Human Distinction

Remove all ads!

Wavefrequenty

Why do we still NEED things like truth and justice and religion?
Are monkeys thinking about the meaning of life? Did Neanderthals have religion? Is there free will? At what point did monkeys start having a choice? Are humans accountible for their actions or is there still because of our limited mind and our background a thing as instinct, a will that thrives our every move? Are then not stupidity and egoism the base of every action?
Is there a universal set of ethics? A thing with which we can judge others. Can we, with stupidity and egoism as our sublimated drives judge others, judge ourselves? Can we be judged or should we be pitied? What is then above us that should pity us. If the animals are beneath us, who is then above me? God? Who is then the centre of my personal universe? Are we a construct of our mind or is our mind a construct of us? Sum, ergo cogito; cogito, ergo sum. What is humanity then? A mere drone? Does fate exist? If every thing knowable was known, is life then not a videotape without the fastforward button? What is life then? What good is your life if you have alread lived it? Is life then not the opposite of death, but a species of the death? We have invented God because we needed him to exist, likewise our truth and our justice, our sweet revenge. Why have we invented them? To stand up amongst the animals and stare eye-to-eye at God. Our power, will to power!

 

Generalization. Compulsive behaviour for most people, product of society and emotions.

Ask one, maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe they don't need to? Personally I have found the meaning of life, it's just out there waiting for you, no use pondering on it.

Maybe, I doubt it, since they died out it could prove they had enough struggling to do to survive before starting pondering on why things are.

Depends on point of view.

Depends on point of view.

Depends on point of view.

Depends on point of view.

Define universal and ethics.

If..

Generalization/statement of your personal belief. Bad question

By who and for what actions?

Define above and beneath.

Er.. please really do define personal universe.

Define we/us.

Homo Sapiens..? (at least it was last I checked).

er..? define.

Depends on point of view.

No.. (why should it be?)

Bio-chemical reactions.

Depends how good you made it.

Life is the opposite of death, and what is a species of the death?

Generalization. That's definitely depending on point of view dude. Try to prove they've been made up and do not exist.

That's one theory I guess.


What was the point to this reply? Well what was the point to all those questions?
There's a load of hypothetical questions without any suggestions as to what the contents might mean making them really awful questions, since they could be open to interpretation of nearly anything.
I believe you didn't expect an analysis like this, since this is usually the questions that doesn't expect answers. Founding any form of statement on retorical questions is dreadful,

 

@ Nobleman. Selective Argumentation, nice description for a sneaky hit and run attack. I use it all the time. It is usually like cracking a rack of snooker balls wide open.

Of course hit and run is no good on a persistant media like these boards. So I presented the bogus argument of lower intellect excluding people from humanity, fully expecting it to be swept aside, taking the 'higher intellect as defining humanity' argument with it.

Under friendly fire such a simple subterfuge is now exposed. I must retreat to a safe distance.

You have planted your ABC sigiled banner in plain sight and in open defiance of Morgoth's vieled attempts to draw you into the murky Labyrinth of existentialism.

Before you had a chance to decide whether to hold fast, or advance on what was obviously a trap, a huge bombast from Lokken tore the hastily constucted Labyrinth to pieces.

The next move has to be by Morgoth. Advance on Nobleman, rebuild the Labyrinth, or round on Lokken and hope to flee in the confusion. Or is there another option?

 

Lokken, the whole last post was philosophical, try answering with philosophic answers.

But that just depends on your point of view.

Think of a world without human, any intelligent lifeform, would math exist? would the colour purple exist? Would the concepts truth, false, good, chaos, logical, rationality exist? How about animals? Would they exist? Define the concepts then? Oh no wait you can't because you don't exist.
Besides, without our intellect, would humankind be described as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

They won't exist, they have no value, because we then miss the giver of values, there is no truth out there, it is to be made.

Nah he didn't walk into the maze.

[ August 31, 2003, 11:26: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

@Gollem
Don't take me for some jester with simple tricks I tried to irritate Morgoth, to think for himself. If there is just a fraction of truth in his first post here, he values quantity over quality in thinking. Is that a good trait? Ironically this thread is abstract thinking which is what separates humans in an obvious way. I disagree that this is existentialism, though. It would be pointless to discuss whether we exist or not when the question is what makes us different. Since you like visualization, here is an example. What makes a Hummer different from the rest of all cars? It makes no sense to explain why the hummer exist first, although it would be interesting in another more basic discussion with another more basic goal, when the person asking the question wants to know the difference. A different goal a different discussion.

@Morgoth
Now we are in the examples, try this one with the Cortex; A bottle floats and a carrier floats. Are they still the same? The cortex transmits nerve signals in Gorillas. The cortex transmits nerve signals in humans. Can we still conclude they are the same. If not when is something that has the same basic abilities as anything else but is far more advanced still considered the same?
Edit;

Don't let mankind take credit for inventing something we are born to HAVE. We don't have a very advanced mental capacity because we wanted it, see? It is the other way around. We have it therefore we USE it. So in the sense of abstract thinking, which generates the concepts truth religion etc, we have no free will. You can look at it evolution wise, which is much easier. Step by step the process of abstract thinking has evolved from crude rules of conduct and beliefs to what we are today. You can even observe those crude concepts with other primates if you studied them or took your time to listen to someone who has. With abstract thinking comes inventions and abilities to adapt, which increases the chances of survival which again is evolution. Still you can't expect abstract thinking from hurting us or even wipe us out in the future. Which is now. Religious wars, nuclear bombs, weapons, medical advances that leads to overpopulation. Evolution isn't an omnipotent power. It lives in the present and adapts to the present, you could not have asked it to foresee its consequences thousands of years ago. And Gods wouldn't want to give us the easy way out, if you want a more religious way out. Still a carrier shouldn't equal a bottle unless you want to adapt the same selective argumentation as Gollem did.


I am beginning to wonder if I should just have posted this in the first place; Abstract thoughts.

[ August 31, 2003, 13:08: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Abstract thinking might be the whole bloody point, I just didn't get the whole point in your first post.


Oh and to piss off Gollem, if there was no human intellect, would there have been a big bang at all?

 

Good, if I just made you a little bit mad, I am happy. Afterall there is nothing that enlightens a persons ability to think, than when he is irritated. I can look back to many feisty discussions with my brother. Sorry if I bugged you too much.

 

@Morgoth.
Ahh. Taunt a retreating Gollem back into the fray with an easy (Zen?) target, I hadn’t considered that option. But Nobleman already has the original topic nailed IMHO.

If the goal posts were moved though, and distinction were allowed to be defined as being the possession of one specific attribute by one particular species to the exclusion of all others then arguments could still be made for and against intellect being such an attribute.

But the answer would still be the same. Any creature that possesses DNA can evolve to mimic the attributes of any other creature (IIRC Pandas belong to the Raccoon family, yet look like bears). Genetic mutation is part of the life of every species. Ape intellect may yet develop if subjected to multiple mutations and genetic bottlenecks (like the ones we theoretically had in Africa a hundred thousand years ago and then thirty thousand years ago).

Earth already is the Planet Of The Apes, as we are just smart apes, no more. That in no way diminishes who and what we are, instead it raises up all the creatures of this planet to our level. (By the way I believe you can hold a fellow creature in equal esteem and still eat it, as long as you don’t jeopardize the very existence of its species.)

I’m not trying to have the last word, I think Nobleman’s ABC had that many posts ago, my retreat shall proceed anon.