The top dog

Shryke

Also sorry if I offended you. Your statement is what Im calling stupid rather than you yourself.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You extremist Dawkinsians have a lot of work to do to match the fancy logic developed by the religions. We are biologically animals, of course. We've also put men on the moon. Whether you like it or not we are very, very different to any other animal. The puzzle is why you think this disparity means we will treat animals without respect in any way. I'll still care for a man with no legs even if he can't run as fast as me. Speaking personally I wouldn't hurt a fly unless the little fucker was trying to hurt me first.

While your respect for flies is highly admirable, it's hardly representative of how humans treat animals now, is it? But maybe all that factory farming stuff is all part of a conspiracy invented by Dawkins and his axis of evil.

Must be horrible for you, having to share space on the planet with "extremists" who have the bloody nerve to hold forth on opinions contrary to your own :eek:

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its not even clear whether bare tool use would appear in the former case, and given how long it took anatomically modern humans to create language, communication is right out. In fact, anatomically modern humans have existed long before the use of fire or flint knapping.

I'd disagree with you on this point D. Anatomically fully modern humans come along around 100 odd thousand years ago. I mean people who would look like you and me, Sapiens were around for 100,000 years before that, but looked a little different. But lets take the earlier date. Humans have had command of fire for at least half a million years and closer to the million mark. Pre modern humans have been utilising stone tools for over two and a half million years before we come along. Actual knapping of sophisticated patterns such as handaxes(bifaces) come along about one and a half million years. Those tools were made by Erectus who was defo not anatomically modern. Early Neandertals were manufacturing finely designed wooden throwing spears in Germany 200,000 years before the first of what who lead to us sprung up in North East Africa.

In short the use of fire and flint knapping existed long before anatomically modern humans show up. There was clearly culture involved mind you. The continuation and evolution and localisation of some designs shows this.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I'd agree that there is an extremist element out there, and I would be against that extremism just as I'd by opposed to other extremisms, but I don't think it's extreme at all to counter your point by saying that it actually seems to me that we are not incredibly unique at all.

I would strongly disagree. We're one of the the single most unique animals that has ever lived on this planet.

Why?

1) Extreme intelligence as an adaptation. It's only developed the once in a billion years of complex lifeform evolution and various environments*. Other survival tools such as flight and swimming have developed many times with many different kinds of animals.

2) we're the only animal that has ever existed that has externalised it's own evolution(on the nurture V nature front this might meet Doc R's angle halfway). Our brains build tools of many kinds to adapt in a geological instant to novel environments and external pressures. We even escaped our own planet into an environment where life is damn near impossible and walked on another world. Sure birds and chimps can select and use tools, but not within an asses roar of even the most primitive handdaxe and the mind that formed it. We have the real potential to become "gods" of sorts. Even to our CroMagnon ancestors we would appear as demigods. The day may well come when we can build singularities in a lab that give rise to new universes, in which case we would be gods in all but name.

3) we're the only animal that has reached the level of self awareness that can comprehend the universe itself. Following on from our externalised evolution, we understand that evolution exists and we are starting to understand how to manipulate it on the level of the universes own blueprints. That shít there is off the scale of difference. We're quite likely to take it even further and engineer/evolve our own evolutionary replacements.






* some may counter with dolphins. I'd say while dolphins are smart enough comparing those smarts to humans is akin to comparing our ability to swim with theirs.

kowloon

paul_mcshane wrote: »

some people are natural leaders , most people perfer to follow , you need both

chuck stone claimed earlier that people need to be house trained , a sure sign of a lefty out to re-educate others

Jim Davidson?

kowloon

Wibbs wrote: »

3) we're the only animal that has reached the level of self awareness that can comprehend the universe itself. Following on from our externalised evolution, we understand that evolution exists and we are starting to understand how to manipulate it on the level of the universes own blueprints. That shít there is off the scale of difference. We're quite likely to take it even further and engineer/evolve our own evolutionary replacements.

Not all of us .

Doc Ruby

Shryke wrote: »

What you said was stupid. End of.
You could have and still could just admit to it being a very poorly thought out statement and we wouldnt be where we are buddy. Its also on topic. It shows your mentality more clearly than any of your other roundabout postings.
You just cant say, " ok that was a bit daft, my bad." That makes me further believe it really is the kind of mentality you have.
Delicate notions Bud. I can see why you wouldnt like to be called on them.

Oh cool, I think I made his brain melt.

Wibbs wrote: »

In short the use of fire and flint knapping existed long before anatomically modern humans show up. There was clearly culture involved mind you. The continuation and evolution and localisation of some designs shows this.

Yeah I was in a bit of a rush to get out the door there. The point remains however, just replace "fire" with "the wheel" or "farming", or whatever. People exactly the same as us bumped along the bottom for many thousands of years. They didn't invent airplanes immediately because that needs an accumulation of knowledge.

Today, that bulk of knowledge informs 98% of our behaviour, although some would have us believe we are all naked apes (watch the Dawkinzealot red button word, they won't be able to stop themselves) with a thin veneer of civilisation buttered on the top. There's a lot more civilisation than that.

I'm always wary of those who try to promote such cracked opinions too, I can't shake the feeling they are going to try to use it to justify doing something Bad in the future.

Chuck Stone

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm always wary of those who try to promote such cracked opinions too, I can't shake the feeling they are going to try to use it to justify doing something Bad in the future.

Therein lies the problem. There's a socio-political element to people's opinion on the nurture v nature issue. Liberally minded people are usually disturbed by the idea of genetic determinism and OTOH those of a more authoritarian persuasion tend to be more receptive to it.

I read a really insightful piece by Noam Chomsky on the ideas above which really gets to the heart of the socio-political aspect of nurture v nature. I have the book somewhere so I'll have a look for it.

flutterflye

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. There's a socio-political element to people's opinion on the nurture v nature issue. Liberally minded people are usually disturbed by the idea of genetic determinism and OTOH those of a more authoritarian persuasion tend to be more receptive to it.

I read a really insightful piece by Noam Chomsky on the ideas above which really gets to the heart of the socio-political aspect of nurture v nature. I have the book somewhere so I'll have a look for it.

What poppycock!
I couldn't be more of a lefty if I tried, and you've seen my opinion here!
I have just studied sociology and psychology in university for years, aswell as a general interest in these types of things, so I tend to read alot about them.
That is why I have my opinions on certain things, and don't let labels and connotations put me off.

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

What poppycock!

I wasn't referring to you in particular.

flutterflye

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you in particular.

Ah, I know.
I just don't think your assertion is correct.

Chuck Stone

flutterflye wrote: »

Ah, I know.
I just don't think your assertion is correct.

I have Uncle Noam's book in front of me as we speak (I think it's the right one).
Maybe you'll trust him a little more than me.

Jimmyhologram

Wibbs wrote: »

.

We're one of the the single most unique animals that has ever lived on this planet.

Why?

1) Extreme intelligence as an adaptation. It's only developed the once in a billion years of complex lifeform evolution and various environments*. Other survival tools such as flight and swimming have developed many times with many different kinds of animals.

2) we're the only animal that has ever existed that has externalised it's own evolution(on the nurture V nature front this might meet Doc R's angle halfway). Our brains build tools of many kinds to adapt in a geological instant to novel environments and external pressures. We even escaped our own planet into an environment where life is damn near impossible and walked on another world. Sure birds and chimps can select and use tools, but not within an asses roar of even the most primitive handdaxe and the mind that formed it. We have the real potential to become "gods" of sorts. Even to our CroMagnon ancestors we would appear as demigods. The day may well come when we can build singularities in a lab that give rise to new universes, in which case we would be gods in all but name.

3) we're the only animal that has reached the level of self awareness that can comprehend the universe itself. Following on from our externalised evolution, we understand that evolution exists and we are starting to understand how to manipulate it on the level of the universes own blueprints. That shít there is off the scale of difference. We're quite likely to take it even further and engineer/evolve our own evolutionary replacements.

* some may counter with dolphins. I'd say while dolphins are smart enough comparing those smarts to humans is akin to comparing our ability to swim with theirs.

Hmm. Good points, though my view is that these represent differences in degree rather than kind. Animal intelligence and self-awareness is something researchers are only beginning to get to grips with. And I'm not sure if I get the point about externalized evolution. What about the extremely complex phenotypes of otters or spiders manifesting in dams, webs etc that adapt perfectly to the environment? Now, if the so-called singularity comes about and we start creating universes, that would require a lot of thinking to come to grips with.

