would be interesting if we are talking about some kind of designed live, but that isn't so. We have simply a generation of random genetic data, which we reject or accept deending on how well it works, not how well it fits a particular plan.Am afraid I don't understand? ...


But it's a moot point, as mankind is full of adaptations. Just so common to use we don't notice.

We have different skin colours, adpating us to particular lattitudes.
We have smooth skin, adapting us to mostly hot weather, and water travel.These two adaptations here could easily account for what's happened over the past 10,000 years.


We have opposable thumbs and dextrous hands, adapting us to tool use.Tools? What do tools have to with adapting to the environment, compared to say the development of a thick coat, sharp teeth and a broad tail?

While the idea of opposable thumbs coincides primarily with having a large brain -- which, is apparently what got us into trouble in the first place.


We have an immune system adapting dynamically to the environment we live in.And yet when the white settlers first came to America, it nearly desecrated the whole population of Native Americans, through small pox. Suggesting that the immune system must not be that highly developed or, that it doesn't take that long to develop aquired immunities ... that is, through the use of man-made substances called "vaccines."


We have complex social circuitry in our brains, adpating us to collective living.And yet that would seem to coincide with the dawn of civilizaiton now wouldn't it? (See post to Royce above.)


Creatures always expand out of their domain - or at least attempt to. That from early times brought evolutionary success. And yet with man, with his large brain and impetuous nature, he couldn't wait for the evolutionary proccess to kick in. And here we are today, with the "evidence" all around us.

[FZ+]

In which case it does make him a specialist.
And if we didn't develop hands etc, we wouldn't be so good a specialist in tool making either.

Am afraid I don't understand? ...
The point is that specialisation is a sideshow. The point of evolution is change, and in reality the idea of animals being built to perform certain tasks is entirely false. Species, or groups of genetic information can sometimes be pushed into alleyways that it is hard to get out of. True. But this is an effect, not a principle of the actual action. The idea of mother nature selecting creatures for domains is a product of subjective interpretation and thinking of the random forces at work in antropomorphic terms. Adaptation, without plans, can equally create generic jacks of all trades as it can special units.

These two adaptations here could easily account for what's happened over the past 10,000 years.
Who says particular adaptations have to "account" for everything? Stuff change.

Tools? What do tools have to with adapting to the environment, compared to say the development of a thick coat, sharp teeth and a broad tail?
Everything. Tools don't just pop out of nowhere. They are the product of a mind of creativity and analytical ingenuity, of predictive thought, and dextrous action, of limbs of flexibility and strength. The adaptation of these that give us the capability is every bit similar to sharp teeth et al. Our coats are in our brains, our teeth in our hands. We simply use them so often we don't notice.

And yet when the white settlers first came to America, it nearly desecrated the whole population of Native Americans, through small pox.
And syphilus. And notice that in many cases of disease, it isn't that the "natural" immune system is slow to adapt, it's that the disease organism adapts faster. By rights, it is the microbes that are gods. It is they that really make this world. But needless to say, any immune system is adaptation.

And yet that would seem to coincide with the dawn of civilizaiton now wouldn't it?
The dawn of civilisation is adaptation. We are better adapted in this case than ants.

And yet with man, with his large brain and impetuous nature, he couldn't wait for the evolutionary proccess to kick in.
Nothing "waits" for the evolutionary process to kick in. Everything spreads and that's what drives and is driven by the evolutionary process. The development of man is very much evolution - even if often unfettered by genes.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
And if we didn't develop hands etc, we wouldn't be so good a specialist in tool making either.The only other instances of tool making throughout the whole of nature, are such things where a bird will drop a rock on an egg to crack it or, a chimp will use a twig to extract termites out of a termite mound, but that's about the extent of it. Whereas the whole thing remains within a closed system or loop, which is what we call "natural."

And yet once you begin to take things out of the loop, and create the first tool -- nor do I mean just making do with the "impliments on hand" -- and then use that as a platform to create another tool, and use that as a platform to create even further tools, then we begin to speak about those things which are not inherent with nature. And it's at this point that we begin extracting materials, even ourselves, out of the loop, and ultimately wind up depleting all the resources, because we are now operating "outside of the system."


The point is that specialisation is a sideshow. The point of evolution is change, and in reality the idea of animals being built to perform certain tasks is entirely false. Species, or groups of genetic information can sometimes be pushed into alleyways that it is hard to get out of. True. But this is an effect, not a principle of the actual action. The idea of mother nature selecting creatures for domains is a product of subjective interpretation and thinking of the random forces at work in antropomorphic terms. Adaptation, without plans, can equally create generic jacks of all trades as it can special units.And yet for all intents and purposes, the by-product (effect) of evolution is specialization. Why do birds fly? Why do hippos wallow? Why do spiders spin webs? Why do bees make honey? Why do fish swim? Why are cats experts at catching mice? Why do cows chew cud? Why do camels have humps? Do I need to continue? ...


Who says particular adaptations have to "account" for everything? Stuff change.Yet it's those animals which are best suited to their particular environment -- hence the notion of specialization -- that typically survive.


Everything. Tools don't just pop out of nowhere. They are the product of a mind of creativity and analytical ingenuity, of predictive thought, and dextrous action, of limbs of flexibility and strength. The adaptation of these that give us the capability is every bit similar to sharp teeth et al. Our coats are in our brains, our teeth in our hands. We simply use them so often we don't notice.Most unnatural! [;)]


And syphilus. And notice that in many cases of disease, it isn't that the "natural" immune system is slow to adapt, it's that the disease organism adapts faster. By rights, it is the microbes that are gods. It is they that really make this world. But needless to say, any immune system is adaptation.And through the "unnatural" process of trying to counter these diseases, we begin to create (uncannily) more highly resistant and deadlier strains.


The dawn of civilisation is adaptation. We are better adapted in this case than ants.The only difference between us and the ants is that the ants are well suited to their environment. We aren't. The ants will make use of those things which are "naturally" at hand. And we don't.


Nothing "waits" for the evolutionary process to kick in. Everything spreads and that's what drives and is driven by the evolutionary process. The development of man is very much evolution - even if often unfettered by genes. Except that we're speaking of a process which has occurred over billions of years, as opposed to that which has occurred over the past 10,000 years or so.

[hypnagogue]

What is meant by 'unnatural'?

As far as I can see there's nothing unnatural about human evolution. There is an imbalance between humanity and the environment, but this of itself does not imply anything unnatural about humanity. As Royce has mentioned, this is a natural and recurring cycle of nature. What brings it about is when the species in question becomes too successful, advances too quickly, proliferates too much-- thus disturbing a tenuous balance. Evolution has reached a critical point with human intelligence; now instead of waiting generations upon generations for static, built-in adaptations to take hold and flourish, they are dynamically created as needed in the course of a lifetime, years, months or even less. Human intelligence is the exponential explosion of natural life's ability to adapt to its environment, and even this exponential advance of human ingenuity/technology itself is growing exponentially fast-- is it really any surprise then that humanity has grown too quickly for its own good?

Think of it as a 5 year old boy who has quickly grown into the muscular body of a 20 year old man. Now think of this 5 year old playing soccer with his peers. It will take some time for our child here to attain the physical/intellectual sophistication required to play fairly and safely with his friends-- similarly, it will take some time for our race to attain the kind of large scale intellectual/spiritual sophistication required to attain some kind of long term harmony with nature. Just because we don't have it yet at this stage of our infancy doesn't mean that we are inherently unnatural, evil, or otherwise hopeless.

[Iacchus32]

And when we've wiped out all the species on this planet, will we all stand up and cheer, because it was a natural event? Bravo! ... Bravo! ... Well done!

Perhaps it's time to take our heads out of the clouds and take a good look at what's happenning below?

One thing I might add, that if we all understood our stay here was only temporary, that indeed there is more to life beyond what we experience here on this planet (regarding an afterlife), then maybe we wouldn't be so preoccupied with staking "our claim" here? And even give the planet a chance to recover?

[Royce]

We are nature, a part of nature and nature a part of us. We were born, evolved, created here on earth and are a part of the ecosystem. We are not seperate or apart from nature. We don't rule nature. The idea that man was created seperate from nature to rule the planet and nature is one of the worst things that judeo-christian reiligion has done. Of course the africans, orientals and asians are no better so it probably isn't religion's fault, but just justifying our behavior.
Even the idea that we are steward of nature and the planet is wrong because it sets us apart from and over nature. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is one small planet invewsted with life and we are on it and of it. Few animals befoul their nest lair or den. Man's nest is the entire planet and we are befouling it. We will pay the price of over population and polution.
When our population falls to below that which the planet can easily sustain then it will recover as well all of life and nature. The only question of importance to us is will we still exist and at what level. Will civilization be able to survive and come to terms with itself and nature? The planet, life and nature could care less if it does or can care. It will survive for a while longer.
Once again. WE ARE NATURE!!!!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
The idea that man was created seperate from nature to rule the planet and nature is one of the worst things that judeo-christian reiligion has done. In other words you're acknowledging, at least in part, what's responsible for our current state of affairs. And do you know what's ironic? Is that this is the very world that the materialists have come to love and embrace! [;)]

And, while I will go so far as to say that "this myth" has more implications with the development of Western Culture, it still does not discount the possiblity that the rest of the myth (in regards to our origin) is true. It's like I said, it's the very outcroppings of this myth which the materialists have come to embrace.

While according to the myth, how did we get here? For having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And indeed, when we look around ourselves what do we find? All this "knowledge" (hence brain power), without the wisdom to deal with it. And the saga of the fall of man continues ...

[FZ+]

The only other instances of tool making throughout the whole of nature, are such things where a bird will drop a rock on an egg to crack it or, a chimp will use a twig to extract termites out of a termite mound, but that's about the extent of it. Whereas the whole thing remains within a closed system or loop, which is what we call "natural."
Or Beavers build dams which mould the entire landscape, allowing them to set up a further campaign of mass change against their environment. Or bend wires to forge toothpicks. Hell, ditch all this junk. The first tool making "life", was the first cell, which used the "resources" of the chemicals around it to make the "tool" of cell no. 2, which it used to pretty much take over the world. Or how about the plants, which used the "tool" of oxygen to systematically wipe out almost all of life on earth, creating immediately a new world order? Notice the theme? Your closed system is entirely applied and arbitary. We can't get out of the loop. We drag it with us.

Do I need to continue? ...
Why do humans make tools? Why do humans walk? The signs of adaptation are all present. What is not is the sign of an aim. Even in current society, the macroscopic workings of human change are fickle and unplanned. In fact, such sort of planning simply does not work effectively.

Yet it's those animals which are best suited to their particular environment -- hence the notion of specialization -- that typically survive.
That is not the notion of specialization. Specialization is the notion of being best suited to ONLY one environment. This simply does not exist biologically speaking. Sometimes it happens randomly, sometimes it doesn't. You might ask yourself: "Why isn't there a specialized plant adapted to living slightly south of large red boulders?" Because an unspecialised plants that can live to the south or even north of any boulder has taken that niche. In fact, we don't even identify the niche as even existing. Hence the subjective flaw in your reasoning.

And through the "unnatural" process of trying to counter these diseases, we begin to create (uncannily) more highly resistant and deadlier strains.
It's not unnatural. Disease evolution has always been driven by co-evolutionary competition. Bacteria aren't stupid.

The only difference between us and the ants is that the ants are well suited to their environment. We aren't. The ants will make use of those things which are "naturally" at hand. And we don't.
Er... have you looked in any nature journals lately? Red army ants are currently eating through vast tracts of forest, destroying everything in their wake.

Except that we're speaking of a process which has occurred over billions of years, as opposed to that which has occurred over the past 10,000 years or so.
Doesn't matter. Who says natural evolution has to be slow?

Later...
And when we've wiped out all the species on this planet, will we all stand up and cheer, because it was a natural event? Bravo! ... Bravo! ... Well done!
If we wiped out all the species, we would be in no position for cheering since we happen to be one of those species....

Later....
In other words you're acknowledging, at least in part, what's responsible for our current state of affairs.
What's responsible? Everything is "responsible". The laws of physics are responsible. The eating habits of south australian kangaroos are responsible. The responsibility idea is something that is more or less completely worthless, used only as an excuse for endless futile arm waving. The real point is - which factor is easiest to alter to change the situation to something we want. And in that case, we have the power.

Is that this is the very world that the materialists have come to love and embrace!
I'll add that to my list of "entirely pointless things people who don't know what they are talking about say".

For having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Mild scriptural point. Looking at the description of the "knowledge of good and evil", that particular event had indeed more to do with wisdom than knowledge. Real knowledge makes no pronouncements as to good or evil, but the tree refers to ethical implications that can only lie within the bounds of "wisdom" of judgement.

And the saga of the fall of man continues ...
Funny, as then man would be unusual in "falling" upwards.

[TENYEARS]

Lots of good points here, I will go with the army ants and maybe forest fires huricanes/tornados, droughts etc... These all wipe out large areas of land and resources, but in the billions of years of evoulution there has been specialization which occured to sustain a balance in the environment. This specialization was non other than the survival of the fitest. A forest fire wipes out a hundreds of square miles of forest and yet it takes this heat to release the seeds of new trees for some species.

The new problem is the proportion of fall back is gone. The buffer from to absorb such occurances are gone. Now when a forest fire occurs it is like riping out a significant section of your lungs. I do not want to expound on this but it is relatively true for all the other things. When you add to the fact that you need wood for building, fencing etc... The issue becomes actually black and white and there is no gray. Humanity is on the verge of an accellerated collapse. Some from it's self and some from a cycling nature which is not completely understood of which it's coping ability which was set up through billions of years of natural selection have now been diminished to the point of near extinction.

Note: One can say man has adapted to his environment. From some perspective this is true, what is also true is cause and affect. The tribal societal life which held humanity in a relative balance with it's surroundings is now gone. We will reap what we have sown, I hope you like toxic soup.

See the indians understood the balance, their religion was actually based on an understanding of physics along with mystical experience that some would like to debate. It is because of this close proximity with relality and a high regard for the balance of nature that the world has existed to this point and time. If humanity was to have expanded like this 5,000 years ago, we would now be living in a desolate waste land.

[jammieg]

Bah, it'll all work out. It's only human to always believe the end is right around the corner, the good thing is by doing this we avoid a lot of dangers. The best one I've heard is that when you add up all the pros and cons of all the technologies of the world and then just look at the cons alone(although small) can easily add up to enough bad to kill the individual. The world does seem kind of dangerous these days, but then that's only if I choose to drink and drive, or smoke crack and fly, or the biggest often overlooked killer smoke cigarettes. On the other hand the world has become fairly nice in many ways, people live much longer and in better health and education than just 200 years ago.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Or Beavers build dams which mould the entire landscape, allowing them to set up a further campaign of mass change against their environment. Or bend wires to forge toothpicks. Hell, ditch all this junk. The first tool making "life", was the first cell, which used the "resources" of the chemicals around it to make the "tool" of cell no. 2, which it used to pretty much take over the world. Or how about the plants, which used the "tool" of oxygen to systematically wipe out almost all of life on earth, creating immediately a new world order? Notice the theme? Your closed system is entirely applied and arbitary. We can't get out of the loop. We drag it with us.For the most part you're just speaking about the rudimentary beginnings of an eco-system here. Not much to lose in terms of diversity.


Why do humans make tools? Why do humans walk? The signs of adaptation are all present. What is not is the sign of an aim. Even in current society, the macroscopic workings of human change are fickle and unplanned. In fact, such sort of planning simply does not work effectively.The only thing that gives us the ability to adapt is the fact that we have a large brain, and we are able to synthesize those things which we are unable to adapt to through natural selection. This is why they call it man-made and artificial. And hey don't blame me because I never coined the term. [;)]


That is not the notion of specialization. Specialization is the notion of being best suited to ONLY one environment. Yes, much in the way fish have adapted to water and birds have adapted to the air.


This simply does not exist biologically speaking. Sometimes it happens randomly, sometimes it doesn't. You might ask yourself: "Why isn't there a specialized plant adapted to living slightly south of large red boulders?" Because an unspecialised plants that can live to the south or even north of any boulder has taken that niche. In fact, we don't even identify the niche as even existing. Hence the subjective flaw in your reasoning.And yet some plants are better suited to shade, some are better suited to intense light and heat, some are better suited to different soil conditions, some are better suited to boggy environments, some are are better suited to higher altitudes, and what not.

And if you wish to continue further than this, I would suggest that all you're doing is knitpicking and splitting hairs with me. [;)]


It's not unnatural. Disease evolution has always been driven by co-evolutionary competition. Bacteria aren't stupid.Except that we have to come up with more and more environmentally "unfriendly" ways to deal with them.


Er... have you looked in any nature journals lately? Red army ants are currently eating through vast tracts of forest, destroying everything in their wake.Even the vegetation? I doubt it. In which case I suspect it would be just a matter of the wildlife filtering back into the area once the ants are gone.


Doesn't matter. Who says natural evolution has to be slow?

Later...Who says the best way to learn is by intensive cramming and study? Seems to me like the best way to bring about the most aggressive types of behaviour and/or adaptations, including a more "toxic environment."


If we wiped out all the species, we would be in no position for cheering since we happen to be one of those species....

Later....Except that we wouldn't have to blame ourselves. Hurray! [;)]


What's responsible? Everything is "responsible". The laws of physics are responsible. The eating habits of south australian kangaroos are responsible. The responsibility idea is something that is more or less completely worthless, used only as an excuse for endless futile arm waving. The real point is - which factor is easiest to alter to change the situation to something we want. And in that case, we have the power.Just in case you're unfamiliar with the first part of Genesis ...


And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26-28).Notice the words dominion and subdue?


I'll add that to my list of "entirely pointless things people who don't know what they are talking about say".Please tell me that the above passage doesn't reflect the ideals of the modern materialist, and the notion that man has dominion over "all things." And then tell me that mine and just about everyone else's perception is wrong here. And, that it's not the materialists who are trying to justify things "the way they are."


Mild scriptural point. Looking at the description of the "knowledge of good and evil", that particular event had indeed more to do with wisdom than knowledge. Real knowledge makes no pronouncements as to good or evil, but the tree refers to ethical implications that can only lie within the bounds of "wisdom" of judgement.

Funny, as then man would be unusual in "falling" upwards. The whole thing implies that man was endowed with a large brain from the get-go, without the "formal" ability to use it.

[FZ+]

For the most part you're just speaking about the rudimentary beginnings of an eco-system here. Not much to lose in terms of diversity.
How many beaver ecologists have you been talking to? Methinks you have heard the whoosh of the point go by. The point is the arbitaryness of your tool distinction.

The only thing that gives us the ability to adapt is the fact that we have a large brain, and we are able to synthesize those things which we are unable to adapt to through natural selection.
The brain, the human brain is a product of natural selection. By extension everything we do is due to natural selection. The point though is to point out how misleading the ideas of "natural roles" and "niches" really are.

Yes, much in the way fish have adapted to water and birds have adapted to the air.
And humans are adapted to the earth. Or bacteria have adapted to the universe.

And if you wish to continue further than this, I would suggest that all you're doing is knitpicking and splitting hairs with me.
Uh... no. It seems you have missed the point again. I am saying that looking for specialisation is misleading, because we first define those specialities subjectively. We set the resolution at which we consider everything to be so neatly fitting a role, and then we act surprised when our categories don't match up. The existence of individual specialisation doesn't matter, as I never said specialisation doesn't happen. But it is not the essence of the idea of natural selection.

Except that we have to come up with more and more environmentally "unfriendly" ways to deal with them.
And when we do so, a new lot of organisms take over, and we end up being very "environmentally friendly" to them.

Even the vegetation? I doubt it. In which case I suspect it would be just a matter of the wildlife filtering back into the area once the ants are gone.
And what do you think happens once humans are gone?

Who says the best way to learn is by intensive cramming and study?
Who says natural selection gives a damn about best? It doesn't have a destination, or a timetable. It just happens. You are antropomorphising...


Notice the words dominion and subdue?
Great. Let's all blame God. Sure, that helps.

What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with blame - blame is in the eye of the beholder. It is a matter of whether we are able to do something about it.

Please tell me that the above passage doesn't reflect the ideals of the modern materialist, and the notion that man has dominion over "all things."
It doesn't. It reflects the modern egoist, who insists that man has a special position all to himself, and is some how divided from nature. Which fits more to spiritualist, and a great number of religions than to materialists. The ideal of materialists is that stuff happens, and we are one of these stuff. In fact, part of the whole philosophy of materialism is to put mankind at a position of not being above, below or side to side of any vacuous concepts.

And then tell me that mine and just about everyone else's perception is wrong here.
Yes. Utterly and completely wrong. (since when is the bible a materialist text?[;)])

And, that it's not the materialists who are trying to justify things "the way they are."
Yep, that's wrong too. The idea of justification just doesn't exist, as far as materialists are concerned. We do not have dominion over nature, because nature doesn't exist as an individual entity. We should act - because we can act to steer things in the direction we like.
Notice how crazily hard I have been at opposing:
(a) The specialness of mankind
(b) The control of mankind
(c) The distinction of nature as a separate entity.
(d) The idea of a god-given right or duty.


Whilst agreeing that:
(a) Certain actions will be bad for mankind.
(b) Diversity is a good thing.


You appear to be fighting a strawman... or even, yourself.

[TENYEARS]

jammieg, if colorado springs is in the state of colorado your view is relative to your surroundings. I once took a plane accorss the country, it looked like a checkerboard with everyones little niche hacked out of it. It did not look like the great divide and suddenly the country did not look so big. The world is a small place, it is our home we should treat it as such. Technology is nothing. It cannot compensate for what has been already done and the continued acceleration in that direction. The human race has become one unconcious act upon another.

[FZ+]

It cannot compensate for what has been already done and the continued acceleration in that direction.
Maybe. But that isn't really what we should be trying to do. We can't turn back the clock, but we can attempt to steer it. It's better than nothing.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
How many beaver ecologists have you been talking to? Methinks you have heard the whoosh of the point go by. The point is the arbitaryness of your tool distinction.I kind of got lost on what you were trying to discuss here. Nonetheless there's nothing "artificial," at least in the case of a beaver, about developing sharp teeth and a broad tail. And, just because nature has endowed certain creatures with the ability to affect their environments as such -- while here it is a single adaptation by a single creature and only in isolated areas -- by no means implies that it's "natural" for another creature to come along, and apply one adaptation upon another adaptation, upon another adaptation, etc., etc., and use this as a means to circumnavigate the whole system and virtually take over everything in sight -- i.e., "the whole world." Which, is exactly what's happened.


The brain, the human brain is a product of natural selection. By extension everything we do is due to natural selection. The point though is to point out how misleading the ideas of "natural roles" and "niches" really are.If the brain is a product of natural selection then where is our competition? Why aren't we competing directly with the apes, our "nearest relatives?" If we're so closely related, then why are they still stuck in "the loop," and not competing with us directly, in any way shape or form? Hey, the least we could do is put them to work for us doing menial tasks in our cities. You know, for a decent wage and a decent living? Yeah right!


And humans are adapted to the earth. Or bacteria have adapted to the universe.Yes, what is the difference? Except perhaps that one knows its place and the other one doesn't. [;)]


Uh... no. It seems you have missed the point again. I am saying that looking for specialisation is misleading, because we first define those specialities subjectively. We set the resolution at which we consider everything to be so neatly fitting a role, and then we act surprised when our categories don't match up. The existence of individual specialisation doesn't matter, as I never said specialisation doesn't happen. But it is not the essence of the idea of natural selection.I'm not the one who's surprised here. While I can assure I don't have a problem with saying that diversity exists as a result of everything having established its own special niche, and thus becoming a part of, as well as maintaining, this whole unique system of life as we know it. And yes, that does imply life is "special."


And when we do so, a new lot of organisms take over, and we end up being very "environmentally friendly" to them.In that we become their lunch, Right?


And what do you think happens once humans are gone?The earth will ultimately recover I suppose? And what of the human race? Hmm ... Maybe we weren't so adaptable afterall then? How ironic! Well at least the bacteria, the lowliest of the low, will still be here!


Who says natural selection gives a damn about best? It doesn't have a destination, or a timetable. It just happens. You are antropomorphising...Yep, survival of the fittest. And yet, things need "time" in order to "adapt."


Great. Let's all blame God. Sure, that helps.Actually I wasn't blaming God. Of course this verse does occur before the fall of man in book of Genesis. Exactly what that means I'm not sure? Except that maybe we initially had ascendency over nature, that is until after the fall, where we found ourselves sruggling with it, "at its level," and in direct conflict with it. As evidenced by the following verses ...


Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:16-19).Well at least it alludes to the idea of it anyway.


What I am saying is that it has nothing to do with blame - blame is in the eye of the beholder. It is a matter of whether we are able to do something about it.Yes, but if we understood it had something to do with what's inherent with our nature, then maybe we would be more inclined to take responsibility for it?


It doesn't. It reflects the modern egoist, who insists that man has a special position all to himself, and is some how divided from nature. Which fits more to spiritualist, and a great number of religions than to materialists. The ideal of materialists is that stuff happens, and we are one of these stuff. In fact, part of the whole philosophy of materialism is to put mankind at a position of not being above, below or side to side of any vacuous concepts.Sounds like the rhetoric associated with the Communist elite, in their attempts to put down the masses and still maintain their elitist views. So what's the difference between that and your modern scientific materialist elitist point of view?

While I understand that Karl Max, as I'm sure heusdens can attest, had a particular fetish for materialism as well. [;)]


Yes. Utterly and completely wrong. (since when is the bible a materialist text?[;)])Since when does the Bible have to be utterly incorrect?


Yep, that's wrong too. The idea of justification just doesn't exist, as far as materialists are concerned. We do not have dominion over nature, because nature doesn't exist as an individual entity. We should act - because we can act to steer things in the direction we like. Except that I keep hearing that if we destroy the earth, what's the big loss? Nature will recover, as it always has ...


Notice how crazily hard I have been at opposing:
(a) The specialness of mankind
(b) The control of mankind
(c) The distinction of nature as a separate entity.
(d) The idea of a god-given right or duty.


Whilst agreeing that:
(a) Certain actions will be bad for mankind.
(b) Diversity is a good thing.Are you against the "prevalent view" here or, are you denying that it exists? Because that can make a big difference in terms of corroborating what it is I'm trying to say.


You appear to be fighting a strawman... or even, yourself. No, I would appear to be up against the prevalent view. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe. But that isn't really what we should be trying to do. We can't turn back the clock, but we can attempt to steer it. It's better than nothing. Better than nothing? Is that the best you can do? And yet I think what's required is that we take drastic measures. Which, I don't think can be achieved, unless we understand the true nature of our origin.

