I would like to make the comparison to how animals live to how humans live. I think animals follow boundaries of nature almost like they are pre-programmed while humans programs are written as they age and grow. While animals follow the path of nature, which path do humans follow?
I was just talking to my husband about this yesterday. I believe that humans find it civilized to fight nature. We can fight our natural inclinations to a point, but we are animals. We are unusual beasts, but beasts, nonetheless.
When you say we can fight our natural inclinations to a point, we have that choice to fight nature while animals do not have the choice. Why do we have the choice when they don't?
Either by divine providence, or the luck of the draw. If the universe is a big matrix, then we have our duty to do as our nature commands, and that is to fight our nature. Paradoxes like this are why it is so hard to see our true purpose.
Great conversation; Davina said it well here I think; of course assuming there is purpose takes faith, which is another subject.
Since humans define what nature is, (humans created language and therefore the definition of nature) we can decide if we are part of it or not. But outside the definition, just considering all the matter and energy out there, no ammount of intention by a human could alter the larger picture. Everything we do and understand is natural, even the invention of the concept that there is such a thing as "un-natural".
We don't follow nature - we are nature.
Of course, you're right, but if I was marinealways, I would say, "What makes us so special that we should be endowed with the ability to create language, to create a definition for nature, even if the definition is false?"
If we were nature like every other animal, we wouldn't need our human mind. We also wouldn't desire or need education, material objects, family. Nature/Animals only needs food and water to survive. Humans need food, water, intelligent thought to survive. Nature/Animals thinks "inside the box". Humans think "outside the box". Of course we are all nature on the large scale of life.
Notice we as humans compete with each other to educate ourselves to be smarter than our co-worker to make more money. Do you see animals educating themselves ahead of their co-animals?
Yes, but what is natural for a snake is not natural for a polar bear. We have our own nature. Whether it better, or worse, is pointless. We are also endowed with an arrogance that would make us presume that we know the ultimate meaning of life for other life forms, when we have no clue of our own.
Excellent post. What do you think when an animal goes extinct? I don't think it effects the planet as much as when humans would go extinct.
Even if the affect is beneficial to the planet...
Can it really be logical to say we were "lucky" to have our human capabilities while no other living creature comes close? I don't understand why we are the only lucky ones to step ahead.
The dogs chew on their own thing and want lick your face.
Their path would be the path of their beliefs such as religious beliefs. lol.
Someday the human race will become extinct. Either some animalist would go back in time and kill the first human, or we would die in a future war or disaster. Although that would be what I want, that isn't very likely to occur. Humans follow nature, yes, the only difference is that our parents teach us not to follow it. Our ancestors were clever enough not to follow the old way of eating food, killing prey, etc. to evolve to the intelligence we human beings have now. Everything in the ecosystem was indeed following the nature way, or technically, the constructive way. They all have a contribution to the whole system. Humans have evolved to the destructive way, which causes chaos. This can be further verified by the second law of thermodynamics, entropy always increases. Which means that chaos is surely going to be abundant in the future. Who knows that other animals may evolve to the destructive way and destroy our specie?
The more I live, the less I fight the nature. But yes, we all do this, and pay for it dearly
But, maybe, you will be the first to reach Nirvana. Children don't fight nature, and they do no evil. Maybe, not fighting our nature is the key. It would require de-evolution.
LOL de-evolution is a bit too much I think. Nature does not seem to work this way. It is usually a spiral instead, so we may expect to return to natural ways of life on some other level, more conscious perhaps.
Perhaps our idea of civilization will cause our race to reach a pinnacle and then start to decline into oblivion until we have no choice but to redefine our idea of civilized behavior. Then will we return to our base state, much like a person does when they approach death?
I have no doubt our civilization will eventually die. Everything dies eventually. Whether it happens in 2012 or a million years from now, I don't really worry too much about it. Something else will emerge on its ruins, and this something else is likely to be just a tad more enjoyable than our current civilization
I agree and I am not worried. The universe does not factor in our emotions, anyway. We are born, we live, and we die. It has always been this way. You are right, though. There is always new life. No energy ever leaves the universe, it is only transformed.
Who is Mr. Negative?
or have you been reading Pole Shift?
You could say that de-evolution occurs when an animal goes extinct. The animal did not have the ability to adapt. The animal followed natures program without the ability to learn and adapt. I think we as humans can adapt to "almost" any life extinction situation. If all else fails and there is no way to save the planet, we are constantly studying space for alternative life. Animals do not have the ability to seek other planets to escape extinction.
What is more adaptable: a human, or a roach?
I would say a roach because of nature.
You contradict yourself. Either humans have survival advantages, or animals. Can't be both
Ah, you are right. I change my answer. Humans because we have the ability to leave the planet.
Now we're talking! After we ruin the planet because we think we're smarter than nature, we can just leave it to rot! But what good is conciousness without a conscience?
All human minds have a conscience of a human but choose to act purely on instinct like that of an animal. Humans have the ability to make a conscious decision, animals do not. I agree that many of use choose not to use our conscience which puts some of us level with animal nature rather than our ability to live in human nature.
Humans have reason and rationality which animals don't (I don't know why we do and they don't) which is how we know it is not always in our best interest to follow our natural instincts. Sometimes people do things that they have been told not to do or that seem silly and justify it by saying 'i wasnt thinking,' because instinct took over.
So you think you are smarter than the nature? Uh-oh, talking about arrogance.
But you are not alone though, majority of people think this way. Arrogance is our very special characteristic.
LOL Cross-posted Beth, looks like we are one the same wave with you on this
I think we are part of nature and that our capabilities are part of nature (or something like that). I don't think we are any better than nature. All animals have characteristics that set them apart from other animals (birds fly, fish swim etc) so why is it unreasonable that we can have things like reason and rationality that other animals can't. We make decisions ... doesn't that show that we are at least capable of fighting our natural instincts? ... unless you think our lives are determined?
On a second though I think I was too harsh of you and owe you an apology. Excuse me please
No, I don't think our lives are determined, but I don't think we use our ability to reason to our benefit, when we are trying to outsmart the nature. It usually finds a way to bite us from unexpected direction for that.
Agreed to an extent. Must we not make mistakes in order to learn? Mistakes are our greatest learning tool. If a dog gets hit by a car while trying to cross the road, the dog will likely still cross the road in the future if he survives the hit. What are the chances that the human would cross twice in front of an oncoming car after being hit once before? Humans have the ability to learn from mistakes while most animals do not.
Another example is cloning with "Dolly the sheep". Scientist tried and failed multiple times. They "finally" learned from their mistakes of how to correctly clone the sheep. Through cloning, immortality is possible to an extent. "Immortality" is certainly not logical with nature.
In short - I don't see any evidence that humans learn from their mistakes any better than animals.
Dogs DO learn from their mistakes. The way that you train a puppy not to jump on you is to ignore the puppy when it does, turn your back on it. It learns not to jump anymore if it wants attention. A stronger example: my dog was abused by a man before I owned her. She is now wary of men and slow to warm up to them.
I think you should stop making references to things about which you clearly don't actually have enough knowledge.
You are so quick to judge my education and critsize me for what I write. Is this your human side or your animal side? My point was that the person wouldn't have to be trained not to cross the road after being hit by the car, the dog would. The human would learn from the mistake most likely on the first time without training. Please understand what you read before you place your judgements and make assumptions.
I'm not judging your education. I'm judging you by what you say, and you are undermining your own arguments by making false statements, betraying your ignorance on particular subjects. I simply suggest you use examples about which you actually have knowledge, as this would be more effective in supporting your point.
I thought I had enough knowledge to say that humans are smarter than cows. Is that wrong?
I'm not disagreeing, just making the point that using false statements (such as that mad cow disease was caused by cows) does nothing to prove it.
I agree that I made the mad cow comment without knowledge on how the disease started. You are right. This still does not help to show that animals close to human ability.
Can you build a dam with your teeth?
Can you carry 20 times your own body weight?
Can you run faster than 35 mph?
So animals better than human ability no?
Depending on how you measure it........
How many could we list that the human is capable of that the animal is not? Infinate. I think animal life is limited by nature.
And human is limited by human nature and conciense not used.
I am beginning to think you do not speak English as a first language.
How many could we list that we screwed up and destroyed with our wonderful un-limited abilities?
lol I don't speak english? Explain how the human mind discovered cloning? Does that fit into your laws of nature?
Humans are the most intellegent animals. Does anyone really want to contest that? Of course, we are talking about our own definition of intellegence. I guess I am confused about what this thread is trying to prove. Are we still talking about humans and nature?
Mark wants to contest that animals are smarter. And yet, he asks me if I speak english.
I am sure that no one really believes that animals are smarter. I believe the misuse of human power is coming into question now. Just because human beings are smarter, does not make them more beneficial. Which is more important?
Well, I mentioned above already, that I tend to think dolphins are ahead of us
So, cloning is good?
And dam building is bad?
We follow human nature. Which is pretty destructive to all around.
Mad cow disease. Explain how that happened. Oh yes - we decided to feed dead sheep and cows to other cows. And were shocked to discover that this did not work out so well.
Who are you trying to convince here, and of what?
That humans have dominion?
Who introduced rabbits to Australia? Did not work out so well.
How is your water supply? Good, I hope. Not that we have poisoned any water supplies or anything. Erin Brockovich........
And yes, your sentence construction leads me to believe you do not speak English as a first language.
While my "sentence construction" may lead you to assumptions of my education level, your petty, childish, arrogant comments display your lack of self knowledge. Doesn't matter how much you know if you don't know yourself.
Please quote me where I said cloning is good. I said it doesn't fit the laws of nature. You use petty examples of human mistakes to support your ridiculous point that animals are on the same level of nature as humans. You fail. As I said before, mistakes are neccessary to learn and intellectually evolve. Still waiting on your explanation of how cloning fits "your" laws of nature.
No, i'm saying that animals do not learn from their mistakes as humans do.
We just discussed this a couple of pages ago, and I don't remember anybody agreeing to you. You have a dog on your avatar, how did you manage to train it? It obviously LEARNED.
I explained when the dog crosses the road in an earlier comment.
Uh-oh, I rest my case. We either live on different planets, or one of us can't use his human advantage. Let it be me Marine, good luck with your nature fights.
Sorry, no offence, just making an observation.
Cloning fits my "human nature," quite well thank you. We assume a god, in who's image we are made, and wish to emulate this.
Still not sure what point you are making. Perhaps if you learn English - you might be able to do so?
And "assumptions" are not the same as "observations."
That's quite alrite Nothing like a bit of healthy debate, especially when it's not about religion. I agree with you that often our reason is not used wisely. My point was only that we CAN use it contrary to nature. But often we do use it wisely, perhaps without realising. The way it was once explained to me was, think about animals in Springtime (males especially), they instinctively reproduce. As we all know, humans are animals, so men must be surpressing that urge to reproduce with every female they see or the world would be maaaadness!
Oh, it's well known that girls are much more beautiful in spring, and guys are much more needy. I would suspect it's the same way from the other gender side, but can only speculate on this
That may well be true, in fact that just proves my point more. You find girls more attractive in spring but you don't go around shagging them all. You resist (I would hope) Thus fighting nature!
Is it truly fighting nature, or abiding laws that society has created???
Who told you I wouldn't do it? They don't let me though Well, not all of them
Ok, we're both on the same wavelenght, but different time zones....check what i said earlier.... lol (and, it's the same for us females...at least i speak for myself )
It's because they are fighting nature! If they weren't then you could have any girl you wanted!
Oh yeah, they do! Hope you won't fight it anymore, right?
Umm, what were we talking about, again?
Put it away Misha. You are acting like an animal......
Of course. As we all are. We just have better tool making abilities than the other animals. And self awareness. Which will ultimately lead to .....
My money is on the cockroaches for the next dominant species. They are all-but indestructible.
Ahaha, get told Misha ... and nice come back!
Thank you! Did you notice that all this banter was done just to impress you?
LOL well, let's make it spring fever come true, how about that?
Does that mean I have to admit that you won? I can't remember what we were arguing about, but I don't like the idea of losing. Perhaps I should keep the Spring Fever, I'll share it out when necessary!
Of course not, girl always wins. And sure, you can have it since you won
That's like winning a pizza in a hot dog eating contest.
I do enjoy a bit of banter it is true I am suitably impressed. This thread needed a bit of lightening up its getting quite heated!
We make advances in medicine that are "smarter" than nature in a sense. We extend our "own" life in nature through medicine, human invention.
Found through science by the human mind. No animal mind will find cures to diseases.
Actually, even "simple-minded" animals like cows, if they feel sick, will naturally seek out certain plants with antibiotic properties, or, if they are deficient in a certain mineral, will eat certain grasses high in said mineral.
Also, if we're "smarter" than nature, why would we ever do something so stupid as to feed said cows corn, which they are not built to digest, despite all kinds of negative health effects both for the cows themselves, and those of us who eat them?
Excellent point. You beat me to it! I was going to talk about my dog eating grass to help him digest. Your answer is much more concise. Thank you!
Do cows know how to recognize "mad cow disease"? Humans do and the disease comes from the cows, not from the humans. We will always do stupid things, the does not go to say that we are not continually learning and evolving.
That disease DOES come from humans, not cows. If not for us, they wouldn't have mad cow disease in the first place. They got it because we were feeding them ground-up bits of other cows.
Why didn't the cows not use logic and eat grass instead of the dead cows humans fed them? Surely they have the ability to recognize they are eating themselves.
We don't provide cows with the option to eat grass. Their options are: eat processed "feed" (including corn, antibiotics, animal fat, etc) or starve.
It seems you're not taking full advantage of your "human" qualities, such as logic and literacy, to educate yourself on your own food sources, or the food sources of your food sources. Please read up on the subject, and then we'll talk. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is a good starting point.
lol I'm not the one comparing my mind with a cow. Why is it us that has the power to determine what the cows eat? If the cows are as smart or smarter than humans, why don't they tell us what to eat?
You're not using your powers of logic here. I did not compare my mind to a cow, I simply used a cow as 1) an example of an animal that self-medicates, and 2) an example of just how humans using their intellect to go against nature has less than desirable results.
My original question was: if we're so smart, why are we giving cows no other option than to eat things they can't digest, and that make them sick?
I have no clue, you are clearly more educated on cows. I surrender, cows are smarter.
Cows aren't smarter, they're just more intune with nature. They feel the need to eat, so they do. And eat they do, the first substance that is edible to their nose and palette. They can't determine whether it is available naturally or given to them by humans. They are following their natural insticts -- eat, survive and be eaten.
They may be smarter or may seem smarter. At the end all advances in medicine lead to the poorer quality specie genetic pool (from survival ability point of view). I don't know if it is good or bad, but I am saying it has another side, which most choose to comfortably ignore.
Thank You for writing an honest answer.
Ignorance is bliss...for children, they do exactly as nature has programmed them to do. We, as adults, deprogram that by the word "no" and expecting them to conform to rules that adults over centuries have put in place. We are, by nature, animals, but our arrogance has taken over whereupon we believe that we are above other animals. We attempt to control nature through genetic manipulation, medicine and technological advances. Eventually, nature will subdue the human race, one way or another.
Don't really see how this could be "good", but who am I to judge of course.
Either way, I personally feel happier when I manage to get closer to natural ways of doing things
I'm with you on that one. My life and for my children, is all nature based. If it doesn't happen in nature, then there's something really wrong with it....
I think that you are right when you say it feels better to be more natural. It is natural for you to be logical and always weigh both sides of the issue. Is that part of the "nature of man"? Or, does that make you an exception to the rule. It makes me think that the question is not if we follow nature, but what exactly is our nature?
I am definitely right, cause I am just describing how I feel, something you have no way of knowing
For the rest I am not sure I have an answer for you. I definitely was not like this before, I completely rebuilt myself during last 10-15 years. So it is not likely just a "man" thing, and I don't see a whole lot of men around sharing my views.
But, while rebuilding, I am trying to look inside myself and determine what exactly I feel like. Not what I was taught to feel, not what I think I should feel - but how I actually feel, deep inside. It's not easy, it takes a lot of time, effort, and guts - but I am definitely way happier nowadays then I was a decade ago. Is it natural or not? I don;t know
Ya hit it on the nail Misha! Animals and plants revert to how THEY feel. They're primary concern is not about what other animals/plants feel. When we can acknowledge our own feelings truthfully, then I believe we are following nature, not nurture.
By "the nature of man", I meant mankind, not just men.
I think human nature continually evolves as the universe. We continue to learn more and seperate from animal life. As we evolve in science/medicine, animal life remains on natures path. I think our nature is to continually evolve.
Humans follow nature but forget that they do and get lost.
I think humans have been manipulated en masse to be disconnected from nature and now are unnatural in a lot of their behaviour. Yes, aniamls and plants stick with their programmes but humans have lost touch with theirs!
If we simply followed nature, we wouldn't have laws, police, order, we would live as animals rather than the choice we have to live as humans. Why would we choose to live as an animal when we have the ability to live as human. Animal doesn't have the ability to do both, we do.
So you mean this is police that make us humans?
No. I think our minds when we choose to use them make us human.
Well, I find it interesting that chipmunks that time out of their day to just PLAY! How do I know? They call me. LOL.
They stand on the doorstep and make funny noises.
I believe that the main difference between humans and animals is the concept of "good" and "evil". But, again, I am presuming to know the mind of an animal. For the sake of the argument, let's say that animals have no concept of "good" and "evil".
Human beings follow Nature far more than most realize they do. They just have the egos to think that what they do is "human nature" (since it's what human beings do) rather than Nature-in-general. I think some people, more than others, mature (have developed brains) to the point where they're a little more removed from biological hardwiring than others are; but it's always there to some extent.
This reminds of a particular Eddie Izzard sketch, I don't know if anyone has seen it (I can't find a youtube link at the moment, I'll look later if anyone is interested):
He talks about good and evil: You say your dog is bad when he steals a biscuit. The dog says 'you have war, rape, murder, you discriminate based on skin colour, race, religion, politics. and i'm bad because I stole a biscuit?'
grrrr... now that's humans following nature!! Competition and survival of the fittest... basic insticts. Everything else is moot. We're not talking about intelligence, we're talking about nature.
Seems to me the intelligent humans have become arrogant and began talking about themselves rather than about nature..... lol
Okay, the original question is: Do humans follow nature?
Do we? I think that we follow our noses.....
Some of the Australian cockroaches are almost ready to take us on now as the dominant species, they get bigger by the year. Soon they will just dispose of us.We have built enough rubbish tips to keep them in food for a very long time.
The cloning question is open to anyone. Does cloning and immorality fit into the previous laws of nature?
Misha has had spring fever for at least a year according to his posts!
Interesting thread and responses. Excellent question to start off with.
From the carbon dating done, suggesting the origins of the human race, the first sketches, to scripture, landing on the moon and until today, represents not even a drop in the ocean, compared to the timeline of our planet's beginning to it's end.
So who knows whether 40,000 years from today, humans may have departed to a better place and dogs may be riding the streets, calling themselves "Dumans"?
Thank you for bringing up our life on the time scale. I don't think other animals will ever evolve to our human capabilities, no matter how much time they have without divine intervention or the human mind.
You missed my humor, which I know is always kinda dry. Since we are on the subject of evolution, I really don't think anyone knows.
Is it possible that others may already exceed human capabilies in a distant universe?
Is it possible that in the system we know today, some may reach human capabilities well past the timeline it took to develop the human race?
Is it possible humans may survive beyond the lifetime of planet earth?
Know one knows, we can only guess, but personally I believe nature is infinite in it's capabilities, all it needs is time and we are as much a part of nature as everything else we know. We just got a good head-start and have exponetially overtaken everyting else.
Well something that came to mind, after reading this whole forum is the mere fact that as humans we, study to improve upon nature, we study to get one leg up on each other, we dye our hair, spray ourselves down with cologne, make others cry, make others laugh, build a bigger house then the next person, kill one another because we can, not because we have to, we have the ability to look in the mirror and know what is looking back at us. I have to agree that we are the nature, and that we follow nature, so I guess I am still no further ahead....lol
Agreed that we are part of nature on the large scale of life. My point is that we can intervene natures path as the animal can't. With our inventions of medicine and technology, we can change our entire logic of nature. The animal cannot do this while the human can. This is divine intervention. Divine intervention is not logical in a lot of peoples minds as cloning was not logical before proven.
Some good stuff I found on wikipedia. Does this fit your previous logic of how nature operates?
After cloning was successfully demonstrated through the production of Dolly, many other large mammals have been cloned, including horses and bulls. The attempt to clone argali sheep did not produce viable embryos. The attempt to clone a banteng bull was more successful, as were the attempts to clone mouflon (a form of wild sheep), both resulting in viable offspring. In 2005 a dog, Snuppy, was cloned by Korean stem cell researcher, Hwang Woo-Suk.
