Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Darwin's theory
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
cdoherty86 wrote: »I just don't see how humans or elephants are critical to survival of our planet.
Did anyone claim they were? I am not trying to be facetious here but your sentence here seems to be a complete non sequitur to just about everything on the thread. So it is not clear where you are going with this or how it relates to the topic?
Mick Flannery puts it well in one of his songs. We are just natures chesty cough, and when shes done shes gonna shake us off.cdoherty86 wrote: »At least the Earthworm has a purpose, humans don't.
I see where part of your error is stemming from. You are mistaking effect for purpose. They are not the same thing.I offer for your consideration, the humble banana. Made to fit in the human hand, and each comes individually wrapped for convenience and freshness.
That kinda thing?
LOL you will have to offer that one to the creationist not the Scientist
See what they make of it and if they want to give it back. The banana man made this error and he has not lived it down since. Didnt someone throw a pineapple on stage in front of him once?Why have strong opinions about anything?
Simply because our well being and our survival depend on it. Which itself, you will notice, is subjective. As no one cares about our well being and survival EXCEPT us.
But so long as the subjective entities care about the well being OF those self same subjective entities then the question instantly morphs from "Why have strong opinions about anything" to "How can we NOT have strong opinions about anything?"why not strive to overcome them? Why does the Darwinist not strive to overcome their biasing influence
Many people do. Through introspection and meditation and much more there are many people striving to attain well being BEFORE satisfying whatever neurotic thought or desire happen to come careening into consciousness. There is a subset of people attempting to discover if well being and happiness is attainable BEFORE the inputs that we normally associate with generating them.
The delusion you appear to find here is opaque to me. We acknowledge the nature of consciousness and subjectivity as you describe them and simply reconcile it in the means I mentioned in my previous two posts on the matter.
You appear not to be responding to those posts so much as restating the same view in each of your posts in new words, without actually adding or removing anything from it.cdoherty86 wrote: »If we are truly interdependent, what's the purpose of humanity?
It is not clear what you are asking here. How does the content of your sentence before the comma flow into the question after it exactly? The full force of your question is going past me I have to admit openly.
There is an interdependence in much of the biosphere but not all of it. None of this implies "purpose" either so that aspect of your question is also a bit fuzzy.
Genes reproduce themselves and have found steadily more complex ways of doing it over time. That is what they do. WE and all the rest of the biosphere that we observe is just HOW they are doing it. If you want to construe that as "purpose" then so be it, but I do not, nor see any reason to.
You seem to want there to be a "purpose" and so are framing all your queries in the light of finding that purpose. Whereas the rest of us here appear to be suggesting you reframe your questions more sensibly by first divesting yourself of that notion, then framing the questions based on what remains.
Give it a try. It can not hurt.Good. You are striving for an illusion. I still don't think you quite understand the implications of the meaningless and arbitrary nature of how that illusion formed and became hard wired into you.
Either that or you are contriving to over state those implications for an effect / agenda that no one has thus far managed to find.I believe that Darwinists refuse or cannot live their lives according to pure Darwinism because life would simply be completely meaningless. So they have to buy into this delusion.
No one has ever suggested we might or should. Evolutionary science is just facts about the world. Nothing more. What we do with those facts is entirely different. Our knowledge of how to create the bomb does not tell us how or when or whether to use it.
All the science here tells us is how we came to be here. What we do FROM here has nothing whatsoever to do with the science.I'm really trying to articulate the absolute meaningless of life in Darwinian terms.
And there is no reason to because while life is objectively meaningless in and of itself, that does not reduce the importance of it to the subjective entity living it. And that realization is not the "delusion" you are trying to paint it to be for reasons as yet unknown.
You seem to want to tell us that us being ok with this fact, is somehow a delusion. I am not seeing how. Or why.cdoherty86 wrote: »What organisms depend on human existence apart from cats and dogs in the western world.
Actually if you look at what % of the biosphere is now made up of cultivated livestock and vegetable produce, none of which would continue to survive without us, you will find just how much of the biosphere now relies on us to survive. In fact cats and dogs, relative to much of our agriculture flora and fauna and life stock, would survive relatively brilliantly were humanity to magically POOF out of existence tomorrow.
I saw a graph once, which I hope to find for you but I hope someone else does it as I can not recall where to look, showing just how much of the biosphere is now human dependent and it was quite jaw dropping. Certainly MUCH more than you are painting for us here on this thread.
And that is before you even consider your OWN bio mass. Have you seen graphs on just how much of your own mass is actually human? I would love you to guess, without or at least before checking, what % of your mass sitting at the PC reading right this is actually YOU and is actually human.
How much of it is symbiotic life inside AND outside your body that wholly relies on you for survival.... and you in turn rely wholly on them? There is more interdependence again than you, sorry to keep using this phrase, keep painting for us in your posts.cdoherty86 wrote: »It doesn't matter if humans go extinct tomorrow yet you can't explain why an Earthworm composts.
Yet we have answered that question directly numerous times. Did you simply skip my first reply to you because it was longer than your attention span? Or for some other reason?cdoherty86 wrote: »The point is, you don't know what the purpose of humanity is
No the point is that "purpose" is a concept YOU have overlayed onto humans without establishing that we even _have_ one. There is no "purpose" to any life on this planet that I can discern. So what are YOU suggesting exactly?
There is currently no reason I know of to think we have a purpose. So I simply do not go around under the premise that we have a purpose.