Hey, if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, that in fact there was an afterlife, then maybe it wouldn't seem so drastic, and we would be willing to forego a lot of "material things" we would otherwise deem necessary? And we can begin to focus on our spiritual lives instead?

By the way, is there anything in the animal kingdom which closely resembles materialism? It's kind of hard to imagine, since nothing is produced "artificially," and used as a means of exchange for other artificially produced things. Doesn't that sound like a fair enough description of materialism, at least in terms of how most of us apply it? Whereas with animals it's more a matter of subsistent living, and hence a matter of survival -- or, a matter of "eat or be eaten." [;)]

[FZ+]

And, just because nature has endowed certain creatures with the ability to affect their environments as such -- while here it is a single adaptation by a single creature and only in isolated areas -- by no means implies that it's "natural" for another creature to come along, and apply one adaptation upon another adaptation, upon another adaptation, etc., etc., and use this as a means to circumnavigate the whole system and virtually take over everything in sight -- i.e., "the whole world." Which, is exactly what's happened.
But there is also no reason to think so, no line in the sand. You tried to draw one, and I merely pointed out that it is immensely wrong. Evolution, natural evolution is a continual process of adaptation upon adaptation. It is obvious what happens. What is far from obvious is what you see it as.

If the brain is a product of natural selection then where is our competition?
Ourselves. The environment. Creatures with lesser brains that try to squeeze an advantage from physical strength etc. I think you misunderstand natural selection here - competition is one of a number of "selectional pressures". It is far from the only one.

Why aren't we competing directly with the apes, our "nearest relatives?" If we're so closely related, then why are they still stuck in "the loop," and not competing with us directly, in any way shape or form?
Ok... now you've lost it.
Natural selection can, or cannot encourage specialisation. It sometimes is an advantage, and sometimes it isn't. There is no need to veer from one extreme to another, from total determined niches to an big mess of genes. Both co-exist. Mankind and apes have taken diverging paths, with diverging genes.

Yes, what is the difference? Except perhaps that one knows its place and the other one doesn't.
Let's add that to the list of meaningless statements as well.

While I can assure I don't have a problem with saying that diversity exists as a result of everything having established its own special niche, and thus becoming a part of, as well as maintaining, this whole unique system of life as we know it. And yes, that does imply life is "special."
You still misunderstand how evolution works!

Yep, survival of the fittest. And yet, things need "time" in order to "adapt."
You still completely misunderstand what evolution is about! Survival of the fittest applies to characteristics, that change in portion across a population. The development of processes allow concurrent processes to genetic mutation is not selected against - rather it can present a selective advantage. It is not a matter as to what is needed, but that what helps in survival at the time. The evolutionary process is a statistical observation of mass activity - it is not a human mother.

Evolution = random variation of characteristics + any sort of selection based on these characteristics + method of carrying on these characteristics in the next cycle.

At any time, diverging selectional pressures can create a disadvantage in trying to hold two positions. Then, they get sheared apart as the ones on either side get advantages over the ones trying to stick in the middle. This leads to specialisation, as we get a fork in the road, with a survival advantage chart leading up one road and becoming stuck at a local high in survivability - until some other factor dislodges it, and makes the whole thing take on a new path. Or it dies. This is your "special" niche. At the same time, mutation causes a gradual expansion over the whole landscape of evolution, coming up with adaptations that bridge gaps to create evolutionary convergence. Both work at the same time.

So what's the difference between that and your modern scientific materialist elitist point of view?
What the hell are you talking about? I see you are resorting to irrational slurs.

Except that I keep hearing that if we destroy the earth, what's the big loss? Nature will recover, as it always has ...
Nature doesn't exist.

Are you against the "prevalent view" here or, are you denying that it exists? Because that can make a big difference in terms of corroborating what it is I'm trying to say.
You are talking BS. I am here, disagreeing with everything you say - yet you claim to know more about MY beliefs than I do. What ideas about prevalent views do you have, as you now refuse to comprehend what the other side is saying. How can you make any pronouncements against materialists, when you don't listen when the position is actually said? If you think what you are attacking when you talk about elitism, or irresponsibility are materialists, then you are attacking ghosts - ghosts of your own illogical idea of what materialists believe.

There is then zero point talking any longer.

[phoenixthoth]

"Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold."

what is beyond the threshold?

phoenix

[TENYEARS]

You

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
There is then zero point talking any longer. About all I can say is that we're in complete disagreement here, at least in terms of "man's role" in the evolutionary process. Which, is why I suggest (at the very least), that the distinction -- the one that "you" won't acknowledge and already exists -- should be maintained between man and the natural world.