Cloning may become a viable tool for preserving endangered species. In January 2009, scientists from the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon, in Zaragoza, northern Spain announced the cloning of the Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, which was officially declared extinct in 2000. Using DNA from skin samples kept in liquid nitrogen the scientists managed to clone the Ibex from domestic goat egg-cells. The newborn ibex died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs. However, it is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned, and may open doors for saving endangered and newly extinct species by resurrecting them from frozen tissue. It has also increased the possibility that in the future it will be possible to reproduce long-dead species such as woolly mammoths and even dinosaurs.
Would we want to clone mammoths and dinosaurs? They'd eat us! And it's hardly fair to clone them and then keep them in captivity!
Misha, how are dolphins smarter than humans? Humans captured the dolphins that are in captivity. Why didn't the dolphins outsmart the humans that caught them?
So, are you saying this is your measure of intelligence? Goes well with law, police, and order
IDK man, I told you already it looks like we live on different planets. Will you understand if I say they seem to have quite a bit of free time at their disposal, not dedicated to survival tasks? If I say that they seem to use this time to play and talk and otherwise enjoy their lives? If I say that they seem to live in peace with their environment, instead of raping it as we do? If I say that they just seem to be a lot happier then us overall?
No, they don't have written laws, they don't have police cars, they have nothing of that kind. It does not really have any relation to intelligence to me. I don't know why they let us catch and kill them. I could guess that this is likely because of their philosophy of accepting the nature as it is, even with those two-legged evil doers.
Misha, our laws and order are proof of the complexities of the human mind from the animal mind. The human mind must have laws/limits. Where is the laws or limits that have to be set for the complexities of the animal mind? Why don't animal minds need laws or limits? Because they do not have the complexity of the human mind.
If a human went walking in the jungle they could get eaten by lions (or wherever lions live). Some humans would be smart enough not to get too close, some arent. It could be the same with Dolphins ... you don't know about all the dolphins that didnt get caught!
I don't know, I don't know enough about dolphins. I wouldnt say categorically no. They are smart, probably not smart in the same way that humans are. They do things that we can't do and we do things they can't. I don't know if you can compare the smartness between species.
lol I don't think it's logical to compare species either. Why? Because I don't think there is a logical comparison to the human complexity of other life known.
I think this is pretty much where me and Misha started right at the beginning of the thread. I argued something similar to what you are saying and he disagreed, although I never said that I thought humans were superior. We have different capabilities to other animals, like I said, we have reason and rationality which other animals don't. But dolphins do other things, breathing underwater, communicating how they do ... (I really don't know enough to say in detail). We can't say that we are superior.
If a meteor was coming to destroy earth and some humans left earth for another planet to start life while all other life was ended by the meteor, who was superior, the dolphin or the human? Could the dolphins communicate to leave the ocean for another planet?
Well for starters we don't have the capabilities to get to, or live on another planet, never mind the dolphins. I think the dolphins would be more likely to find a way to live on this planet.
If (as is possible) global warming heats the planet up and the land sinks underwater, who do you think you survive best? Humans or dolphins?
We don't have the capability "yet". If we simply flew to space when a meteor hit and destroyed "all" life on earth, even the dolphins, we would be considered superior in my belief for surviving while no other life on earth could survive.
Yes, BUT there are other disasters that could happen that could wipe out humanity while other animals survived. What if everyone died of Swine Flu? Or global warming heated the planet up? etc etc. We would die and other animals would survive. When there was that big tsunami in Asia, animals didnt die because they sensed it coming and moved up into higher areas, like up mountains etc. Humans died and animals lived.
Where has everyone else gone?
YES! The Earth doesn't revolve around us. There was a point to Earth before humans came along and there will be a point to life after we're gone. We're just another animal.
lol This is my point. I believe we are divine from other life. I find it irrational that humans out of all life are the only ones to evolve to our complexity.
You are right, before humans the earth was here. What was the point without humans? Obviously nothing since the dinosaurs were wiped out. I think there was divine intervention between the human and animal mind to give life on earth a point.
Oh. If you're going down the religion road then I'm stopping right now. We will never agree on that and I don't propose that we get into a debate about it. It's 2am here, too early/late for religious debate.
I am not religious and made no mention of religion. Divine intervention can be anything other than evolution. At some point, the human mind seperated from the animal mind. Science or logic does not explain this.
I assumed by divine you meant God but ok. Well I was under the impression that humans were animals. And also that it was precisely through evolution that they changed. Aaand I'm sure it can be explained, at least in part, by science (although, as I have said previously I don't know much about biology at all).
How do you think human minds seperated from animal minds then?
That makes no sense ... but I admire your enthusiasm!
Disagree. By being able to reason both concrete and abstract, where animals have only limited abstract ability. That is what starts the difference with everyting else that follows. The development of concrete thinking is where the separation started.
If you read the thread, you'll see that this was a sarcastic post.
Can't subscribe to your POV either, cause I frankly don't feel bright enough to know exactly what and how animals think.
Oh, and you meant the development of abstract thinking, right?
I think that it is EXACTLY the opposite. Abstract thinking is what separates us from other animals...being able to think in terms outside of our natural senses. The CONCRETE "thought"...that of all animals...in other words, "instinct", is what is common amongst all living, "somewhat sentient" beings.
If I, as a lion, understand that a particular species is "food", then that's how I see them...a means of sustenance, and nothing else. If I eat this creature, I will remain alive.
However, if I have the ability to reason that, as a lion, I don't necessarily have to eat animals but rather can have a diet of something else...say grains or veggies...then that is a different thing all together. But is it "abstract"? A lion will rather die if it doesn't have meat to eat. A bear, on the other hand will eat fish, mammals, roots, berries, or whatever is available. Does that make the bear more "advanced" than the lion?
Wondering about my origins, my purpose, or whatever, is abstract thinking. It is that sort of advanced "reasoning" that makes us (as humans) more advanced than the rest of the mammals out there.
Socialization occurs in all species, to an extent. And it is exactly that socialization that determines how each will grow up to continue to live. My mother lion may have taught me that I am supposed to learn to hunt Caribou or whatever, then that's what I learn to do...period.
However, I am human. My mother taught me to eat my meat, eat my veggies, fruit, and dairy, and I will survive.
Experiments started in the 1840's concerning "vegetarianism" have proven that humans most certainly live longer eating meat, and the whole "Soy supplement" thing of the 1970's has been proven to be unworthy also. Even the clowns that were eating "enhanced dirt" back then were dying at a younger age.
A good balance of what "modern man" has been eating for millennia combined with current medical technology, should be enough to suffice to keep us living longer and longer lives. But ultimately it is our ability to "reason" that will always keep us at the top of the "food chain". And it is our ability to think "beyond" our "natural instincts" that makes us special...and that is the ABSRACT.
To be honest, I have no clue how/when the human mind seperated from the animal mind. If science proves the how/when, they may prove that we evolved like every other animal. They do not have this information. They are still missing the link to say we are simple evolution.
And there we have it. Exactly what I thought you were getting at.
There is a good argument that we became self aware around 35,000 years ago - at around the same time art began to be created. If you had done any research you would have discovered this.
There is no "missing link" that prevents us from proving we evolved.
All this roundabout rubbish to say that you do not believe in evolution for humans. All other animals sure - but not for humans You guys are funny. Next time post this stuff in the irrational beliefs forum where it belongs.
You say there is a good arguement of human seperation around 35,000 years ago, an arguement doesn't count for much. The missing link is between the chimp and the human because they say we evolved from the chimp, yet our genetics do not match. Did you do your research? What animal did we evolve from O wise one? It's not proven that we evolved from the chimp.
Self awareness can't be considered seperation from animal mind? Is that what you were getting at.
I like how you nit pick to add petty comments without writing any ideas of your own. Why is this?
Who exactly has said that we evolved from the chimpanzee?
There is an argument that we became self aware around 35,000 years ago, yes. You apparently prefer to use the loaded word "separated," from animal mind.
I wonder why...............
I am an animal still. The urge to eat and reproduce is strong in this one.
Do you consider any other non human animal mind to have the complex thought of your mind?
Can you build a dam with your teeth?
But I am open to hearing how complex the thought of dolphin minds are.
On second thoughts .......... You think we evolved from chimpanzees and there is a missing link, so I am not really interested in how complex you think they are.
Again, you didn't answer my question. Do you think an animal mind has the complexity of your human mind?
I am sorry, I am not understanding. You are saying that humans are not animals?