Either way, what it means to be human is going to undergo radical revision in the next decades. I personally don't think we need to appeal to human exceptionalism to avoid nihilism, which is what I think a lot of people are afraid of.

Doc Ruby

flutterflye wrote: »

I couldn't be more of a lefty if I tried, and you've seen my opinion here!

Lefties are perfectly capable of authoritarianism. They just call it something else. Really the whole left/right divide is a silly distraction. My deep unease with genetic determinism, especially blatantly spurious determinism, is it makes it very simple to dehumanise people entirely.

The clinical term for that disconnect from your fellow man is sociopathy, or popularly but incorrectly psychopathy. That's when things get messy.

Doesn't need to be gene-nazis, it could be ecoterrorists releasing bioweapons to purge the virus they call humankind because they believed this nonsense.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I personally don't think we need to appeal to human exceptionalism to avoid nihilism, which is what I think a lot of people are afraid of.

Exceptionalism is usually used in conjunction with "American", to pillory the idea that some Americans see themselves as exceptional. Whereas the human race as a whole really is exceptional.

Wibbs

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Hmm. Good points, though my view is that these represent differences in degree rather than kind.

Certainly there is a question of degree, but in our case the degree of difference between us and our nearest example is vast. I'd argue there is a different kind involved too.

Animal intelligence and self-awareness is something researchers are only beginning to get to grips with.

Oh certainly some animals are intelligent and many are self aware, but again the gulf of degree is very very wide.

And I'm not sure if I get the point about externalized evolution. What about the extremely complex phenotypes of otters or spiders manifesting in dams, webs etc that adapt perfectly to the environment?

They're all instinctive and quite rigid behaviours based on internal evolution. EG stick a loudspeaker playing the sound of running water on a beaver dam and they'll pile up wood around it to stop the noise. Pretty thick really. These behaviours evolved over a long time in reaction to very specific environmental stimuli. What we do is completely different. Our minds don't have to wait for our genome to evolve. We want to dive in the sea? We don't need to evolve gills, we invent aqualungs. Externally evolved "gills" so to speak. A radical difference to any other animal on this planet. Through this process we turned ourselves from a largely herbivorous ape to an apex predator with little change in our physical makeup(though teeth changed in response to the novel diet). We didn't wait around to grow big teeth and claws, stronger stomach acids or even extreme bursts of speed, we made knives, we cooked and we made spears.

Now, if the so-called singularity comes about and we start creating universes, that would require a lot of thinking to come to grips with.

True but chances are at that stage our minds would be up to the task.

Either way, what it means to be human is going to undergo radical revision in the next decades. I personally don't think we need to appeal to human exceptionalism to avoid nihilism, which is what I think a lot of people are afraid of.

True. One wacky theory I came to while drunk is that maybe we don't see aliens all around us, because they reach a certain point in technology where their simulated world is indistinguishable from and much more attractive than the real world that they look ever inwards and that's it. That we're like isolated cottages in a vast landscape at night. First we have no light, so can't be seen, then we have a light on, but soon after we may switch off the light and play xbox.

Chuck Stone

Okay lads, found the piece - I took the time to source this so I demand that y'all voluntarily read it.

I've been reading it for the last ½ hour trying to summarise it but I think it deserves to be read in full.

Here's an appetiser.

Concern for intrinsic human nature poses moral barriers in the way of manipulation and control, particularly if this nature conforms to the libertarian con­ceptions that I have briefly reviewed. In accordance with these conceptions, human rights are rooted in human na­ture, and we violate fundamental human rights when people are forced to be slaves, wage slaves, servants of external power, subjected to systems of authority and domination, manipulated and controlled "for their own good."

Noam Chomsky

Found it for reading on-line here.

Doc Ruby

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Okay lads, found the piece - I took the time to source this so I demand that y'all voluntarily read it.

I've been reading it for the last ½ hour trying to summarise it but I think it deserves to be read in full.

Here's an appetiser.



Found it for reading on-line here.

Interesting. The bit you quoted has tremendous merit, but much of the rest of the piece seems to be taking jabs at marxism and environmentalism, rather sullying his fundamental point with populist soundbites aimed at a particular American audience. Almost as if he's grudgingly come to accept that his ideology and theirs might have some things in common, but he needs to elaborately rationalise it in order to stay in character, as well as providing further support for his own socioeconomic worldview.

His final analysis seems to be that he just doesn't know, and that we may never know, which while a laudible touch of humility, isn't something I neccessarily agree with. Reason being, he doesn't go into the provable facts but meanders off down trails of mental segregation and insect wings, indicating he hasn't really given it much thought himself but is just jotting down whatever springs to mind first. He'd be welcome here!

Interesting essay, thanks for sharing.

Scanlas The 2nd

I think the question of nature/nurture just isn't specific enough. You all could be agreeing and you don't known it.

One thing I will say on the matter is I think some people who argue that nurture is by far most dominant are doing it to satisfy their egos so they can take credit for how great they are.

Wibbs

Indeed nurture is itself a part of nature, because we came up with it and are part of nature ourselves. It's not so much a hard and fast either or, merely one of the myriad influences that makes up an individual(and group) at any particular time.

Doc Ruby

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One thing I will say on the matter is I think some people who argue that nurture is by far most dominant are doing it to satisfy their egos so they can take credit for how great they are.

At least have the stones to say it directly to me rather than ninja editing and hoping its not noticed.

Scanlas The 2nd

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One thing I will say on the matter is I think some people who argue that nurture is by far most dominant are doing it to satisfy their egos so they can take credit for how great they are.

At least have the stones to say it directly to me rather than ninja editing and hoping its not noticed.

I'm not saying it about you. I don't know you, People could side with nurture for a variety of reasons, one of which IMO is too feel good about one's achievements and to take full credit for it. If will power and morals etc are there by the genetic lottery it becomes more difficult to take credit for achievements.

Doc Ruby

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not saying it about you. I don't know you, People could side with nurture for a variety of reasons, one of which IMO is too feel good about one's achievements and to take full credit for it. If will power and morals etc are there by the genetic lottery it becomes more difficult to take credit for achievements.

Okay then since you apparently aren't talking about me, despite being very visibly one of the noisiest proponents of nurture in the thread, I'll take the liberty of speaking for those you are speaking about.

I would say they are flattered, in that you recognise their achievements. I would say they wouldn't characterise themselves as anyway great, they would probably also say how in the seventeen hells can they not take credit for their achievements, knowing as they do fifty people of tremendous potential who didn't bother their arses to put in the effort and so went nowhere.

And they'd probably round it off with a ringing condemnation of the gobshite naked cowardice and jealousy evinced in your posts, somehow blaming them for doing well, and attempting to paint the whole thing as a lottery, in the face of all the evidence, embodying in fact the kind of creature that would happily turn the world into a charnel house to satisfy your own ego, itself a concern expressed earlier in the thread.

Hypothetically speaking of course, since you weren't referring to me I am clearly not referring to you.

Scanlas The 2nd

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm not saying it about you. I don't know you, People could side with nurture for a variety of reasons, one of which IMO is too feel good about one's achievements and to take full credit for it. If will power and morals etc are there by the genetic lottery it becomes more difficult to take credit for achievements.

Okay then since you apparently aren't talking about me, despite being very visibly one of the noisiest proponents of nurture in the thread, I'll take the liberty of speaking for those you are speaking about.

I would say they are flattered, in that you recognise their achievements. I would say they wouldn't characterise themselves as anyway great, they would probably also say how in the seventeen hells can they not take credit for their achievements, knowing as they do fifty people of tremendous potential who didn't bother their arses to put in the effort and so went nowhere.

And they'd probably round it off with a ringing condemnation of the gobshite naked cowardice and jealousy evinced in your posts, somehow blaming them for doing well, and attempting to paint the whole thing as a lottery, in the face of all the evidence, embodying in fact the kind of creature that would happily turn the world into a charnel house to satisfy your own ego, itself a concern expressed earlier in the thread.

Hypothetically speaking of course, since you weren't referring to me I am clearly not referring to you.

My position on the nature/nurture debate is both intermingle.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Lefties are perfectly capable of authoritarianism. They just call it something else. Really the whole left/right divide is a silly distraction. My deep unease with genetic determinism, especially blatantly spurious determinism, is it makes it very simple to dehumanise people entirely.

The clinical term for that disconnect from your fellow man is sociopathy, or popularly but incorrectly psychopathy. That's when things get messy.

Doesn't need to be gene-nazis, it could be ecoterrorists releasing bioweapons to purge the virus they call humankind because they believed this nonsense.

I'm not so sure about the dehumanization argument. Are people less nice to each other because science has demystified (to some extent) what a human being is? Not in my opinion. When I see a person, I don't just see a pile of protein and amino acids, and I doubt if even the hardcore genetic determinists would encounter real people in that way. People were just as capable of blinding themselves to the humanity of others long before Darwin or anyone else came on the scene.

The Radiator

He's pinched my bird and he'd probably kick my head in

Doc Ruby

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Are people less nice to each other because science has demystified (to some extent) what a human being is?

That's not the point. The man in the street isn't the concern, its the decision makers that humour spurious philosophies masquerading as science, and movements thereof, to suit their own ends that are the concern. That's what motivated Mao's "great leap forward" among other atrocities.

As for demystification, there's a very fine line between mysticism and mystery. Science has barely begun to touch on the basic facts of humanity and the human mind, it is arrogant to assume we can start making profound statements unless the facts are patently obvious.

One good example I've referenced a couple of times so far is Wim Hof, look him up. Jogging around in -20 temperatures in your boxers for five hours isn't merely a mind trick, his blood hasn't turned into antifreeze nor his skin into a perfect insulator. The man's fingers should be falling off, physics says no. Suppressing the body's protective systems doesn't grant protection, it just makes you unaware of the damage being done.

We don't have the full picture by a long shot. We will though, I am confident of that.

That's a corner case, the basic facts I have striven to outline so far are to my mind at least incontrovertible.

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

People were just as capable of blinding themselves to the humanity of others long before Darwin or anyone else came on the scene.

The last thing they need is another excuse based on ignorance, as our friend above has ably illustrated.

LH Pathe

Resuming my throne. Shoulda watched it.. fück off kanye/ fùck of jay *flush* stop actin like 'turds n get back to shinin them shoes.. for the top dog is an evil devicive scheming supervillain; stroking a cat.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One thing I will say on the matter is I think some people who argue that nurture is by far most dominant are doing it to satisfy their egos so they can take credit for how great they are.

What in the name of muppetry is that supposed to mean?

I'd have thought that people who argue that nurture (our environment) is more of an influence on the way we turn out realise that they are lucky to have been born into a civilised environment with access to education, healthcare and other such cultural endowments.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One thing I will say on the matter is I think some people who argue that nurture is by far most dominant are doing it to satisfy their egos so they can take credit for how great they are.

What in the name of muppetry is that supposed to mean?

I'd have thought that people who argue that nurture (our environment) is more of an influence on the way we turn out realise that they are lucky to have been born into a civilised environment with access to education, healthcare and other such cultural endowments.

Yea I see your point, but when genetics determines everything your achievements are also luck.

Doc Ruby

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yea I see your point, but when genetics determines everything your achievements are also luck.

If genetics determines everything then luck can't be involved, can it.

Not that it matters, since genetics determines very little.

Scanlas The 2nd

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yea I see your point, but when genetics determines everything your achievements are also luck.

If genetics determines everything then luck can't be involved, can it.

Not that it matters, since genetics determines very little.

Of course luck is involved, it would be a matter of luck which genetics you are born with

Micky Dolenz

Genetics may have something to do with it but I know full siblings who couldn't be any different when it comes to assertiveness.

Jimmyhologram

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Science has barely begun to touch on the basic facts of humanity and the human mind, it is arrogant to assume we can start making profound statements unless the facts are patently obvious.

I would go even further than that, and add that sometimes it's arrogant to assume that we can even know in advance which facts are patently obvious. Observable phenomena in our daily lives are generally not a good basis for deeper scientific claims about the nature of reality. Eg A rock is mostly empty space, etc.

But my more general point was that I don't believe in the notion that genetic science leads to dehumanization. Genetic science, in itself, is not evil any more than technology or agriculture are evil.

A lot of the opposition - to the rather modest claims that a) we have genes, b) that those genes code for particular behaviours and inclinations, and c) that genes therefore can and often do have a significant (not definitive, significant) impact on our lives - a lot of this opposition seems to me, well, quite ideological at root.