what seperates humans from animals

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by reverie

Science, technology etc were also formed and have evolved from purposes outside of our reproductive concern. This then shows that humans are human more complex and dynamic creatures who find meaning outside of pure survivalistic means, which also shows our evolution contains things made from many various purposes and meanings.

Yes, we do have subjective concerns, feelings, motives, etc. It is just that these subject facts are contingent on the physical facts. Subjectively speaking, the purpose of life is whatever you want it to be. Scientifically speaking, the purpose of life is to reproduce. Why is this? Well, because quite simply, things that do not reproduce do not produce further life. This seems to be one of the most obvious ways to distinguish life from non-life. I am not under the delusion that this definition is perfect. Mules, for example, don't seem to count as life on this definition. They are life, though, it is just their existence is contingent on life existing before them, but not necessarily afterwards.

Alan Turing, for example, was gay. This mere fact does not somehow place outside of the evolutionary chain. He had parents. His innovations with computation have allowed many more humans to survive than otherwise would have. Human facts are dependent on biological facts, but not identical to them. There are supervenient relationships going on here:


Supervenience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by Legal lies

What you say is interesting, but I think you overstate your case. No other animal has a brain developed quite like ours-we have highly developed cortices, intricate neural networks, a unique "mirror neuron"Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia system, a large brain surface area, high brain mass proportionate to body mass, etc. No other animals seem to have the same powers for symbolic interaction, abstraction, etc.

And I think your theory about non-kin conflicts of interest being suppressed is only marginally true today. Resources have become much less scarce since the Industrial Revolution. This has allowed humans to become involved in more reciprocally beneficial relationships liberating the human tendency for love and compassion (altruistic tendencies are less pronounced when resources are hard to come by). It is not that we only get along because are all afraid of each other, but that humanity for the first time is beginning to understand that we are all one family with the same interests at heart. Plus, cooperation is mutally advantageous. Call me an optimist, but I think that my theory makes a lot of sense, too.

its not my theory, its basically the topic of an entire upper division biology class. it is extremely well proven, and it is so general and widespread it would be easily falsifiable if it were false. the core theory is that human history and evolution is a direct result of coersive suppression of non-kin conflicts of interest.

you think people have tendency for love and compassion? well... the holocaust happened 55 years ago :P to this day we still have an elite group of wealthy people whom control an extremely large portion of the wealth and power. It has nothing to do with the current availability of resources, first off, we are producing more resources however they cost more than ever and there is more poverty and starvation than ever. the wealthiest 1 percent of people own 25 percent of the wealth. but this has nothing to do with conflicts of interest. evolution and natural selection is driven by the fact that each individuals goal is for self preservation and the passing on of his own genes. we are still animals and we still are self serving creatures. in the animal world as well as society there are always others you are in competition with. in our society these people are literally the "criminals" or "bad guys". what do you think would happen in a society with no police? what would stop a gang of criminals from killing everyone and taking whatever they wanted? this is the most literal example of coersive suppression of non-kin conflicts of interest ....

. A peaceful group of people like the Tibetans are currently at the mercy of the Chinese yet our government does nothing. Meanwhile we are spending almost a trillion dollars "liberating" the iraq people? are people becoming inherently good? Fuck no, we need iraq's oil. we still have these conflicts of interest going on, but now with nuclear weapons they are on the state level. nuclear weapons does a decent job of projecting coersive threat so there will most likely not be any war between nuclear nations, however any country that does not have nuclear capacity is fair game. the theory of coersive suppression of non-kin conflicts of interest still applies today. our seemingly peaceful society is only held together because of the threat of elite suppression of non -kin conflicts of interest, IE if there was no police and no military, we would revert to the back to ancient ways

as far as physiology goes i was merely making the point that our physiology is not that different than that of many animals, and the only reason our brain evolved the way it did was a direct result of the capacity for elite throwing which led to the creation of the human village and rapidly facilitated brain expansion in the first place. you claim that abstract thought and compassion are a result of a large brain, yet humans have been physiologically modern for 200k years, and only in the past 5 years have humans become "advanced". so what is your explanation for that? and why were humans brutally violent for their entire history up to modern times?

The core thing that i think you have to realize is that humans arent inherently intelligent, we arent born with any skills whatsoever. the only thing thats makes us intelligent is the fact that after a human baby is born it is weened for a prolonged period of time while its brain is still growing. if you look at most animals they are literally born with most of their survival skills programmed into their brain. all the things you think and believe about life have been taught to you or you absorbed it from your surroundings. there are people who are hateful racist ignorant hicks, or there are people in china for example whom are taught obedience and intense nationalism and would die for their beliefs even if they were completely false. people are not inherently peaceful or loving ... people may seem peaceful because you are within your own country, surrounded by your country men, and because you are within the control of a powerful elite holder of coersive threat you feel safe and you think people are peaceful. but really it took thousands of years of bloodshed and murder to get to this point, and even now it is just a facade of democratic peaceful state.

excuse any typos, or bad wording, its tough typing at 4 am

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by reverie

Organisms are part of processes not purposes.. Purposes is a trait of consciousness and that is what makes this subject a subjective relative one.

sigh.... why must you continue to talk about the sentence.

i understand what you are trying to say but it adds absolutely no value to the discussion nor does it detract from the fact that everything i have said is true.

Originally Posted by Waves

.

i think all ziplock is really trying to argue, in a very basic sense, correct me if im wrong, is that there is no one sole factor that decides how animals behave and what they will choose to do. are YOUR choices dictated by your instincts? maybe influenced a bit, but your choices are your choices. why should it be any different for animals?

animal behavior (as well as human behavior) is extremely predictable and has been extensively studied and common themes have occured which led to the creation of a experimentally tested scientific theory based upon explaining why those behaviors occur. this theory accurately predicts basically all of human history. it is a general statement. of course you cant define all of life as one way, that is not the purpose. it applies to the much broader picture... i thought this was common sense but apparently everyone has to argue that i am wrong because life is relative and for some reason this turned into an argument about the "purpose of life".

yea i get it already, you can think your purpose is whatever you want

and btw your cat is a domesticated animal. by showing affection towards you, it increases its chances of getting fed , increases its healthiness and increases the chance that a human like yourself will think the cat is cute and you will selectively breed cats that are friendly and cute. the cats kindness is merely a result of selective breeding for domestication thus is a direct result of the fact that life and behavior revolves around the passing of genetic information

nigga please...

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by Legal lies

What you say is interesting, but I think you And I think your theory about non-kin conflicts of interest being suppressed is only marginally true today. Resources have become much less scarce since the Industrial Revolution. This has allowed humans to become involved in more reciprocally beneficial relationships liberating the human tendency for love and compassion (altruistic tendencies are less pronounced when resources are hard to come by). It is not that we only get along because are all afraid of each other, but that humanity for the first time is beginning to understand that we are all one family with the same interests at heart. Plus, cooperation is mutally advantageous. Call me an optimist, but I think that my theory makes a lot of sense, too.

You just contradicted youself, if I'm the only 1 who sees it..read that message twice...

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

sigh.... why must you continue to

and btw your cat is a domesticated animal. by showing affection towards you, it increases its chances of getting fed , increases its healthiness and therefore increases its chances of reproductive success in the future. so in the case of cats, they would be naturally selected for affection towards humans.

nigga please...

that is just one facet of his personality, what you say is true, but theres a lot of personality in a cat (most of it subtle)


bread thank you...

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by matthewmunari

You just contradicted youself, if I'm the only 1 who sees it..read that message twice...

I'm not seeing it...care to point it out to me?

[Waves]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

sigh.... why must you continue to talk about the sentence.

i understand what you are trying to say but it adds absolutely no value to the discussion nor does it detract from the fact that everything i have said is true.



animal behavior (as well as human behavior) is extremely predictable and has been extensively studied and common themes have occured which led to the creation of a experimentally tested scientific theory based upon explaining why those behaviors occur. this theory accurately predicts basically all of human history. it is a general statement. of course you cant define all of life as one way, that is not the purpose. it applies to the much broader picture... i thought this was common sense but apparently everyone has to argue that i am wrong because life is relative and for some reason this turned into an argument about the "purpose of life".

Well now your changing your argument. First you say life has one specific purpose for all organisms, that is to pass on genetic information, and then you say that you cant define life as one way. I did not read anything about you saying anything about a "broader picture" and i dont understand what that even means.

yea i get it already, you can think your purpose is whatever you want

Not only that, but i can MAKE my purpose whatever i want. And so can any other animal, as purpose is context relevant, which we have already discussed.

and btw your cat is a domesticated animal. by showing affection towards you, it increases its chances of getting fed , increases its healthiness and increases the chance that a human like yourself will think the cat is cute and you will selectively breed cats that are friendly and cute. the cats kindness is merely a result of selective breeding for domestication thus is a direct result of the fact that life and behavior revolves around the passing of genetic information

nigga please...

so what about tigers and other wild animals that are raised in captivity and hug their trainers and stuff? theres been no domestication with these animals, yet they behave the same way my cat does. surely that shows you that animals can choose to go outside of their "genetic programming" and "program" other behavior that doesnt strictly correlate to passing on their genetic information?

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by Waves

Well now your changing your argument. First you say life has one specific purpose for all organisms, that is to pass on genetic information, and then you say that you cant define life as one way.

and so the endless argument over the wording of one sentence continues....

Originally Posted by Waves

so what about tigers and other wild animals that are raised in captivity and hug their trainers and stuff? theres been no domestication with these animals, yet they behave the same way my cat does. surely that shows you that animals can choose to go outside of their "genetic programming" and "program" other behavior that doesnt strictly correlate to passing on their genetic information?

. tigers are predatory animals and have Altricial young like humans except not nearly as advanced. as altricial animals they learn extra genetic information after birth and therefore they can be trained or essentially decieved to do anything whether or not it is successful for them. everything in life is a result of genetics and the way said organism genetics evolved. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BIOLOGY, an animal being social or playful or a human thinking abstractly merely serves to further the reproductive success of said creature in its own way.

this is still an argument over on whether or not "the sole purpose of organism is to pass on genetic information". i only said the statement in the context of the theory i was explaining... i get it , that you can argue otherwise yet you are forgetting that i only said it in the context of which i was trying to explain. i tried to change the wording to fit the context better or clarify what i was trying to say and now you are claiming that i am changing my argument, however i am simply trying to put it in a more acceptable form for you. i am trying to explain things from the perspective of biology, and you are criticizing that it is not correct by presenting ideas that fundamentally have nothing to do with biology

im not saying you are wrong, i dont necessarily disagree, its just that from the perspective of a biologist things are approached and thought of from an objective perspective so you can find underlining themes and processes that drive animal behavior.

[ziplock]

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

no shit sherlock

you wouldn't do very good on a science test trying to argue that a "point is relative". as i said before, it is the context in which the statement is said in the context of evolution the driving force of animal behavior and natural selection is reproduction, and animal behavior is driven by their sole purpose to pass on their genetic information. this is the foundation of genetics and evolution.

as i have said before , this little argument was and still is pointless.

Ted? I thought I was done with you. We mutually /ended the convo. Oh wellz.

First off, who the fuck said I'd try to argue that "a point is relative" on a science test? As to the rest of it, I'll make this painfully simple for you. I said...

Originally Posted by tedkennedy

every organism in existences SOLE GOAL is to pass on its genetic information.

... is wrong. And it is. Do I really care about your revisions of the sentence? No. You can dance away all you want. That statement was wrong, you were wrong, done.

Originally Posted by Legal lies

My point is that I mean (and I think most people mean) exactly the same thing when I say point or goal as you do when you say function or something else. This is a different use of the term goal/point than we would use to say someone has a point/goal. To assume that I and others like me must be misunderstanding the point of science comes off as condescending.

Reducing the plethora of potential "goals", "points", and "reasons" done to one "sole" one is a stupid completely subjective move. Such exclusive thinking serves no purpose and does nothing to describe as accurately as possible the phenomenon in question. Thus my criticisms of tedkennedy.

As for the whole misunderstanding science, that is in regards to seeing science as anything more than the acquisition of knowledge through the scientific method. To say that science or any field that falls under it's umbrella "says" anything is incorrect, as how can a method of observation and description say fuck all? That's like saying the circular method of brushing my teeth says it's more efficient. The people employing that method are the only ones capable of saying anything, they can claim it shows "the point of life" or whatever to be "said" by "biology", or they can claim the circular method of brushing your teeth is efficient. The method says nothing. When the people employing the method then make statements it should be noted that it is only opinion drawn from observation, to perpetrate it as fact is just ludicrous. Again, my criticisms towards tedkennedy.

Let's see how many more posts it'll take for me to explain this one.

[Mescalito]

^Indeed.

[tedkennedy]

Originally Posted by ziplock

Starting to draw conclusions such as passing genetic information being the sole goal of all organisms in existence is taking it a step beyond the terms of evolutionary biology. Biology studies these actions, behaviors, the correlations, consequences, so on and so forth, creating theories and models to represent these phenomenon. Purpose, reason, goals, these are subjective concepts taking part in the human mind that we then associate to these phenomenon. It's like I'm arguing about God with you. The fact that something takes place does not immediately mean that it is important, the "sole goal," "meaningful," or anything else. It just means that it happens.

Also, you can go right ahead and now make an exception for humans and dance around that. That however does not negate the fact that your original statement was directed at all organisms in existence which obviously includes humans. You can also call some foul play on manipulating the context, however there is no other logical way to interpret your statement. All organisms, sole goal. Which is wrong. There are also plenty of examples of cooperation within species of organisms and between species.

The brunt of your argument is just unreasonable. That is reducing all organisms down to simply a vehicle to pass genetic information. One can just as easily interpret it another manner and the field of biology doesn't say anything one way or another. The people who study biology are the ones jumping to the conclusions as you have here.

ok i have to go email my professor because apparently everything he teaches is wrong

how could i have been so stupid as to believe that there could be underlining truths in life. stupid me. i guess everything is just unpredictable, subjective and relative to personal experience. oh boy!

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by ziplock

As for the whole misunderstanding science, that is in regards to seeing science as anything more than the acquisition of knowledge through the scientific method. To say that science or any field that falls under it's umbrella "says" anything is incorrect, as how can a method of observation and description say fuck all? That's like saying the circular method of brushing my teeth says it's more efficient. The people employing that method are the only ones capable of saying anything, they can claim it shows "the point of life" or whatever to be "said" by "biology", or they can claim the circular method of brushing your teeth is efficient. The method says nothing. When the people employing the method then make statements it should be noted that it is only opinion drawn from observation, to perpetrate it as fact is just ludicrous. Again, my criticisms towards tedkennedy.

Let's see how many more posts it'll take for me to explain this one.

The scientific method involves gathering data and using these data to generate theories. Theories that seem to hold over time become widely accepted. Evolution is one of these theories. That is all there is to it. Evolution does not say everything about conscious human or animal purposes and intents-that is why we have other fields like psychology, religion, philosophy, art, etc. Evolution is a scientific theory, a biological theory, a type of scientific knowledge that is entirely within doubt. That said, the theory seems to fit the data very well. Life continues living by reproducing and the traits that are selected for are the ones that are passed on to the next generations in the greatest numbers. It all seems so simple.

"To say that science or any field that falls under it's umbrella "says" anything is incorrect, as how can a method of observation and description say fuck all?"

The scientific method actually works in this way by negative progress. Scientists have reasons to reject theories/descriptions that don't fit the observations. Science (scientists, really, of course) can "say" that it is incorrect that the Sun orbits the Earth. This doesn't seem to make sense from observations that have been made. Scientists can only say what what isn't/doesn't seem to be the case and what may be the case.

[matthewmunari]

Originally Posted by Legal lies

What you say is interesting, but I think you overstate your case. No other animal has a brain developed quite like ours-we have highly developed cortices, intricate neural networks, a unique "mirror neuron"Mirror neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia system, a large brain surface area, high brain mass proportionate to body mass, etc. No other animals seem to have the same powers for symbolic interaction, abstraction, etc.

And I think your theory about non-kin conflicts of interest being suppressed is only marginally true today. Resources have become much less scarce since the Industrial Revolution. This has allowed humans to become involved in more reciprocally beneficial relationships liberating the human tendency for love and compassion (altruistic tendencies are less pronounced when resources are hard to come by). It is not that we only get along because are all afraid of each other, but that humanity for the first time is beginning to understand that we are all one family with the same interests at heart. Plus, cooperation is mutally advantageous. Call me an optimist, but I think that my theory makes a lot of sense, too.

It is not that we only get along because are all afraid of each other, but that humanity for the first time is beginning to understand that we are all one family with the same interests at heart. Plus, cooperation is mutally advantageous.

How can you get along with someone your in fear of? I wouldn't call that getting along, I would call that intimidation....

[Legal lies]

Originally Posted by matthewmunari

It is not that we only get along because are all afraid of each other, but that humanity for the first time is beginning to understand that we are all one family with the same interests at heart. Plus, cooperation is mutally advantageous.

How can you get along with someone your in fear of? I wouldn't call that getting along, I would call that intimidation....

Claim-We Only get along because we are all afraid of each other
It is not that-Claim=false

I am denying the claim that is inherent in the theories that tedkennedy has been taught. Nothing in what you quoted contradicts other parts.