What is wrong with that exactly?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Did anyone claim they were? I am not trying to be facetious here but your sentence here seems to be a complete non sequitur to just about everything on the thread. So it is not clear where you are going with this or how it relates to the topic?
Mick Flannery puts it well in one of his songs. We are just natures chesty cough, and when shes done shes gonna shake us off.
I see where part of your error is stemming from. You are mistaking effect for purpose. They are not the same thing.
LOL you will have to offer that one to the creationist not the Scientist See what they make of it and if they want to give it back. The banana man made this error and he has not lived it down since. Didnt someone throw a pineapple on stage in front of him once?
Simply because our well being and our survival depend on it. Which itself, you will notice, is subjective. As no one cares about our well being and survival EXCEPT us.
But so long as the subjective entities care about the well being OF those self same subjective entities then the question instantly morphs from "Why have strong opinions about anything" to "How can we NOT have strong opinions about anything?"
Many people do. Through introspection and meditation and much more there are many people striving to attain well being BEFORE satisfying whatever neurotic thought or desire happen to come careening into consciousness. There is a subset of people attempting to discover if well being and happiness is attainable BEFORE the inputs that we normally associate with generating them.
The delusion you appear to find here is opaque to me. We acknowledge the nature of consciousness and subjectivity as you describe them and simply reconcile it in the means I mentioned in my previous two posts on the matter.
You appear not to be responding to those posts so much as restating the same view in each of your posts in new words, without actually adding or removing anything from it.
It is not clear what you are asking here. How does the content of your sentence before the comma flow into the question after it exactly? The full force of your question is going past me I have to admit openly.
There is an interdependence in much of the biosphere but not all of it. None of this implies "purpose" either so that aspect of your question is also a bit fuzzy.
Genes reproduce themselves and have found steadily more complex ways of doing it over time. That is what they do. WE and all the rest of the biosphere that we observe is just HOW they are doing it. If you want to construe that as "purpose" then so be it, but I do not, nor see any reason to.
You seem to want there to be a "purpose" and so are framing all your queries in the light of finding that purpose. Whereas the rest of us here appear to be suggesting you reframe your questions more sensibly by first divesting yourself of that notion, then framing the questions based on what remains.
Give it a try. It can not hurt.
Either that or you are contriving to over state those implications for an effect / agenda that no one has thus far managed to find.
No one has ever suggested we might or should. Evolutionary science is just facts about the world. Nothing more. What we do with those facts is entirely different. Our knowledge of how to create the bomb does not tell us how or when or whether to use it.
All the science here tells us is how we came to be here. What we do FROM here has nothing whatsoever to do with the science.
And there is no reason to because while life is objectively meaningless in and of itself, that does not reduce the importance of it to the subjective entity living it. And that realization is not the "delusion" you are trying to paint it to be for reasons as yet unknown.
You seem to want to tell us that us being ok with this fact, is somehow a delusion. I am not seeing how. Or why.
Actually if you look at what % of the biosphere is now made up of cultivated livestock and vegetable produce, none of which would continue to survive without us, you will find just how much of the biosphere now relies on us to survive. In fact cats and dogs, relative to much of our agriculture flora and fauna and life stock, would survive relatively brilliantly were humanity to magically POOF out of existence tomorrow.
I saw a graph once, which I hope to find for you but I hope someone else does it as I can not recall where to look, showing just how much of the biosphere is now human dependent and it was quite jaw dropping. Certainly MUCH more than you are painting for us here on this thread.
And that is before you even consider your OWN bio mass. Have you seen graphs on just how much of your own mass is actually human? I would love you to guess, without or at least before checking, what % of your mass sitting at the PC reading right this is actually YOU and is actually human.
How much of it is symbiotic life inside AND outside your body that wholly relies on you for survival.... and you in turn rely wholly on them? There is more interdependence again than you, sorry to keep using this phrase, keep painting for us in your posts.
Yet we have answered that question directly numerous times. Did you simply skip my first reply to you because it was longer than your attention span? Or for some other reason?
No the point is that "purpose" is a concept YOU have overlayed onto humans without establishing that we even _have_ one. There is no "purpose" to any life on this planet that I can discern. So what are YOU suggesting exactly?
There is currently no reason I know of to think we have a purpose. So I simply do not go around under the premise that we have a purpose.
What is wrong with that exactly?
Good post.
Here is what it boils down to really. Darwinists seem to me, to have a "blind spot" to certain truths that arise from their theory.
If you take a purely objective view of things, and overcome your subjective views (which I have shown are just biochemical illusions in Darwinian terms), where does this leave you? Darwinists simply HAVE to accept that their subjective emotions/instincts etc are illusions and to live by them is simply to live in a delusion.
At this point I feel like I should go back and re-explain the futility and meaninglessness of how your emotions developed because this, I feel, is what is either intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood or ignored. (as an aside, the two posters whose names i cant recall but who know who they are, don't bother replying as i know you won't get this and will quickly scroll past any of your future posts without reading them).
I've said emotions are myths. Its lost when I explain that the biochemical pathways of happiness etc are what is just so happens to be.
My point is simply that Darwinist have to live in a subjective delusion in order to continue living (i think we agree here and if so, we can end it here). If you are not willing to buy into this subjective delusion, then taking the objective view of Darwinian physical materialism (at the expense of subjectivity) can only lead to "self" destruction.
So clearly, a subjective delusion is required for Darwinists to live their lives.
I'm interested in your response. I think you'll agree with what i've written and if so, we can leave it there.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement