Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 11 guests online.
Online usersPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 12% McCain by a landslide 18% Obama comfortably 13% McCain comfortably 27% Either narrowly 30% Total votes: 60
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
On Human Origin Submitted by Casey on Sat, 2006-04-08 03:02.
The following proposition is a bold one for an amateur, but one which I believe may shed light on the special nature of human beings and perhaps demonstrate that there is, indeed, something special about human origin which is not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom. I must preface this essay with the confession that I am not a trained naturalist, anthropologist or biologist but I have studied these fields avidly from my armchair all of my life. And I'm an atheist, too. Only an armchair anthropologist such as I, however, and an atheist, could be so unorthodox as to suggest such a theory as the one that I am about to advance. For perhaps in the almost doctrinal inclination to claim no special case for human evolution, in the interest of maintaining that our origins are as grounded in nature as any other organism's, trained scientists may have been loathe to contemplate human evolution from the literally, and I believe justifiably, anthropocentric perspective I am about to propose. My thesis, in short, is this: we "invented" ourselves. Let me explain. Please. Certainly, I agree that natural selection operated to create the chimpanzee-like ancestor from which man and ape descended on different paths. And natural selection further operated to create the larger-brained ancestor from which the human lineage descended. But the biological path our ancestors took after a conceptual capacity had been established was, unlike any other animal's, chosen, in the following way. Natural selection had to provide us with the raw material, a brain with the capacity for the simplest conceptual thought, a vocal apparatus that could be controlled to create consistent sound configurations that could represent discrete concepts, hands that could be turned to a variety of unplanned-for uses. But that potential is all nature provided. When a pre-human ancestor with these inert attributes made the giant leap of innovation to assign a particular, identifiable sound made by its mouth to represent a concept it had formed in its mind—a special grunt that meant "lion" or "root" or "hunt" or "tool"—a truly human attribute, creativity, set a radically new course for our evolution and introduced a radically new evolutionary force to the animal kingdom, a self-directed and self-initiated one. An idea, appropriately enough, was what directed human evolution. Conceptualization expressed in the innovation of language brought such an immediate advantage when put into action, and had such real world benefits, that it became a new kind of pressure on the evolution of our hominid ancestors. It would not have mattered if the ancient person who actually thought of the idea of a fixed vocal configuration referring to a concrete item or action had had the best vocal chords, tongue and palette coordination needed for speech. After the idea was introduced, the creative innovation of speech would select those in that individual’s group whose attributes were best suited to proficient speech. The success of individuals in any group that were the beneficiary of this idea would begin to be measured by how successfully they were able to put the idea into action. Speech centers, vocal chords, tongue and palette coordination, and even conceptual ability—any physical attribute that conformed to the requirements of speech—would begin to be selected for based on the success such abilities would bring to their owners. With success comes the opportunity for mating and for passing along those beneficial physical attributes to the next generation. Over time, successful human ideas would manifest themselves in the human organism itself. In this way, we "invented" ourselves. (See, I'm not crazy, after all.) Likewise, when a pre-human ancestor with hands that were engineered for arboreal living thought of a new use for those hands—namely, the making of a tool—this idea, when combined with conceptual ability and language facility, became an evolutionary force in human evolution. It would not have mattered if the individual who thought of using tools had the best hands for making them. A hundred thousand more years might have passed, and probably did, before it occurred to someone. But the innovation of tool-making would transcend its originator and even his generation through language and its practice would select those in that individual’s group best suited to proficient tool-making. Without language such an innovation could not last long enough to bring about a genetic adaptation. Language was the self-made nucleotide that transmitted this genetic influence from generation to generation. Thus, the principle outlined above for speech would also apply to the idea of tool-making as in relation to the evolution of opposable thumbs and hand-to-eye coordination. It might even have added to the specialization away from arboreal living and toward upright walking, giving the tool maker full use of his hands (unless natural selection had already pushed these specializations into place because of environmental pressures, such as Africa’s Great Rift pushing our ancestors out of the forest and onto the open plains). Once again, however, just as we invented our tools, we "invented," or set into motion, the evolution of our distinctly human hands and hand-to-eye coordination. Inventing clothes made fur unnecessary, etc., etc. In summation, there is something different about humans, something which made them so marvelously suited to life as rational beings. It was not purely accidental, after all (by "accidental" I mean without design—not without causation). The intuition that Creationists feel so strongly—that humans must be different from the rest of animals, that there must be conscious design in our very form which is so intimate with our conscious purposes that we must be made in the image of a spiritual being—is not completely devoid of truth. We recognize in our hands, our mouth, our mind, our most human attributes, adaptations which have been made to compliment our spiritual, intellectual selves. No wonder we resist the "pure accident," "no conscious design" theories of our origins. Such purely physical theories are, in fact, blind to an empirically obvious truth, in our case. We are the product of conscious design, in almost every way that makes us human—but, I submit, the designer was us. I have never come across a plainly stated acknowledgment of this proposition, but perhaps this notion has been expressed already by physical anthropologists without my knowledge. Julian Jaynes, it has been pointed out to me, claims a connection between a conscious thought and subsequent brain evolution, but I can hardly fathom his book on the subject. However, the brilliant evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins has introduced a corollary concept, the concept of "memes," the intellectual analog of genes, which suggests that ideas (which he calls "memes") are selected for in the same way that favorable genetic mutations are selected for. Good ideas have a way of surviving; bad ones have a way of wiping out their hosts and thus perishing. My theory is really a corollary of Dawkins' theory: Not only do bad ideas physically wipe out their human hosts as he postulates, but good ideas physically improve their hosts and adapt them biologically so that they are better able to implement those beneficial ideas. Human evolution is the positive effect of Dawkins's memes. Jacob Bronowski, in his seminal book, The Ascent of Man, postulates that the first step in the rise of human evolution was what he called the "Biological Revolution," in which man domesticated the world around him. Bronowski observed that people domesticated nature by selecting grains that were most suitable for easy harvesting and consumption, in other words they picked the big ones that were busting out with plenty of grain, and accidentally, later purposefully, concentrated those pickings in their immediate vicinity, creating an improved breed of high-yield grain in the process. Furthermore, Bronowski observes, man also domesticated nature by selecting animals which were most suitable to his uses, from wolves for hunting to grazing animals for meat and dairy products, and accidentally, later purposefully, created breeds more suitable for co-habitation with man. This transformation of nature, again brought about through the application of human innovations, made it possible for humanity to give up its nomadic ways and settle in one region, laying the foundation for civilization. The domestication of animals and vegetables is not disputed, even by Creationists. No one would say a pug or a toy poodle or Secretariat or broccoli were created as is by God. What I am proposing simply applies Bronowski's observation to the physical evolution of man. In essence, our ideas domesticated ourselves, just as they domesticated wild grains, vegetables, horses, dogs, and cows. The only difference is that we have been domesticating ourselves to suit our own innovations, our own ideas, from the very beginning, everywhere we have gone, and far longer than we have been adapting any other living thing around us. And we've been left ever more amazed by the man who must have made us. Science's detractors will continue to properly point out science's failure to acknowledge humanity’s essentially special nature and will decry the absence of a spiritual role in human origins until science recognizes that a kind of conscious force did indeed help shape mankind: our own. Both science and religion, however, ignore the possessor of that "divine" spark: it's us. In a very real way, and unlike any other animal, man is man’s own idea and creation. It is something we should celebrate as no other animal can.
( categories: )
|
Kev
"Lower level Scientologists who have not yet reached OT3, however, deny it because they really, truly, factually, honestly, utterly don't know. They've probably never even heard of Xenu or body thetans, or if they *have*, the only people they've ever heard about it from were non-Scientologists. Even if they are repeatedly told by strangers and non-Scientologists that Xenu is at the core of OT3, they think, "Well, that can't be true. I've been in Scientology for years, and I've never heard mention of any 'Xenu'. This guy's not even a Scientologist - what does he know?"
Kev - I dare you to read the rest
In the OT3 materials basically say that 75 million years ago, an evil being named Xenu decided to solve a population problem on his galactic colony by exiling a bunch of people to Earth. Xenu then did a ton of horrible things to these people, like drugging them, placing their bodies around a volcano, and blowing them up with H-bombs.
But that really only took care of the physical problem - Xenu didn't just want the bodies gone, he wanted to make sure the 'thetans' (spirits / souls) of those people didn't come back and reincarnate on his colony. So when the souls started leaving the bodies, he captured the souls and forced them into a huge implant station that was kind of like a movie theatre. There, he made them watch movies that 'implanted' them with false pictures of Christ, and other historical events that Hubbard says didn't actually happen.
Xenu will not be happy with you now Kev. He's watching.
http://exscientologykids.com/ot3.html
That's "you're," not "your."
Thanks for the correction. Cheers
Groan
I'm not saying your one [an idiot],
Well, I'm saying you're one. That's "you're," not "your."
The Science Fiction sounding elements you mention, may come from Hubbards Science Fiction Writings [storys], from which he financed the research of Dianetics and Scientology.
Well bully for him. Did HE know the difference between "storys" and "stories"?
Mr. Owen, you're not even literate. You do Scientology no favours—though doubtless the favours it deserves—by beings its mouthpiece.
the science fiction sounding elements of scientology,
Which ones are those? Not the ones you post from the Anti Scientology site Zenu.com, I hope [your total knowledge on the subject]. I'll respond to any questions, but not those that seem to come from idiots with the sole intention of spreading lies and propoganda [something many objectivists seem to do]? I'm not saying your one [an idiot], but maybe you could ask questions worth answering?
The Science Fiction sounding elements you mention, may come from Hubbards Science Fiction Writings [storys], from which he financed the research of Dianetics and Scientology
Maybe you are confusing the two?
http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/lronhubbard-fiction-books1.html
Hinting
I called you on it before Kevin and you just did it again. You brush off the direct questions about the science fiction sounding elements of scientology, and then you bring it back up in a manner where you think you've kept from tipping your hand.
It's like someone talking about the movie Psycho, and brushing off comments about Norman Bates acting as his mother and then thinkng they are sly by trying to say that Norman may be the killer.
You're not skillfully dropping information, you're just looking dishonest.
---Landon
Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.
http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes
On the Evolution of the Spirit
Hey James. You can write some stuff worth reading. I was starting to think you were just and idiot? Cheers
On the Evolution of the Spirit
Consciousness, and, later, our type of consciousness, evolved as tools of survival in animals here on earth - just like stomachs, lungs and brains did. The evolution of consciousness, just like the evolution of anything else, may be seen in the same record and by the same kinds of evidence.
Humans had to learn to distinguish the sort of thing that they were from the rest of the universe. The sun and the moon were thus consciousnesses with plans, purposes and feelings -- they were, like all else, spirits. Animism gave way to polytheism, and the relatively recent development of monotheism succeeded polytheism, as the interconnection of the universe become ever more clear. "God" is the human-like consciousness which must come first or provide order or make things just at the end of days -- which remains with us today.
But it's all simply writing us into what has no plan, no design, and even no life -- exactly as our ancestors did long, long ago.
["The big bang theory Intelligent design]
biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.
"There are a lot of theories which are grounded in religion rather than science."
["The big bang theory Intelligent design]
They are just theories on what might of happened. Evolution can show some history of the development of the physical body, but doesn't cover consciousness and mind.
If man is just mud [modern objectivist thought] then he is composed of water and chemicals. The problem with this science is that chemicals or any combination of chemicals can't think. I asked an industrial chemist once which chemicals or combination of chemicals are doing the thinking
The mud chemist went blank. If you are looking for the origin of the physical body, you may find some answers in evolution on this planet, but I think it was designed before planet earth and recreated here [evolution on planet earth]
If you are looking for the origin of consciousness and mind [thought] you might have to go back a way.
Some consider planet earth an advanced civilization. Silly bugars. Cheers
One Man's "Demonology"...
I don't understand the problem: ancient Egyptian "demonology" or Hubbard's "demonology"?
Both sound like mystical nonsense to me -- but what's the big diff?
BTW: there's no such thing as an Objectivist who is NOT an atheist.
More to the point, do you so dismiss science as to deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution? Most scientists, these days, do not repair to ancient religions to prove their case.
Man from mud?
It's an odd thing to harp on. Every fruit and grain and juice and vegetable comes from mud. Life does pretty amazing things with mud, given 5 billion years on a planet like this. No need to be embarrassed by mud. Go look at this, instead:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ksDoVUTy1go.
Wouldn't surprise me.
There are a lot of theories which are grounded in religion rather than science. The big bang theory comes to mind. Intelligent design is the poster child for this. But what is your take on Abiogenesis in general?
Do you hold the theory itself as on par with intelligent design or does the theory strike you as worth investigation or scientifically sound?
---Landon
Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.
http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes
I take it your explanation is modern thought.
"Objectivism says the the consciousness/mind are ASPECTS of the physical body."
"Where you're coming from seems like simple primacy of consciousness and rationalism which are some of the oldest ideas in existance."
I take it your explanation is modern thought.
MAN FROM MUD
http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/man-from-mud.html
But about this "Man from Mud" theory, where did it come from? What great Einstein of biology burped it up?
Why, no great Einstein of biology or psychology or psychiatry ever had any part in the origin of the "Man from Mud theory.
Far from having come from "science" the "Man from Mud" theory was taken by these scientists from a body of religious demonology and foisted off on man as "modern thought," what you'd expect from fakes.
What religious demonology? Why the Egyptian, of course. In the Larousse
Encyclopaedia of Mythology, the standard work, we find in column 4 page 11
under "Divinities attached to the ennead of Heliopolis and the family of Osiris" the following paragraph:
"Nun (or Nu) is chaos, the primordial ocean in which before the creation lay the germs of all things and all beings."
These "scientific" pots who are calling everyone fakes, might have done a bit better than to try to foist off on the world mere religious superstition as the scientific basis on which all their whole "science" is laid. Man from mud?
Read up Kevin
Objectivism says the the consciousness/mind (which are terms used interchangably by Objectivists) are ASPECTS of the physical body.
Where you're coming from seems like simple primacy of consciousness and rationalism which are some of the oldest ideas in existance.
---Landon
Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.
http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes
"Do you think Rand is cool? Why?
"Do you think Rand is cool? Why?
Or are you doing missionary work in Darkest Africa?"
I have a high respect for Rand. Most of what I know about Her Philosopher comes from Lindsay's Talk Back Show.
I agree with her philosophy on politics. As Dianetics and Scientology mainly deals with the Humanities and doesn't cover politics like Rand does, I tend to use her political science [being a payed up libertarian member] where neccessary and Dianetics and Scientology where I need that to solve lifes problems.
As most objectivists seem to claim they are Athiests [just a body], Rands philosophy would not cover the field of Soul [consciousness] and Mind [mechanics of] and so confuse Soul and Mind as being Brain [main part of the nervous system] like Psychiatry and Psychology do. Thats where I have to use Dianetics and Scientology to carry out Psychosomatic Healing etc.
I'm not here doing missionary work as there are more inviting places to do that if I wanted to. I do enjoy putting my penny's worth in here and there though and watching the odd objectivist, psychiatrist etc squeal. Cheers.
Go hijack a DC-10
Why don't you?
We're talking about evolution, not L. Ron Hubbard's drunken delusions of godhood. Start a new thread if you must but don't hijack a thread on science with "Scientology." Jeesh!
Get It?
You'll have to do better than that, of course, and I haven't claimed God status even implicitly. I just observed the equivalent of a woman in the Men's Room. Aren't there better places for you to post these things?
Why are you here? No one agrees with you and you agree with no one. The basic mission of this site is opposed to what you believe.
Do you think Rand is cool? Why?
Or are you doing missionary work in Darkest Africa?
Thanks Casey
I'll make sure I come to you when I want some advice on the subject. You seem to have all the right sources??? Cheers.
I've already commented on your "mud" slinging.
You have commented [unsuccessfully in my opinion] on my mud slinging as you put it.
"including the "truth" about the origins of life?"
The first thing that one needs to look at is what is life. [consciousness]. Is it just a bunch of chemicals and water [Mud -$3.20 worth to buy? ] or is it mud and water designed and shaped [evolution] into a body and bought to life by consciousness [that which is aware, thinks and uses the mind].
One could also say that to design or create [evolution] such a body would of taken a bit more time than we here on earth have had to do it??
"Or, as I say, go away."
I wasn't aware that you [God] decided who could stay or go??
Kevin,
What are you hanging out with *SPs for? Your hero, Tom Cruise, doesn't let any SPs anywhere near him, according to the video in which he claims to be the only one who can help when there's a traffic accident.
*SPs are "suppressive persons" in Hubbard's religion for all of those still plagued by Thetans released from frozen alien bodies when Xenu plopped them into a volcano on Earth 75 million years ago. (There, I just saved you about $35 grand, Kevin.)
Right
It's precisely the way you've already opened your mouth that I find convincing enough.
I've already commented on your "mud" slinging.
Why don't you start a thread laying out the basic metaphysics of your belief system for all to consider, including the "truth" about the origins of life?
Or, as I say, go away.
Do objectivists believe we originated from MUD?
When you have people [objectivists] commenting on a subject, they have admitted, they know nothing about, other than what they have got off an anti scientology site, I think it says more about them than me.
If I don't know about something, I admit it, and attempt to find the truth about that subject before I comment on it.
Do objectivists believe we originated from MUD?
Quote.
"Its better to say nothing and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and leave no doubt about it"
Ravings
Apart from the negative connotation you imply about it, this one does.
And, well, this kind of stuff has me a bit concerned.
There's not much to it James.
Once upon a time a decidedly average pop sci-fi writer called L. Ron Hubbard thought to himself. "I want to make a lot of money, so I'll start a religion". And so he started a cult, and made a lot of money. I can thoroughly recommend this bookfor starters, this website for mains, a little South Parkfor dessert.
Do objectivists believe we came from mud?
sell that garbage here at an Objectivist site.
Which garbage is that? Do objectivists believe we evolved from mud?
Mr. Owen
I don't claim to know much about it, but the subject was evolution, so I kinda figured that you had a cosmic intelligence(s) or something as an alternate explanation to "mud."
Another thing that puzzles me is why you should try to sell that garbage here at an Objectivist site.
Which deity in Hubbard's pantheon
"Which deity in Hubbard's pantheon was responsible, Mr. Owen?"
There are no Deities in Hubbards Philosophy, but you would know that if you knew anything about the subject. Cheers
And...
Alfred Russel Wallace was independently developing the fundamentals of his theory from 1844 to 1855, while Anaximenes, Empedocles, Epicurus and Lucretius were... slightly earlier.
As with Darwin, we have a famous record of how Wallace actually got to his ideas. Far from finding it in ancient sources -- both men did a lot of traveling and observing of different species.
The discovery of fossils and the development of the science of genetics also contributed their findings.
But maybe all this is propaganda, too...?
Which deity in Hubbard's pantheon was responsible, Mr. Owen?
Huh?
Please.
I remember visiting Canterbury Cathedral when I was 16 and in the crypt where the relics were displayed I remember laughing out loud as one relic outdid all the others I had seen on my backpack tour through England: under glass was a little pinch of dried mud (with a fingerprint on it) with the following name plate: "A piece of clay from which God created Adam." Maybe that's where Darwin got the idea, since Champollion had not deciphered heiroglyphics until 1824 and that would have left only 14 years for that particular Egyptian myth to have been translated before Charles Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection!
Maybe we did came from MUD
Man From Mud
http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/man-from-mud.html
[full article]
Far from having come from "science" the "Man from Mud" theory was taken by these scientists from a body of religious demonology and foisted off on man as "modern thought," what you'd expect from fakes.
What religious demonology? Why the Egyptian, of course. In the Larousse
Encyclopaedia of Mythology, the standard work, we find in column 4 page 11
under "Divinities attached to the ennead of Heliopolis and the family of Osiris" the following paragraph:
"Nun (or Nu) is chaos, the primordial ocean in which before the creation lay the germs of all things and all beings."
These "scientific" pots who are calling everyone fakes, might have done a
bit better than to try to foist off on the world mere religious superstition as the scientific basis on which all their whole "science" is laid. Man from mud?
Leonid Yes.And even today
Leonid
Yes.And even today many people speak with their hands.
Yep.
When you consider the amazingly limited vocal capacity of other great apes, it seems likely other symbolic speech methods must have preceded speech. The main thing is that concepts were concretized in some duplicatable way.
Hand and brain
Leonid
"One can't simply point or physically demonstrate the length of winter or the danger of bears, etc."
Right.However, today we have very developed sign language for deaf which can express any concept of the spoken language.Granted,this is artificial language, but still it is striking example of the power of sign.Apparently development of the human hand and development of the language centre in the brain (Brocka centre) was simultanious.And it quite possible that using the hand for communication contributed to this development.
Yes,
I agree. The point I was making about language, whether sign language or spoken or written, is that it is necessary for concepts to be passed to others and passed down through generations, which is a prerequisite to human ideas having an effect on selection of physical traits that facilitate human ideas (such as tool use) over time. Merely thinking of tools won't change your hands, a la Lamarcke -- passing the knowledge of tools down through generations adds a new survival benefit for those with better adapted hands, however, and enables an idea to shape human hands over time as a result. Tool use and creation can be demonstrated and learned without language, of course -- but more ellaborate conceptual knowledge about nature requires a concrete expression that can be heard or seen to transmit to others. One can't simply point or physically demonstrate the length of winter or the danger of bears, etc.
Casey
Leonid
That's true. We know that infants and small children able to form concepts during pre-language stage of development. We also know that primates and other animal able to use tools. However the crucial point in human evolution was development of ability to create tools. This ability requires conceptual thinking and apparently human acquired it in pre-linguistic stage of evolution. Obviously further development of sound communication of concepts provided enormous advantage since for this kind of communication one doesn't need direct eye contact.
Leonid,
Certainly, you're right that hand signals could have preceded any vocal conceptualization, and the ability to conceptualize preceded the translation of concepts into sensible concretes like a hand gesture or a sound so that the conceptual discoveries could be passed to the next generation. The development of speech allowed more elaborate concepts to be communicated, of course, and as it evolved would have conferred greater and greater survival benefits.
concepts and focus
Leonid
Apparently it wasn't that simple-ape developed ability to talk,started to form concepts and became man.It is quite possible that concept formation came even before speech.It is well known connection between developement of hand and speech.It is posibility that first attemt to express concepts was not speech but gesticulation which still very important part of human communication.It was demonstrated that some chimps are able to learn sign language and express up to 300 words and even to form new words like "dream" which they called "box picture".I think that evolitionary concept-formation came before speech as result of increased brain volume and ability to choose goals volitionally.This ability developed as natural evolution of focus' selectivity.
>Based upon the new user
>Based upon the new user identification rule I have placed Krishna under moderation. Krishna, if you would like to regain access please identify yourself.
Krishna, please, please, please, do not identify yourself.
Purposefully mixing debates ...
Krisha the Moderated,
I am glad that you brought up my psycho-epistemology -- as if it were a relevant point in this debate. There is much utility in letting the ignorant or misguided speak aloud (so that one can be informed of the level of intelligence of those beings with which one is dealing).
Now that we're aware of the level that you are on (utilization of ad hominem in place of substantial argument), I can outline the wise way to react to your exchange. Psychologization of others (a "meta-discussion examining/projecting motives onto others) is not necessarily a bad thing -- it's just "bad debate."
Good debate involves looking at the points raised by others. It involves integration within a context. This does NOT mean that we ought not question the MOTIVES of others -- but only that that is a SEPARATE debate.
In short, starting a new thread on my psyco-epistemology is not, necessarily, wrong. Though an appeal to my motives within THIS argument, without answering my charges, IS "wrong" -- which is why we have a name for this type of wrong-doing: argumentum ad hominem).
My point is simple, Krishna: Are researchers anthropomorphizing (rather than integrating the ACTUAL data in a noncontradictory way -- meeting the twin appeals of parsimony and explanatory/predictive power)? And, in this case (as I've shown above), the ANSWER is simple: No. The researchers make claims that go BEYOND evidence (and probably because it FEELS good to do that).
This is Junk Science.
Ed
"Man is a hero and worthy of worship."
Krishna Moderated
Based upon the new user identification rule I have placed Krishna under moderation. Krishna, if you would like to regain access please identify yourself.
- Jason
(...smiling...)
Hi,
The differences between various living species?
To begin with A is A! Do you want an ape to drive a car and man to swing from one tree to another
in forests!
It is all about the degree of intelligence.All living beings have consciousness.And intelligence
is a property or attribute of consciousness.Which means that even the lowest life forms like bacteria
have some amount of intelligence.It is only a non-living matter which does not have any
consciousness or awareness and does not have any intelligence either!
Man has the Highest intelligence.So he has the greatest capacity for creativity and inventions.
And since no two living entities have the same level of intelligence,so even among Man
no two individual has the same intelligence!
So you have an entire philosophy of Ayn Rand which glorifies the One called Howard Roark
and John Galt who in fact has the Highest level of intelligence - The Supreme Consciousness
in this Universe! ...smiling...
Why is Ed bent upon saying that animals do not have any intelligence? ...smiling...
Evidence for invention, still not evidence of invention
Adam,
Thanks for the link. A key point in the article (hastily assumed by the author) -- is that animals invent. Here are some quotes (interspersed with my responses) from the article ...
============
A different possibility is that these behaviors are innovative techniques a couple of clever orangutans invented, which then spread and persisted in the population because other individuals learned by observing these experts.
============
Let's first get clear on what "invent" means (m-w.com) ...
"to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment"
So either these apes invented, or they didn't. Now, if an ape saw 2 sticks end to end (perceived them as one), and then jammed them together (just as perceived) to make one long stick -- we couldn't say that they invented the extendo-stick (because they didn't do it -- without first perceiving it as done). When you mimic that which you already perceive, then you are merely rote learning.
================
A major obstacle to studying culture in nature is that, barring experimental introductions, we can never demonstrate convincingly that an animal we observe invents some new trick rather than simply applying a well-remembered but rarely practiced habit. Neither can we prove that one individual learned a new skill from another group member rather than figuring out what to do on its own. Although we can show that orangutans in the lab are capable of observing and learning socially, such studies tell us nothing about culture in nature--neither what it is generally about nor how much of it exists.
================
Right!
================
We guessed that populations in which individuals had more chances to observe others in action would show a greater diversity of learned skills than would populations offering fewer learning opportunities. And indeed, we were able to confirm that sites in which individuals spend more time with others have greater repertoires of learned innovations--a relation, by the way, that also holds among chimpanzees. This link was strongest for food-related behavior, which makes sense because acquiring feeding skills from somebody else requires more close-range observation than, say, picking up a conspicuous communication signal. Put another way, those animals exposed to the fewest educated individuals have the smallest collection of cultural variants, exactly like the proverbial country bumpkin.
================
Inconsequential talking point: When many animals are together, there will be more rote learning. So what?
================
Acquisition of the most cognitively demanding inventions, such as the tool uses found only at Suaq, probably requires face time with proficient individuals, as well as several cycles of observation and practice. The surprising implication of this need is that even though infants learn virtually all their skills from their mothers, a population will be able to perpetuate particular innovations only if tolerant role models other than the mother are around;
================
Good point (but still inconsequential).
================
Different species vary greatly in the mechanisms that enable them to learn from others, but formal experiments confirm the strong impression one gets from observing great apes in the wild: they are capable of learning by watching what others do. Thus, when a wild orangutan, or an African great ape for that matter, pulls off a cognitively complex behavior, it has acquired the ability through a mix of observational learning and individual practice, much as a human child has garnered his or her skills.
================
[yawn]
================
More recently, formal experiments such as those performed by E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University, involving the bonobo Kanzi, have revealed startling language abilities [see "The Emergence of Intelligence," by William H. Calvin; Scientific American, October 1994]. Though often dismissed as lacking in scientific rigor, these consistently replicated cases reveal the astonishing cognitive potential that lies dormant in great apes. We may not fully appreciate the complexity of life in the jungle, but I guess that these enculturated apes have truly become overqualified.
================
This point is up for dispute ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kanzi
================
Once we were human, cultural history began to interact with innate ability to improve performance. Nearly 150,000 years after the origin of our own species, sophisticated expressions of human symbolism, such as finely worked nonfunctional artifacts (art, musical instruments and burial gifts), were widespread [see "The Morning of the Modern Mind," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, June 2005]. The explosion of technology in the past 10,000 years shows that cultural inputs can unleash limitless accomplishments, all with Stone Age brains. Culture can indeed build a new mind from an old brain.
================
True, but again, inconsequential to that orginal point of animal invention. The fallacy of the weak analogy (anthropomorphism) ought to be clear to the critical eye here.
Ed
Sci Am Article
The Scientific American article provides observational and comparative evidence for invention of tools, and cultural transmission of inventions, among orangutans. It does not, however, address (except hypothetically) the second stage - evolutionary biological adaptation to the changes brought about by cultural transmission of inventions.
"Why Are Some Animals So Smart?"
Scientific American has an article on some of the issues being discussed in this thread. I don't know how to link to the site, but you can reach it through the link provided by Arts and Letters Daily at www.aldaily.com
Thanks, Marnee
That's an example of human ideas (eye glasses) having an effect on human evolution even very recently. Fire, shelter and clothing made fur obsolete or even disadvantageous, tools and weapons made claws and fangs obsolete in much the same way that eye glasses made perfect vision unnecessary. If you took away the products of the human mind --fire, shelter, clothing, tools, weapons and eye glasses -- we'd all be pretty helpless in the wilderness, which demonstrates that our bodies evolved along with our ideas. Thanks for the example.
My My Myopia
“No one would say a pug or a toy poodle or Secretariat or broccoli were created as is by God.”
Oh but they do – Devine Intervention. Anyway…
Casey I like this theory and I think it makes a lot of sense.
In some ways we can see this in modern times. For example, it wasn’t until the invention of eyeglasses that myopia became a common place affliction. All of a sudden even a blind bat like me could get along just fine and be a suitable mate, as it were, thereby increasing the labor pool, the idea pool, and the gene pool and more often passing on otherwise superior genes, in other areas.
Four eyes good.
Hi Ed,
Ok, so you may like to be a cat!
But I am Galt and Krishna! And in the absolute sense I don't see any soul superior to me so ....
...smiling...
But we were talking about evolution.Did you know that a higher species always evolves from
a lower species, its predecesor except for the first bacterias who did not have any predecesor!
So we evolved from the chimpanjees, that is, some 15 million human consciousness entered
the womb of female apes and were born as babies to them and suckled by them! Later we
humans separated from the apes, bred among ourselves and evolved our own bodies [our
consciousness guiding our evolution to the end point of Man since our souls is the metaphysically
given as Man and not being a Bird or Fish at the same time! A thing is itself! A is A!]
over a period of 2.5 million years and reached where we are today some 12,000 years ago!
So Ed, I have never seen such a dream but in any case did you see it?
That you were breast-fed by a chimpanjee some 2.5 million years ago?And any other members
here please raise your hands if that is the case!...smiling...
...laughing...
And Ed,
I being humorous though speaking about real things which takes place every time
the process of evolution is started by nature by making the first genes in the ocean bed or
any water body present in the land!
I mean you seem to be biting rather talking to me!...smiling...
Be cheerful!
Krishna, insane hijacker
Krishna,
Don't you know that cats are smarter than dogs (more development in the prefrontal cortex of the cerebrum)? Anyhow, ...
============
How are you?
============
Pretty good lately -- thanks for asking!
============
since no one is more intelligent than me in the human race and so you got to be less than me!...smiling...
============
... Laughing ... Oh, Krishna. You silly fool, you. Just because no one is more intelligent than you are -- does not make me less intelligent than you are (and I got that from thinking straight, something few others do as much as I ... smiling...).
===============
When I look through this thread, I see only you [Ed] and Jenna!
===============
That's because we are having an intense -- even consuming -- argument. It's our first big one, so give us some slack.
===============
I like the way Jenna copied paragraphs after para from the books on genetics!...smiling...
===============
I don't. It makes me have to read a lot of half-witted, 'professional' gibberish. I prefer to cut to the chase (my time is valuable, know what I mean, K-dogg?).
Ed
Hi Ed,
How are you?
If I am a dog, then you are a cat? Since iam a little higher than you in the scale of evolution.
Or not in terms of evolution but Metaphysically, since no one is more intelligent than me in the
human race and so you got to be less than me!...smiling...
When I look through this thread, I see only you [Ed] and Jenna!
I like the way Jenna copied paragraphs after para from the books on genetics!...smiling...
krishna!!!
krishna, you ole' dog, you!
What meddlings are you up to NOW?! I saw you at the airport, passing out flowers -- but I was too busy to stop by and chat. But you understand, don't you? Besides, I waved at you, and you stared right past me -- eyes all glossed over. Figured you were tapping the limitless energy of the universe (at the time), and that I probably shouldn't bother you then.
Anyway ... Hare, Hare!
Ed
[rethinking: No, maybe this was only a dream ... Hare, Hare ANYWAY, k-dogg!]
Hi,
People are sure over working here!
Human Origin?Our consciousness is the metaphysically given.That is, it is uncreated,eternal and
unchanging!There is in fact no evolution for our consciousness!...smiling...
Evolution is for our genes and bodies.And it is obvious that this process is driven by our consciousness and not by nature!
And evolution is a process whose End point is fixed by the law of Identity! A is A.
So Man had to be Man and so Man is Man and a Bird is Bird and a Fish is Fish!
All these has taken place not once but many and many times before.All these is the metaphysically
given!
And things like buildings,cars,electricity and computers - We have invented and used these
things even in the past Universes!
I have seen the computers,emails and even this 2nd version of Solo in my dreams where
the postings were quite different than what I am seeing here now! Apart from many other
postings I saw one by Ed here where he was wondering about whether our consciousness is
eternal or not! He is more wiser this time around,that is, he knows it now but will not acknowledge it
and thinks that it is comical!...laughing...
Welcome! And thanks!
^
l
l
Thank you, Ed,
For contributing to the discussion in what I regard as very important ways.
No problem, Phil.
Just an observation. All threads have natural lifespans. At the end they sometimes serve as fertile ground for entirely different topics. I think it's pretty cool, actually.
I'm sorry, Casey
Casey, as I am one who is guilty -- at least, complicitly -- of the hijacked-ness of YOUR thread; I want to say that I'm sorry.
And thanks for bringing this point to my mind with such magnanimous equanimity!
Ed
Hijacking
Yes, I agree, Casey. The thread was about evolution, anthropology, human origins...not epistemology.
(My rule of thumb on going off on tangents is one post and maybe a reply, but when you get to the third round of point counterpoint, it only takes five minutes to create your own thread, invite people over there, and not "shout down" the original conversation.)
I love how militantly this thread has been hijacked...
It's like a Darwinian demonstration of memes...
Similarity and difference
On 4/20 I asked Rick Pasotto a question. Many hours have passed w/o his response, so I'm proceeding. He has insisted that 'different' requires only two items but 'similar' three items. So I asked if he based it on this model:
In order to form the concept X, you need at least two instances -- call them x1 and x2 -- and also a contrast -- call it y1. You regard x1 and x2 as similar because each is less different than y1.
Hereinafter instead of using "instance" I will follow Rand and use "unit" -- an existent regarded as one member of a group of two or more similar members that are integrated to form a concept.
Unlike for an an entity, a unit of a relationship such as 'different' or 'similar' requires at least two items, not one. A unit of 'different' is about how two items differ, e.g. a cat and a cow. A unit of 'similar' or 'same' is about how two items are alike, e.g. two $1 bills. The above model would require at least six items to illustrate the concept 'different'.
Rick has held that 'different' requires only two items but 'similar' three items. I suspect he has confounded unit and concept, and misapplied the model to a unit of 'similar'. To the contrary I hold that a unit of 'similar' requires only two items. So I conclude that his claim that three items are required for (a unit of) 'similar' is false. For example, if you see two identical coins, you do not need a third item as a contrast in order to recognize the two coins are identical.
If he had answered 'yes' to my question, I would have then asked if he applied this model to the concept 'different'. I suspect he hasn't. To form the concept 'different' one needs at least two units of 'different' and at least one contrast, i.e. a unit of 'same' or 'similar'. So three units -- not two -- are needed to form the concept 'different'.
Ed T.: "We are 'difference-noters' and, in noting difference, we arrive at the contrasting notion of similarity."
Rick: "Difference is primary; similarity is derived." "Ed explained quite well that similarity is a derived concept. It is derived from the concept of difference."
Again I disagree. The concept 'similarity' is derived in part from difference per the model. However, units of 'similarity' are not derived from difference. We are sameness-noters and similarity-noters, too. Ayn Rand: "Similarity is grasped perceptually." We perceive similarity because our perceptual systems respond in the same way to like things, just as it responds differently to different things. 'Similar' is as basic as 'difference'.
sigh
Rick wrote: "The point is that without the third item, without C there is no 'like'; there is no similarity There is, however, difference when there are only two items."
Are you basing this on the following? In order to form the concept X, one needs at least two instances -- call them x1 and x2 -- and also a contrast -- call it y1. You regard x1 and x2 as similar because each is less different than y1.
If not, what are you basing it on?
Fist-o-cuffs
Put up yer' dukes, Rick!
The definition of a definition is:
That which differentiates a type of existent from all others.
It's perfectly fine to define "2" as that whole number between 1 and 3 (ie. by 'defining' every possible contrary -- out of the equation).
Ed
[and that was just a jab -- "what else you got?!"]
Nope
Ed,
A demonstration is not a definition. What it can be is an heuristic tool for understanding a definition or concept.
Sigh...
Merlin wrote: That's contradictory. First you say you cannot claim them to be dissimilar, i.e. different. Then you say you know they are different.
Different means not the same. Dissimilar means not similar. Same != Similar. If you don't first have the concept of similar you can never get to dissimilar.
Merlin wrote: In other words, A is more like B than C.
That is correct. The point is that without the third item, without C there is no "like"; there is no similarity There is, however, difference when there are only two items.
Actually, a pretty good method of definition
Merlin, in heated debate, you wrote ...
============
Trying to define 'similarity' or 'sameness' in terms of 'difference' is like trying to define 'truth' in terms of 'falsity'.
============
That's actually one of the (if not the) best methods for defining truth (as that which is not false). Falsity is often easier to grasp than truth, a point which comedians exploit en masse. Stating something like ...
-whoa, that flea is HUGE! or
-wow, that blackness is so bright, it hurts my eyes! or
-man, would you look at that round square over there!
... just seems to bring to mind obvious contradictions that -- as comedians exploit -- that just about everyone gets, regardless of their mental development.
If a contradiction to a concept is easier to grasp, then WHY NOT utilize reductio ad absurdum -- to demonstrate what the concept is (by demonstrating eveything that it is not)?
Ed
definition
Your "definition" is not even in the form of a definition. All you said is that difference exists when there is more than one entity. That only says when it exists, not what it is. Moreover, similarity exists then as well - each thing exists, is an entity, and is comprised of matter. They are similar in those ways at least.
You wrote: "All differences are quantitative." That's mere assertion. Let's see you prove that all the differences between Rand's philosophy and Kant's are simply quantitative.
You wrote: "If you have just two items A and B (ignoring the backgound) you cannot claim them to be either similar nor dissimilar. There is no possible basis for either claim. You do however know that they are different."
That's contradictory. First you say you cannot claim them to be dissimilar, i.e. different. Then you say you know they are different.
You wrote: "A is less different from B than A is different from C."
In other words, A is more like B than C.
You wrote: "Difference is primary; similarity is derived."
Trying to define 'similarity' or 'sameness' in terms of 'difference' is like trying to define 'truth' in terms of 'falsity'.
Merlin, 1. If you think it's
Merlin,
1. If you think it's circular, then demonstrate its circularity — don't just claim it.
2. One "determines" the range according to one's purposes.
3. All differences are quantitative.
I'll try one more explanation:
If you have just two items A and B (ignoring the backgound) you cannot claim them to be either similar nor dissimilar. There is no possible basis for either claim. You do however know that they are different. It is only when you bring in a third item C that you can say that A is less different from B than A is different from C (i.e., A and B are less different from each other than either is from C) and therefore A and B are similar as opposed to C.
Difference is primary; similarity is derived.
definition
Rick, the "definition" you gave is, at best, circular.
Regarding Prof. B's first statement and Rand's affirmation:
1. How does one determine the range?
2. Lots of similarities and differences are not quantitative.
Merlin, I already gave you
Merlin, I already gave you my definition of difference:
The basic fact is identity and consequently whenever there is more than one entity there is difference.
As for similarity, here is a small section from the 2nd edition of ITOE:
Prof. B: Regarding similarity, is it correct to say that similarity is the form in which we perceive certain quantitative differences within a range?
AR: That's right.
Prof. B: So, "similarity" is an epistemological concept, and a formulation of the metaphysical base of that would be: quantitative differences within a range.
AR: That's right.
perceptual vs. conceptual
> The difference between human and non-human cognition is represented by the difference between Manhattan and the nightly tree-nest chimpanzees build for a good night's sleep. [Casey]
This is very well put, a case in which a well chosen concretization can be used to almost prove a point by itself.
Paydirt!
The understanding of the difference between the conceptual vs. perceptual awareness starts with the vast appreciation of the potential of non-human perceptual awareness. Totally agreed. I could go on and on, but just take mantis shrimp -- they have 12 different color receptors vs. our 3 color receptors. They see countless millions of more colors than we see. Our cognitive power is as algebra to the amazing amounts of addition and subtraction available to non-human models of consciousness. Again, it's a difference in kind, not degree.
Jackpot!
And, by the way, what's up with dogs being able to find their way home -- FROM LITERALLY MILES AWAY?! I mean, hell, it's not like the dogs have ever seen the street signs (or even the very streets they traverse)!
And what about the IMMEDIATE turning of sharks toward blood dropped in the ocean -- from up to 2 MILES AWAY?! Conceptual power? I THINK NOT!
And what about the IMMEDIATE turning of moths toward the direction of a released pheromone -- FROM LITERALLY BLOCKS AWAY?! Conceptual power? I THINK NOT!
And what about the detection of the Earth's magnetic pole lines -- by migratory birds who can travel MORE THAN A THOUSAND MILES WITHOUT DIRECTIONS?! Conceptual power? I THINK NOT!
The notion that animal perception is under-rated -- is under-rated.
Ed
Bingo!
You and I are on the same page here.
Dogs can memorize the scents of THOUSANDS of people as absolutely distinct individuals. Much better than I can do remembering names at a party! The perceptual level of consciouness kicks ass! We have lost much of it due to the switch to conceptual level consciousness, but much that almost seems like a conceptual level can be reached by the purely perceptual level.