A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?

[Iacchus32]

The following began on the thread How would you engineer the perfect human?, which I decided to continue on here. I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection? For this would almost seem to be its very antithesis.

I've also introduced a few chapters of my book which speaks about a timeline of 10,000 years that accounts for the Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor, as well as the development of the differences between the races at this time, suggesting that we might very well be "transplants." Any suggestions? Comments?

Here are a couple of posts from that thread which kind of get the ball rolling here ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps this is the next step in natural evolution: Self guided evolution. I used to think that this may go against God's plan or muck up the gene pool. Now, I feel that this comes down to a matter of random odds vs choices. Nature can be very cruel.

But why the sudden leap all of a sudden, from that which is seemingly inocuous as natural selection, to that which seems to have "seized control" and quite possibly developed into its very antithesis? What part of the process will continue to remain "natural" once everything becomes artificial and man-made?

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Another God
The fact that our brain function is a direct result of natural selection, and our brains are designing the new bodies...

I think "estranged" from the whole process is probably the best way to put it? Indeed I think it's indicative to a basic flaw in the theory that we merely arrived here by natural selection alone, not that I believe the whole theory is invalid ...

I would venture to say that as a species we've only been here about 10,000 years -- more than likely as "transplants" -- thus accounting for the Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor, as well as the differences between the races of people, which conceivably could have happened in about that period of time. I speak about this idea further in the first three chapters of my book (specifically in chapter 2) if you're interested ...


chapter 1 |chapter 2 |chapter 3

EDIT: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

 

[Iacchus32]

Another God was also a bit dismayed by my use of numbers here, and even accused me of being a bit off my rocker (to say the least), to which the following applies ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Another God
I had a quick look at chap 2 of your book...but quickly stopped reading. I can't take stuff like this seriously:

I mean, seriously...how strung out were you to make that series of connections? it's not like anyone of them are at all obvious, let alone even related?

Lets say that I am not amazed that no one else has seen this amazing number game you have found.

Am afraid I can't let you off the hook quite so easily here. And, while I admit the numbers thing may sound a bit screwy (this was one of the first chapters I wrote way back when by the way), when plotted against the timeline of history, you may begin to see it yields some interesting results.

I also realize it may not have been the best thing to point you directly to this link, because you obviously aren't readily convinced. I probably should have left it with asking you to read the first three chapters. Which, I recommend you still do so if you're interested, at least chapter 1 anyway, since it doesn't deal with numbers so much. Also, you might want to consider reading chapter 5, which is the pivotal chapter of the book, and explains the timeline in accord with the year 1987, otherwise the rest of it becomes meaningless.

If anyone wants to refer to the timeline specifically I would recommend reading the following chapters below or, we can discuss the evolutionary flaw in general if you like? Thanks!


Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5

 

[FZ+]

Ok... the weak link in all of this is...

What part of the process will continue to remain "natural" once everything becomes artificial and man-made?

Now natural selection is about altering the frequency of genes according to local selective pressures. Any selective pressures. For example, the old moth example is that of humans providing the selective pressures.

The whole concept of natural as distinct from artificial is, in effect, misguided. It's based on the assumption of the specialness of mankind and human influence, which is IMHO... simply wrong.

It is matter of fact that any human action has reverberations way in excess of the locality where it takes place. The use of a car slightly affects the air content of the earth, and so it can be said that all reactions to atmospheric changes have been influenced by human action. We quickly get to the conclusion that ALL EFFECTS ARE ARTIFICIAL.

The reality is that we must observe that mankind is part of nature, and that the division between natural and artificial is entirely arbitary. Then we can see guidance of natural selection as continued natural selection - with simply a different selective pressure. There is no difference.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection? For this would almost seem to be its very antithesis.

Haven't had time to review that other topic or read your link (sorry), but genetic alterations would probably fall under the topic of "artificial selection" which is another evolutionary mechanism like natural selection (although some people would argue that such uses of technology is "natural" human behavior). So, it doesn't seem to be a flaw of N.S., but instead a different aspect of evolution (which is simply changes in a gene pool from generation to generation). A.S. certainly can be faster acting than N.S. (as evidenced by agriculture and animal domestication). But perhaps you meant more than this?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... the weak link in all of this is...

Really? I thought it was a very good point. In fact I thought it was rather obvious. Oh well, silly me.

Now natural selection is about altering the frequency of genes according to local selective pressures. Any selective pressures. For example, the old moth example is that of humans providing the selective pressures.

The whole concept of natural as distinct from artificial is, in effect, misguided. It's based on the assumption of the specialness of mankind and human influence, which is IMHO... simply wrong.

Yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature.

It is matter of fact that any human action has reverberations way in excess of the locality where it takes place. The use of a car slightly affects the air content of the earth, and so it can be said that all reactions to atmospheric changes have been influenced by human action. We quickly get to the conclusion that ALL EFFECTS ARE ARTIFICIAL.

If it wasn't for the fact that our existence on this planet didn't have such a broad impact on life in general -- to the extent of seizing control and over-riding the diversity -- I would be inclined to agree. While I think it would only be fair to say that life exists because of its diversity, even when looking at the complex diversity that goes into the makeup of the human body ... an eco-system unto itself!

The reality is that we must observe that mankind is part of nature, and that the division between natural and artificial is entirely arbitary. Then we can see guidance of natural selection as continued natural selection - with simply a different selective pressure. There is no difference.

But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming?

 

[Another God]

But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming? [/B]

NO matter what we say, we are stuck taking consequences for our actions. We can try to delude ourselves as much as we want, but you can't avoid consequences.

 

[megashawn]

Ok, so when humans were using sticks to hunt and living in caves, it was natural?

Now that we use a rifle, which is made by a man, same kinda man that made the spear, and live in a house, built by a man, generally out of natural materials its artificial?

I mean, if a dog were to build his own dog house somehow, would it be an artifical dwelling?

Technology is an accomplishment of a natural being. Burning a coal engine to heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity so we can argue about this is a natural process. It releases chemicals, which may or may not be found naturally in Earth's enviroment, they are found elsewhere in the universe, almost certainly.

You say many people feel we are not one with nature. That is because we've been able to use are tool building ability to alter our nature. Is it simply because we use our natural ability to alter our natural habitat what makes it artifical?

If we take it to the next step, using our technology, a result of our natural ability, to alter our genetics, how is this any less natural, then using that spear to kill a deer? It is simply putting to use a tool we created to improve our life.

Hopefully, we can start using our tools to improve all life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
NO matter what we say, we are stuck taking consequences for our actions. We can try to delude ourselves as much as we want, but you can't avoid consequences.

Of course, but does that mean we shouldn't be required to take corrective action?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Ok, so when humans were using sticks to hunt and living in caves, it was natural?

Or, how far would we go back to construe what being human means? Just like I say in the timeline in my book, it began about 10,000 years ago with Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Beyond that -- i.e., the development of civilization -- what other inkling is there to suggest that what came before was truly human?

Now that we use a rifle, which is made by a man, same kinda man that made the spear, and live in a house, built by a man, generally out of natural materials its artificial?

I mean, if a dog were to build his own dog house somehow, would it be an artifical dwelling?

Technology is an accomplishment of a natural being. Burning a coal engine to heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity so we can argue about this is a natural process. It releases chemicals, which may or may not be found naturally in Earth's enviroment, they are found elsewhere in the universe, almost certainly.

No, the key here is are we really natural to the environment? ... If not, then "who" put us here?

You say many people feel we are not one with nature. That is because we've been able to use are tool building ability to alter our nature. Is it simply because we use our natural ability to alter our natural habitat what makes it artifical?

Yes, but what happens when we wipe out all the diversity?

If we take it to the next step, using our technology, a result of our natural ability, to alter our genetics, how is this any less natural, then using that spear to kill a deer? It is simply putting to use a tool we created to improve our life.

Hopefully, we can start using our tools to improve all life.

It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Phobos
Haven't had time to review that other topic or read your link (sorry), but genetic alterations would probably fall under the topic of "artificial selection" which is another evolutionary mechanism like natural selection (although some people would argue that such uses of technology is "natural" human behavior). So, it doesn't seem to be a flaw of N.S., but instead a different aspect of evolution (which is simply changes in a gene pool from generation to generation).

Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?

A.S. certainly can be faster acting than N.S. (as evidenced by agriculture and animal domestication). But perhaps you meant more than this?

And yet I think this could be the problem, because it leaves little time for anything else to adapt, except for as you say, those things we've managed to domesticate. But what of those things which can't be domesticated? What's going to happen there?

Also, if you read this thing about the timeline, you may wish to consider the possibility that we've only been here as "a species" (if we should call it as such) for about 10,000 years.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, how far would we go back to construe what being human means? Just like I say in the timeline in my book, it began about 10,000 years ago with Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Beyond that -- i.e., the development of civilization -- what other inkling is there to suggest that what came before was truly human?

You are trying to impose our arbitrary designation of groupings onto nature. Just because we believe we are human, all of us, and nothing else is, doesn't mean that we actually are different to anything. At a deep level, we are all different to everything, including each other, and then on an even deeper lever, we are all identical.

Groupings of species, genera's, clades etc are simply for our own ease of understanding, and don't need to be directly reflected in nature by solid lines of demarcation.

Lines simply don't exist in nature. nature appears to work in constant shades of grey.

Yes, but what happens when we wipe out all the diversity?

The remaining species diversify. The same way it has happened since the beginning of life.

It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place!

What's the garden of eden?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?

Nothing 'wrong' with it, but there is nothing 'right' with it either. As part of nature it is purely objective and uncaring in its ways. At least when we use artificial selection we are taking care of our own interests for once.

We associate it with "us" because that's who we are. We are so special, because we are us, and we are only concerned with us. There is nothing 'Actually' special about us...but that doesn't mean we can't think of ourselves as special.

And yet I think this could be the problem, because it leaves little time for anything else to adapt, except for as you say, those things we've managed to domesticate. But what of those things which can't be domesticated? What's going to happen there?

We put them in zoo's or they die.

Many things will adapt though. A strong selection pressure causes rapid evolution.

Also, if you read this thing about the timeline, you may wish to consider the possibility that we've only been here as "a species" (if we should call it as such) for about 10,000 years.

I wouldn't bother considering that, because when ever alteration is only separated by a nothing of a tiny thing...there is no need to designate the start and the end of a 'species' so specifically.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
You are trying to impose our arbitrary designation of groupings onto nature. Just because we believe we are human, all of us, and nothing else is, doesn't mean that we actually are different to anything. At a deep level, we are all different to everything, including each other, and then on an even deeper lever, we are all identical.

Groupings of species, genera's, clades etc are simply for our own ease of understanding, and don't need to be directly reflected in nature by solid lines of demarcation.

Lines simply don't exist in nature. nature appears to work in constant shades of grey.

And yet this seems to be something we're very good at doing now isn't it?

The remaining species diversify. The same way it has happened since the beginning of life.

If it's inevitable, then I suppose that's how it works.

What's the garden of eden?

Let's say it's supposed to represent man's fall from grace (by playing God), by which he becomes subjected to -- and hence "struggles with" -- nature.

Nothing 'wrong' with it, but there is nothing 'right' with it either. As part of nature it is purely objective and uncaring in its ways. At least when we use artificial selection we are taking care of our own interests for once.

You ever see a mother cat care for its little kittens? Or, a mother duck care for its little ducklings? Whereas with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."

We associate it with "us" because that's who we are. We are so special, because we are us, and we are only concerned with us. There is nothing 'Actually' special about us...but that doesn't mean we can't think of ourselves as special.

In which case it would seem to suggest that life is special, and maybe we should show a little appreciation for what we've got.

We put them in zoo's or they die.

Sounds a bit reminiscent of Noah don't you think?

Many things will adapt though. A strong selection pressure causes rapid evolution.

But why should we allow it to happen if we can forsee it coming? If as you say, it's a relief to be saved from the "pangs of nature," then why should we -- at the same time -- stand by and allow for our devastation?

I wouldn't bother considering that, because when ever alteration is only separated by a nothing of a tiny thing...there is no need to designate the start and the end of a 'species' so specifically.

Except for the fact that we won't take into account religion which has been with us for 10,000 years.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this seems to be something we're very good at doing now isn't it?

No, not at all. we are terrible at it. We insist on it, and there are great reasons for that, but we suck at it. We can't agree on the definition of pretty much anything.

You ever see a mother cat care for its little kittens? Or, a mother duck care for its little ducklings? Whereas with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."

Of course ducks, cats etc care for their little ones. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be any more cats and/or ducks around, and your point couldn't be said.

In which case it would seem to suggest that life is special, and maybe we should show a little appreciation for what we've got.

How? Why? Just because we are egocentric: life is special. ? There is no logic in such a connection.

Sounds a bit reminiscent of Noah don't you think?

Of who?

But why should we allow it to happen if we can forsee it coming? If as you say, it's a relief to be saved from the "pangs of nature," then why should we -- at the same time -- stand by and allow for our devastation?

Because we think we can avoid it/we deny it will ever happen/we are too concerned with the present/we don't want to give up what we can have now in case it 'might' happen...

Except for the fact that we won't take into account religion which has been with us for 10,000 years.

Why should we? What makes u think it has been with us for that long? I know cavemen type people buried their dead a lot longer ago than that, with decorations on the dead like some sort of ritual had been carried out. Seems a lot like a religious tradition.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."

Originally Said by Douglas Adams
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming?

Its only an excuse if people use it as an excuse. It doesn't have to nor should it be.

I don't really have anything else to add except to second what FZ+ said. I agree completely. And I'm sick and tired of the elitist movement toward "natural" stuff such as food.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its only an excuse if people use it as an excuse. It doesn't have to nor should it be.

I don't really have anything else to add except to second what FZ+ said. I agree completely. And I'm sick and tired of the elitist movement toward "natural" stuff such as food.

No, I'm just as "addicted" to all this man-made stuff as anyone else. And yet if we continue to stress that this whole current state-of-affairs came about "naturally" -- which is to say there's very little we can do about it, and it's okay to remain complacent -- then at some point we're going to be in for the biggest shock of our lives. Nature did not bring us to our current predicament.

 

[FZ+]

No you misunderstand.

All our works, they are natural - because we are part of nature. As when a tree uses the "tools" of sunlight and CO2 to make their changes to the world, (and ones that are FAR more significant than anything we have done) the things we do are using our natural capabilities.

We can't presume arrogantly that we are above nature, and hence need to protect it out of a mere whim. It's not a matter of being nature removing responsibility, but giving us the need to act as almost a case of self-preservation. Nature - the bit of it that is us got us into this position indeed, and that's why we are capable of changing it. Preserving diversity is a thing that ultimately favours us, by saving the flavour that enriches the nature we are apart of.

To say that we are above nature, is to delude us as to how we are really integral to this world, both in powers and responsibility. It's to pretend that it will all settle itself down, that we can avoid taking choices and actions and "go back to nature". Which is, I need not mention, a bad thing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No you misunderstand.

All our works, they are natural - because we are part of nature. As when a tree uses the "tools" of sunlight and CO2 to make their changes to the world, (and ones that are FAR more significant than anything we have done) the things we do are using our natural capabilities.

Have you bothered to read any of my posts, including the last one posted above? ...

The Church of Man | Timeline Page 1 | Timeline Page 2 | The Rebirth

EDIT: These posts have been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

We can't presume arrogantly that we are above nature, and hence need to protect itout of a mere whim. It's not a matter of being nature removing responsibility, but giving us the need to act as almost a case of self-preservation. Nature - the bit of it that is us got us into this position indeed, and that's why we are capable of changing it. Preserving diversity is a thing that ultimately favours us, by saving the flavour that enriches the nature we are apart of.

No, we aren't above nature, in the sense that we have "fallen to it." And what we need to understand, is that the fight is not against nature, but against ourselves. At which point maybe we can strike an accord with nature, while making certain allowances for it, and stop blaming it for our predicament. Otherwise it will only continue to get worse.

To say that we are above nature, is to delude us as to how we are really integral to this world, both in powers and responsibility. It's to pretend that it will all settle itself down, that we can avoid taking choices and actions and "go back to nature". Which is, I need not mention, a bad thing.

Even so, the spiritual world does rules over the natural world, and this is what I'm suggesting. Whereas if we don't understand that the mind rules over the rest of body -- "in spirit" -- including the soles of one's feet, then we won't be able to do anything constructively.

You see if we understood that our stay here is only temporary, that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!

 

[Iacchus32]

Grubbing in the Dark?

Well, I couldn't resist adding this one!

From the thread, Skeptics a Dying Breed? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant.

Agreed.

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations.

And yet it's all about the "mechanical truth," not the "animated truth" (life itself) which lies beyond the mechanics.

Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.

Hey I admit, my body is subject to gravity just like everybody else's. That's what makes it so difficult to explain. And yet caterpillars do turn into butterflies.

Of course in that sense you can say the animated truth "arose" from the mechanical truth. And yet, if the animated truth didn't exist first, there would be nothing to lay the eggs to spawn the mechanical truth. In other words butterflies procreate and caterpillars don't.

So it's really an illusion that we seem to be playing with here -- due to our being earthbound -- much like grubs grubbing in the dark!

While here I thought the thread below was interesting, because of the general date, 7,500 years ago, which comes very close the date posted on my timeline -- "5143 BC."

From the thread, Believers in the lost Ark: Guardian, UK ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1015350,00.html

It's interesting he should come up with that date. Because it's very close to the date I came up with, about 7,160 years ago.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html#21

EDIT: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

 

[FZ+]

Have you bothered to read any of my posts, including the last one posted above? ...

Yes, and I am saying you missed the point. We aren't addicted to man-made things just as we aren't addicted to life.

No, we aren't above nature, in the sense that we have "fallen to it."

Still missing point. We aren't above, below, beside, in front or anything. We are a part of nature, and it's up to us to get us the sort of nature we want. The entity, or will of nature is not existent but as the combination of actions of many different lifeforms - not striking a cord with whatever, but recognising what we actually want and noticing that each move we make affects the lot. Nature isn't for "blame" for anything, because it doesn't exist a way that allows it to take blame.

Even so, the spiritual world does rules over the natural world, and this is what I'm suggesting.

Gah! You can't make that distinction of the "natural" world! It might be easier just to strike that word from the dictionary. There is NO SUCH (non-arbitary) ENTITY as NATURE. There is NO UNIVERSAL ADJECTIVE called NATURAL. Everything is a set of influences on everything else. It is ALL A BIG SYSTEM!

and stop ravaging the damn planet!

(OK, OK I'll stop shouting...) We are not ravaging the damn planet. We are the damn planet, and we are getting in a position where it is bad for us. We can't destroy the earth, or even life. We can destroy ourselves, and it is about keeping the entire system in a position where it will still be some place we want to live.

We don't own the planet - nobody owns the planet - it's a system we are part of, that can exist in many states, few of which we exist in.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection?

If genetically altered human beings will be more fit for living on the Earth, they'll survive, if not, they'll die out pretty quickly. That's natural selection.

The ability to change human beings is just as good (ok, it's bad, but it's just as effective) as being able to swim faster than anyone. I cannot fight a bear with my hands, but I can use a human-invented gun, which makes me stronger than the bear. So I'm more fit to live here. Natura; selection...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Yes, and I am saying you missed the point. We aren't addicted to man-made things just as we aren't addicted to life.

And yet if we were "addictive" by nature, why? Can't you look around you and see that people are out of control? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Hey, why are we addicted to Physics Forums?

Still missing point. We aren't above, below, beside, in front or anything. We are a part of nature, and it's up to us to get us the sort of nature we want. The entity, or will of nature is not existent but as the combination of actions of many different lifeforms - not striking a cord with whatever, but recognising what we actually want and noticing that each move we make affects the lot. Nature isn't for "blame" for anything, because it doesn't exist a way that allows it to take blame.

Why do men hate women? Why do husbands beat their wives, if not for the need to blame? Again, why are we out of control?

Gah! You can't make that distinction of the "natural" world! It might be easier just to strike that word from the dictionary. There is NO SUCH (non-arbitary) ENTITY as NATURE. There is NO UNIVERSAL ADJECTIVE called NATURAL. Everything is a set of influences on everything else. It is ALL A BIG SYSTEM!

Yes there is such a thing. This is why we have to ask ourselves, why doesn't our being here "feel natural?"

(OK, OK I'll stop shouting...) We are not ravaging the damn planet. We are the damn planet, and we are getting in a position where it is bad for us. We can't destroy the earth, or even life. We can destroy ourselves, and it is about keeping the entire system in a position where it will still be some place we want to live.

Really? I was originally going to say I don't agree with any of this and leave it at that. Hey it would be nice if all our problems went away by themselves now wouldn't it?

We don't own the planet - nobody owns the planet - it's a system we are part of, that can exist in many states, few of which we exist in.

Do you know anybody who owns a house, a car, a supermarket mall? Then they own a piece of the planet. We might as well give all these things up then if we're supposed to "pretend" like we don't own them.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tail
If genetically altered human beings will be more fit for living on the Earth, they'll survive, if not, they'll die out pretty quickly. That's natural selection.

The ability to change human beings is just as good (ok, it's bad, but it's just as effective) as being able to swim faster than anyone. I cannot fight a bear with my hands, but I can use a human-invented gun, which makes me stronger than the bear. So I'm more fit to live here. Natura; selection...

Yes, but can we accurately predict what's going to happen -- the so-called "side-effects" -- if we don't allow nature to run its course?

Isn't this normally what happens when we start tampering with things? We have to deal with the side-effects?

In fact this is the very problem right here. We really don't know what we're doing. Because our "thinking" is outside of nature.


NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

 

[Tail]

We can predict nothing.

I believe that meddling with nature will make us unfit to live IN nature...

If our thinking is outside of nature (hmm... don't forget we ourselves are "nature"!), we'll be eliminated. So easy!

 

[FZ+]

And yet if we were "addictive" by nature, why?

Didn't I tell you not to use the word nature?

Yes there is such a thing. This is why we have to ask ourselves, why doesn't our being here "feel natural?"

Because we have NEVER "FELT NATURAL". Because natural doesn't exist in the way we think it does.

Hey it would be nice if all our problems went away by themselves now wouldn't it?

You haven't even given any indication of understanding a single word I wrote yet.

Do you know anybody who owns a house, a car, a supermarket mall?

What I have said repeatedly is that nature is not a car, a supermarket mall or a house. Nature is a stupid metaphorical term about an abstract entity which we are part of, representing a collective grouping which if we aren't for a moment so egotistical, involves us. The planet I mean is a grouping - a biosphere. Does your thumb own your body?

Why do men hate women? Why do husbands beat their wives, if not for the need to blame? Again, why are we out of control?

Because men are *******s(Hey! The language filter works!) relative to the behaviour we expect of them. Because the behaviour we clumsily expect of them is beyond what these men acheive.

Let's just list my argument again.

1. The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitary and misleading.
2. Humans are products of nature, and by no way can we declare human actions to be divided objectively from "natural" ones.
3. The Earth represents a macro-system of many components working together, including mankind. Nature/earth has no will or trend of it's own, except as the holistic result of the entire system together.
4. There is no specific position towards which the system prefers to be. It is exhibited as simply a dynamic system, with a "natural position" only definable as an average over a set period of time.
5. There is no special quality about any situation the earth/nature system is in - except to specific subsystems like humanity.
6. As the component of the system, no component can claim ownership of the other - in fact, in general control and ownership only exist as legal conveniences. In reality, the things they refer to exist as simply connecting influences, not one-way dominance.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Didn't I tell you not to use the word nature?

I think it would be fair to say that man has his own nature, part of which is tied to the "natural world," and the other part which isn't.

Because we have NEVER "FELT NATURAL". Because natural doesn't exist in the way we think it does.

Ever see a monkey psychiatrist, or a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans.

Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It's highly unlikely, otherwise it will be in conflict with its environment.

You haven't even given any indication of understanding a single word I wrote yet.

Actually you present a very good argument, unfortunately I don't agree with any of it.

What I have said repeatedly is that nature is not a car, a supermarket mall or a house. Nature is a stupid metaphorical term about an abstract entity which we are part of, representing a collective grouping which if we aren't for a moment so egotistical, involves us. The planet I mean is a grouping - a biosphere. Does your thumb own your body?

Tell this to somebody like Adolf Hitler. And what was the name of that song by Tears for Fears ... "Everybody Wants to Rule the World?"

Because men are *******s(Hey! The language filter works!) relative to the behaviour we expect of them. Because the behaviour we clumsily expect of them is beyond what these men acheive.

Well, maybe we have something we can agree upon here?

Let's just list my argument again.

1. The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitary and misleading.
2. Humans are products of nature, and by no way can we declare human actions to be divided objectively from "natural" ones.
3. The Earth represents a macro-system of many components working together, including mankind. Nature/earth has no will or trend of it's own, except as the holistic result of the entire system together.
4. There is no specific position towards which the system prefers to be. It is exhibited as simply a dynamic system, with a "natural position" only definable as an average over a set period of time.
5. There is no special quality about any situation the earth/nature system is in - except to specific subsystems like humanity.
6. As the component of the system, no component can claim ownership of the other - in fact, in general control and ownership only exist as legal conveniences. In reality, the things they refer to exist as simply connecting influences, not one-way dominance.

You can argue your point as long as you want, but it's not going to change the fact that "the clash" exists. Indeed, it's an idea that has a lot of merit and requires some further consideration.

Did you by any chance read my Timeline material?

Oh well, I'm not the one to sound the trumpet before me, so perhaps it'll never get read? I'm the kind of person who tends to focus on the details (you know, do the actual work) rather than make a big display of it. Not to say I won't try and let other people know about it, but at some point I have to get back to the task of hashing out the details.

 

[FZ+]

I think it would be fair to say that man has his own nature, part of which is tied to the "natural world," and the other part which isn't.

No it isn't, as I repeated. You are assuming falsely an inherent "average" on the planet, to which you can be in equilibrium with or not. I am saying that by the dynamic quality (almost said "nature" there) of the world, such averages are transient and arbitary.

Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It's highly unlikely, otherwise it will be in conflict with its environment.

Does a human doubt that he is a human? (Ruling out deviants of course) This is a matter of personal identity, and is not relevant to this. What is relavent is to notice that "nature" as I have said is based on perspective - so, the lion would consider humans etc as part of his nature, a nature that drives past on land rovers and occassionally offers a neat snack.

Well, maybe we have something we can agree upon here?

That the language filter works?

You can argue your point as long as you want, but it's not going to change the fact that "the clash" exists.

Show me the clash, and tell me how it is different from the inherent competition that in present in all places where life interacts. Or I will still contend that a particular clash is not a fact.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever see a monkey psychiatrist, or a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans.

I think the biggest downfall of this conversation so far comes from the fact that FZ+ is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable) and Iachus32 is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable), but when FZ+ addresses your beliefs Iachus, you basically ignore his point, and continue usiong examples from yoiur belief system. If the foundations of your belief are being undermined by an argument, you cannot use that belief system to prove itself. You have to argue from basic premises to prove why your beliefs are valid.

Stop assuming the conclusion and arguing from that standpoint. Doing so, is not a discussion, it is pointless. it furthers no ones understanding, and challenges no ones beliefs.

From what I can see, FZ is challenging your belief by addressing your understanding of certain terms and the relations you are using those terms within. Instead of addressing those challenges, you continue to use the very same terms in a way which FZ is challenging. Why do you do that? Are you paying attention to the discussion? Do you want to learn/help others learn? Or do you not care?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
I think the biggest downfall of this conversation so far comes from the fact that FZ+ is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable) and Iachus32 is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable), but when FZ+ addresses your beliefs Iachus, you basically ignore his point, and continue usiong examples from yoiur belief system. If the foundations of your belief are being undermined by an argument, you cannot use that belief system to prove itself. You have to argue from basic premises to prove why your beliefs are valid.

Stop assuming the conclusion and arguing from that standpoint. Doing so, is not a discussion, it is pointless. it furthers no ones understanding, and challenges no ones beliefs.

From what I can see, FZ is challenging your belief by addressing your understanding of certain terms and the relations you are using those terms within. Instead of addressing those challenges, you continue to use the very same terms in a way which FZ is challenging. Why do you do that? Are you paying attention to the discussion? Do you want to learn/help others learn? Or do you not care?

Actually I have very little to disagree very with FZ+ here, at least in terms of the natural world -- if, in fact that's all there were. In fact I was about to say something about this before I added the part about "the clash" in the last post, which to me pretty much says the same thing. Although I admit I could have been a little more clear.

Therefore the problem is not nature itself, but man's relationship with nature. FZ+ wants to lump man in with nature, thereby saying nature doesn't in effect exist, and I want to extract man, saying the two are not one and the same. FZ+ wants to speak of the "one system," as if it included man which, would be fine by me if it didn't include man. So what else can I really do, besides argue my point that "the clash" does exist?

So let me ask you this. Why is it that I feel both you and FZ+ are not listening to me? Could it be that both you and he have entered this discussion with preconceived notions?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
FZ+ wants to lump man in with nature, thereby saying nature doesn't in effect exist, and I want to extract man, saying the two are not one and the same.

Perfact, that's all you needed to say. If you had have said to FZ "But I believe Man and Nature are the same: And here are my reasons" rather than constantly arguing from above that assumption, than many many posts in this thread could have been avoided.

Now, with that in mind, do you wish to continue this thread with the basic assumption that Man is outisde of nature, or do you want to address the fact that (at least) FZ+ and I disagree with this assumption, and start from there?

The choice is yours, and I am sure FZ would be just as willing as I am to accommodate both options (in the first case, we would probably both just leave the thread, while in the second instance we would be willing to explain why it is that we believe man to be a part of nature, and await your reasons for believing that man is not part of nature.)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
Perfact, that's all you needed to say. If you had have said to FZ "But I believe Man and Nature are the same: And here are my reasons" rather than constantly arguing from above that assumption, than many many posts in this thread could have been avoided.

Now, with that in mind, do you wish to continue this thread with the basic assumption that Man is outisde of nature, or do you want to address the fact that (at least) FZ+ and I disagree with this assumption, and start from there?

The choice is yours, and I am sure FZ would be just as willing as I am to accommodate both options (in the first case, we would probably both just leave the thread, while in the second instance we would be willing to explain why it is that we believe man to be a part of nature, and await your reasons for believing that man is not part of nature.)

Have you bothered to read any of this thread? Your condescending attitude really sucks man!

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think "estranged" from the whole process is probably the best way to put it? Indeed I think it's indicative to a basic flaw in the theory that we merely arrived here by natural selection alone, not that I believe the whole theory is invalid ...

Well, maybe I didn't quite spell it out here either, but it certainly alludes to the same! Can you tell me that it doesn't suggest the same? Also, I've had this conversation with FZ+ before, and he knows that I don't have a problem with evolution per se'. Which, is one reason I couldn't understand why he wasn't picking up on what I was saying?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the key here is are we really natural to the environment? ... If not, then "who" put us here?

Does this suggest anything to the contrary? Once again I am obviously making "that distinction" here.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place!

Once again, alluding to the fact that we are not natural to the environment.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?

This does not allude to the same thing?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let's say it's supposed to represent man's fall from grace (by playing God), by which he becomes subjected to -- and hence "struggles with" -- nature.

This does not allude to the same thing?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just as "addicted" to all this man-made stuff as anyone else. And yet if we continue to stress that this whole current state-of-affairs came about "naturally" -- which is to say there's very little we can do about it, and it's okay to remain complacent -- then at some point we're going to be in for the biggest shock of our lives. Nature did not bring us to our current predicament.

This does not allude to the same thing?



NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again, alluding to the fact that we are not natural to the environment.

This does not allude to the same thing?

This does not allude to the same thing?

This does not allude to the same thing?

And this is exactly my primary point: You have continued to claim that man wasn't in nature, without giving reasons for saying so. At no point did you say "Starting with the assumption that man is not part of nature..." nor did you correct FZ+ when he proceeded to disagree with your claims by saying "Oh, you have perhaps misunderstood my position. I am starting with the premise that man is outside of nature..."

It is quite obvious that you think man is outside of nature, but we all disagree with that assumption. Instead of confronting that disagreement, you insist on ignoring it, and restating your conclusion over and over...and over and over again.

Are you here to discuss contentious topics, or are you here to juxtapose contrary views for personal entertainment?

(PS: I do not mean for my attitude to be condescending, but I do admittedly get tired of your constant circling around the point, avoiding the issues, and reaffirmation of your own beliefs by restating them continually, ignoring the issues.

I have seen you involved in nearly every thread here, but I rarely see you actualy participate.

I have reached the point on several occasions already where I have decided that I am either going to ignore you completely or assist you with your methods of enquiry. Everyone here is interested in constructive rational engagement of ideas. Not useless undirected rhetoric.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
And this is exactly my primary point: You have continued to claim that man wasn't in nature, without giving reasons for saying so. At no point did you say "Starting with the assumption that man is not part of nature..." nor did you correct FZ+ when he proceeded to disagree with your claims by saying "Oh, you have perhaps misunderstood my position. I am starting with the premise that man is outside of nature..."

And so far nobody has told me anything that I don't already know about nature, nor have they really considered what I've had to say. Which is fine, I can accept that, so long as I don't have to accept this other load of crap that goes along with it.

It is quite obvious that you think man is outside of nature, but we all disagree with that assumption. Instead of confronting that disagreement, you insist on ignoring it, and restating your conclusion over and over...and over and over again.

What's this "we" business anyway? Yep, same preconceived bull**** on your part! And you're saying this is the same conclusion that I never stated in the first place? So what's it going to be?

Are you here to discuss contentious topics, or are you here to juxtapose contrary views for personal entertainment?

There you go again, clearly displaying your bias. No, the problem is that I don't agree with you!

(PS: I do not mean for my attitude to be condescending, but I do admittedly get tired of your constant circling around the point, avoiding the issues, and reaffirmation of your own beliefs by restating them continually, ignoring the issues.

Do you know what's funny? I really thought I was making some good points.

I have seen you involved in nearly every thread here, but I rarely see you actualy participate.

Well I guess the main thing is that I feel like I'm participating. Whereas if nobody chooses to respond, then so be it!

I have reached the point on several occasions already where I have decided that I am either going to ignore you completely or assist you with your methods of enquiry. Everyone here is interested in constructive rational engagement of ideas. Not useless undirected rhetoric.

Of course it sounds like rhetoric, because it's too contrary to the "accepted view." Should I change my viewpoint just because of that? Not hardly ... and I can assure you I won't!

Aside from that, I have nothing more to say on this matter.



NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And so far nobody has told me anything that I don't already know about nature, nor have they really considered what I've had to say.

No one has considered what you have to say, because you are starting from unfounded assumptions!

Why is it precisely that you believe man is outside of nature? What is this 'Nature' which he is outside of?

What's this "we" business anyway? Yep, same preconceived bull**** on your part! And you're saying this is the same conclusion that I never stated in the first place? So what's it going to be?

I don't understand most of what you are saying here. the we, is at least FZ and myself, and then probably the rest of the scientific community, philosophy community, and the educated english community. But don't get me wrong there, I am not claiming that that makes us right. No, i don't believe in arguments from authority. I believe in solid logically deductive arguments from solid premises. And that is what I intend to present...the second I have something to argue against.

There you go again, clearly displaying your bias. No, the problem is that I don't agree with you!

How is calling a topic contentious displaying my bias? It is agreeing that there is something worth disucssing!

If anything, the only bias present here is your bias to assuming that I am opposed to your views without foundation...even though you have no evidence for such a belief.

Of course it sounds like rhetoric, because it's too contrary to the "accepted view." Should I change my viewpoint just because of that? Not hardly ... and I can assure you I won't!

No, it sounds like pointless rhetorhic because it doesn't address any issues. It waltzes all over the place, making much noise, without any progress in understanding.

I am all more than happy to deal with things that are contrary to the accepted view. In fact, contrary to the accepted view is my natural habitat. Thats what I do. I question socially accepted standards...But I have reasons for doing so, basis's for my claims, logic behind my ideas... If this sounds like what you do, then try presenting this logic to us, and see what response you get!

 

[Iacchus32]

A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is alright as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.

What can I say? ...

Except life is capricious ... and I'm ornery.