Hey all I'm doing is pointing out the evidence, which is there ... however, if you don't wish to make the association, then that's entirely up to you. [;)]

[phoenixthoth]

tenyears,

that is the most satisfying and dissatisfying answer you could have possibly given me. thank you.

let me tell you a parable. i know this is off the main topic, but tenyears and i are having a conversation within the grand conversation. just ignore this if you're not interested. the reason why i'm not just pm'ing this to tenyears is that i bet at least one other person will find interest in my picture.

this is 100% metaphor.

i found myself with eyes tightly shut in a strange place, not where i was only a moment ago. i intuitively felt, like in a dream-knowing sense, that i was in a very dark, if not BLACK, room. i found myself transported there by some mysterious force for no apparent reason. so i find myself here in this "room" and my eyes are shut tight. i'm utterly afraid of the dark. i cannot open my eyes. then, again for no apparent reason, my fear disappears and i let my eyes open to a squint. i find the following: the room is DIM. not black. this was a major epiphany. i decided to open my eyes as wide as they would open and let them ADJUST. and adjust they DID. from my point of view, as the adjustment was occuring, the room was getting brighter. it was "enlightening" or "illuminiating." now, whether it was illuminating or if i was just adjusting i will never know for sure; they are competing theories but it doesn't really matter for the end result was that it was illuminating from *my perspective*.

what does the room look like?

here's the punchline. the room is the multiverse. you might as well just tell me what YOU see for you are in the same room as me, *evidently*. i just woke up IN IT.

(this happened and was first formulated about two months ago)

cheers,
phoenix

[FZ+]

What evidence? You have not even shown any slight understanding of my position yet. In fact, you continuously misrepresent my positon as something you think, not what I am actually saying. And you are using the terms of evolution, but you don't grasp their real meaning. You are portraying your opinions as facts with disregard of contrary evidence. (which of course cannot disprove, but suggest clearly the other way) Unless you at least listen properly, what is the point of what you are saying?

[phoenixthoth]

the hurbis abounds.

tenyears, how do you define QUALITY?

thanks.

phoenix

[TENYEARS]

phoenixthoth, the disappointment only comes because it is a word, one with boundries, when the truth hits you there will nothing to hit.


Quality? Quality is relative to the relativity which experiences the object or experience. One person taste a soup with the rising steam on a cold day looking out a window and suddenly the universe opens. Another is fed the food of kings in the greatest palace and complains of the temperature.

The quality of life rises up to meet the needs of the relativity involved.

[Iacchus32]

From the thread Why the bias against materialism? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=70446#post70446) ...

Originally posted by sascha
Yes, there is no doubt in the very end result consciousness and choices have physical appearances. But do you know that Chinese story: A traveler comes to a village and meets the village sage and the village fool. He shows them a shining star. The sage sees an element of the universe, while the fool sees only the pointed finger. Yes, the evidence has always been there, it's just a matter if one has the means to make the association or not. [;)] This is an excellent post by sascha by the way, which clearly illustrates the blind spot that exists with the "scientific approach."

[Zantra]

Ten 5 pages later you're still being cryptic. Yes we all know that we are destroying ourselves. I'm more concerned about us nuking ourselves into oblivion than anything else. But we're like a child with a big dangerous toy. And if we don't learn to use that toy safely very quick, we're going to electrocute ourselves.

[FZ+]

Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Noting of course that the sage, in fact the one who can look past the internal of his own finger, is in reality the scientist... Not necessarily. I think it's speaking of human nature in general.

While in fact this is the very same argument that keeps coming up when I try discussing my views with the materialists (more so some than others). That because the whole thing is abstract, and exists only in my mind -- or so they say -- that I'm the fool for having brought it up in the first place, in which case there's no point in my discussing it any further.

And do you know why? Because they can't (or won't) make the association with what I'm pointing my finger at, that is from a strictly materialistic standpoint, this is all they can see, the "physical act" of my pointing a finger at something, not the "metaphysical ideal" which I'm alluding to.

By the way, the notion of a star three or four thousand years ago, was merely a metaphysical notion, because people (for the most part) had no means by which to ascertain what they truly were, other than a speck of light in the night's sky. [:)]

[FZ+]

Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist?

[TENYEARS]

FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not.

[Iacchus32]

*delete*

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Really.

Consider this interpretation. The fool prizes the instrument of pointing - the finger. He thinks that all knowledge is internal, and instead of looking out beyond into the heavens, he looks focused on the finger, ignoring all contrary notions - because he asserts that all truth is that which is acknowledged. The sage meanwhile observes that the star is far from a metaphysical idea, but presents a subject for study beyond the internal. Hence, while the fool looks within, the sage looks without.

Which sounds like the materialist? Once again it seems you missed the point. [;)] The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known -- and therefore wise -- whereas the fool is caught up with "external appearances," as evidenced by the pursuit of knowledge, which is tantamount to putting labels on things.

Wisdom is not the matter of pursuing knowledge for knowledge's sake, but of "knowing what you know," which is an internal thing.

[phoenixthoth]

"FZ, the difference between the scientist and the sage is that the scientist looks upon this and that he may look out and wonder. The sage looks up all that he sees until all there is is a seeing and no seer. Upon this act truth is born. It is not owned and it cannot be contained, for all that is is what it is and there is nothing that is not."

how do you get to the point when there is a seeing and no seer?

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[TENYEARS]

I could tell you a story, I would like to tell a story but what would it be but a story. You must place all that you are on the edge of the abyss and not be afraid. You will look into it with all fear of finding nothing at all. You will let go of all things and hold on to nothing knowing that after letting go of all this you take the chance of finding nothing at all. No god, no after life, no truth, no meaning no nothing. Just dust, but if you go here at least dust would be something. Here you must face the pure empty.

[phoenixthoth]

i once thought the universe was zero dimensional, a point, and that all things were united in that way. 3-11 dimensional space was some kind of illusion.

if you consider a point as a vector space, the basis would be the empty set. i considered the possibility that God was the empty set, something that exists (in some sense, perhaps) but doesn't contain anything though is the basis for everything.

cheers,
phoenix

[FZ+]

The sage has the ability to deal with those things which are abstract and inherently known
But a star is far from abstract, and far from known. And a finger is far from external. It is clear to me that the sage is wise because he searches out for things that he doesn't know, and looks beyond. The fool is a fool because he looks only within, dealing only with his dreams of himself.

The sage cares not for the finger, because he is looking out there, into the vastness of infinity. Of all that is unknown. That is part of the essence of science.

[TENYEARS]

The truth does not defy the universe, it is the universe. What is accepted as possible you will transcend only you are ready. I herd a girl on the radio today, she spoke of just dreams to the two anouncers on a plain rock/easy listening channel. She said something and in an instant I knew she knew. They knew she knew something out of the callers that called in, she unquestionably knew. Even the foolishness of the anouncers was quited and I thought sometimes you just never know. It was awaking.

[TENYEARS]

FZ, don't mean to get picky, but the resistance which exists within you is due to the focus on the "things" unknown as relative objects.
The fantasy of dreams within as day dreams or others are far from foolish. It is an expression of ones subconious in a means to self actualize with the universe. To achieve the top of the mos low ladder. Science is concerend many times with this or that. Small this small that, a discection of reality instead of it's total experience. Reality cannot be disected, but there is a time comming where the two will be in acknowlegement of each other. I of course might be full of it, then again maybe not.

There are enought hints in previous posts to have a pile of needles and a few bits of hay.

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

be careful of fish bowl analogies. All the fish bowls I ever watched for very long wound up floating a dead smelly fish who was the ruler of his universe!

[FZ+]

Tenyears:
Do not underestimate the glory of hay, and the futility of meaningless needles.

[Iacchus32]

But where does the "without" come from if not from "within?" ... And how is it that we can only "reflect" on the without, if not from within? If intelligence were merely outwardly or, "an appearance," then "you" have no business whatsoever for being here. Do you know why? ... because "you" don't exist.

Which brings me to the next question. Why should I waste my time, speaking to that which isn't real and doesn't exist?

[RoyBlizzard3rd]

iacchus32 you made good sense of alot of nonsense!

[TENYEARS]

In reality there are no rulers. Rulers are for measuring relative objects or for directing relative objects. In the experience of reality there can be no ruling, because you will understand and in that understanding you will understand the futility and inability to do anything except that which interelates with you which is not only limited, but a function of subtle relationship with the nature of the individual system as a whole. In terms of measuring, how can nonrelative measure anything? That would require a measurer would it not? Was talking about human nature this morning. Peoples innate need to gather when they see one or more going in a direction. Usually has little to do with what is there and is more about something else.

[Iacchus32]

And yet ... "He who is least amongst you is the greatest." Hmm ... perhaps "humility" is the standard by which all things are measured?

[TENYEARS]

Iacchus32, if humbleness is something I am supposed to do because that is what an enlightentend human being does than is it enlightenment or am I one who looks into a mirror of of myself of myself, ....... Is this response one of one who knows this and uses that also? Of course everytime I post this it makes my understanding deeper does it not. Which dog that chases it's tail is the closest?
Is humbleness something to be learned, like a curb to keep you on a path or is it a direct response to the witnessing of the pain of humanity?

[phoenixthoth]

that quote sounds like something jesus said. jesus came back to his disciples and asked them what they were talking about. they were discussing which among them was the greatest. then jesus said that to be the greatest means to be the least, the servant of all. or something like that.

even if jesus were not humble (and some people would say he wasn't humble for claiming to be the son of God), that wouldn't change any of his characteristics such as his level of enlightenment and/or divinity. like if i have a phd in math from princeton and i go around telling people "hey i got a phd in math from princeton, in your face!!" that doesn't change the fact that i really do have a phd in math from princeton, nor does saying that or not saying that affect how much i know about math.

humility just seems to affect how easy it may be to accept what the person says or how easy it may be to like them.

i don't agree that humility is a necessary characteristic one must have in order to be enlightened and/or divine, though humility is a useful trait to at least pretend to have in order for others to listen to you, if you care.

[selfAdjoint]

Agreed. Any proposed characteristic of an exalted state can be simulated, but that doesn't make you exalted. Jesus was very strong on that - I imagine other religious leaders were too, since it's a perennial problem. It was Jesus who introduced the word hypocrite in its present sense (in his day it was the Greek word for an actor on the stage).

However as was said, that doesn't change the fact that the exalted people in history have been "humble". In the sense of intensely, self-effacingly involved with the Other. Jesus and Socrates are my two examples, but I'm sure those from other traditions were also.

[TENYEARS]

What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish.

[phoenixthoth]

i may or not be understanding what you mean by this bridge. another author basically says that the bridge connects a dualistic experience with a nondualistic experience. in nonduality, there is only unity. for example, that which is observed, the process of observation, and the observer are all the same. the "logic" of a nondualistic experience doesn't, i don't think, resemble the "logic" of a dualistic experience at all and so the logic of duality will not get you across the bridge.

a quote from that author:
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38;st=2
this quote is from http://www.duerden.com

the whole thread is
http://207.70.190.98/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=15;t=38

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
What is humbleness born out of? Weakness? Strengh? Deviousness? If one can answer this question your feet are already on a bridge without boards. If you realize you are on the bridge will you be brought back to the other side from which you came? Would physics support such an ascertion? Would logic? What is really happening here and what is possible? Just from another fish, today a dog fish. Humbleness is none other than the wisdom, which is born of suffering, and questioning the pain of one's existence.