A human mind is an animal mind. Your ignorance of evolutionary biology aside, what exactly are you trying to say?
lol Am I not writing in english again? Is it my bad high school uneducated grammar?
I will try once more. Let's say you are the "human animal". Do you think any other animals are as complex minded as the "human animal", you?
Now - your ignorance of evolutionary biology is pretty astounding, but exactly what point are you trying to make?
Or do you think you have "dominion" over the animals and are not actually an animal yourself?
Wow, you think you are more complex minded than other animals. Why did it take so long to answer that? Was it the animal thinking or the human? Do you think your complex thought is favored over other animals or do you just think you got lucky in the evolution chain?
Again, you nit pick the question out of childishness. You knew what I was getting at the first time I asked you. You finally say you think you are more complex minded than other animals. Any more thoughts or ideas to add or do you have more fun in your childish acts of nit picking questions without offering any ideas to the table?
Um no - your question was:
"Do you think any other animals are as complex minded as the "human animal"
And I said:
Not sure how you managed to turn that around to say what you wanted me to say, but go right ahead and explain.
What animal is more complex minded than the human?
Now childish name calling, lol , who's the chimp? Again you add no ideas.
Ah - so we can safely ignore your last responses?
And I assume you are not interested in apologizing for turning my response around to say what "god" wanted me to say?
Seriously chimp - get an education first, then we can talk.
Your arrogance is your biggest enemy. The only problem is, you don't see it in your ignorance. I will settle for being uneducated if it would bring me anywhere close to your level. Again I say, you don't know anything if you don't know yourself. Go educate yourself on yourself and maybe you will have some ideas to offer.
It's pretty funny to me of your childish mind to critisize others ideas while "fearing" to write your individual ideas. Maybe this is beacause you haven't yet been enlightened to seperate from your animal mind into the human mind.
So - we can ignore you mis-quoting me then?
And the fact that you have not answered any of my questions?
And your ignorance of evolutionary biology?
OK - good. Just so we got that cleared up.
I misread, wow. You win. Wow, are you happy? lol More nit picking. All you do is look for my errors in your fear to add an idea to the table.
Lose your arrogance and maybe one day you will find enlightenment.
I have not seen you add one idea. If you read what I said to start with, you would see I added a lot of ideas. But - they did not fit with your already-decided answer. Sorry.
No need to apologize for mis-representing me.
I asked you multiple times which animal you think is more complex minded than the human mind. Did you not comprehend the question? I have yet to see an answer. Keep calling me a chimp, nit picking my errors, and critisizing my education. Any open minded reader will see who is the chimp. You are your own destruction.
All my ideas and belief are open to debate unlike yours. You claim to already know the answers to everything.
And - ignoring the insults and the fact that you have avoided all the questions I have asked, still, what point are you trying to make?
Because it is pretty clear you have an answer you would like to hear.
Dogs for example. Dumb, stupid dogs, that can persuade a human that they should use an image of them in their avatar instead of themselves.
Seriously - answer any of my questions and I will play.
But - I suspect (or rather my pet pig tells me) you already know all the answers despite your obvious lack of education. Oh well.....
I have said many times before and do not ask for a witness to me saying, I understand that I know nothing. You obviously do not from your petty arrogant comments. I will answer any question you want if it has point. I love my dog, thats why I put her in the picture. Does that make my dog smarter than me?
Complex in thought. We can "change" nature. That is pretty complex to me. Can other animal life do these things? Can other animal life alter nature? I don't think so.
Before this goes any further, any chance for a beer with you two and Obama?
Oh ... and also in response to your response to Misha ... I'd like to refer you back to the Eddie Izzard quote I gave a few pages back ... who really has it better?
Edit: Oh I found the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYcnEonB … re=related
We were given choice, and are still given choice everyday, to choose, to be evil or to be happy. Only you can decide which one you want to be. Animals have no choice they must survive, they must attack one another, for dominion, for female, for food. We on the other hand can live in peace if we wanted to. It is up to us, to want to be intelligent or to be an animal.
Makes no sense to me either, but obviously makes a lot of sense to our Marine friend.
misha I think what he was trying to say is animals were made to do what they do. where as humans we were made to love one another, but was given free choice to choose which one we wanted. To be good or to be bad. And because some choose to be bad we need police, we need laws, etc...
At the risk of saying something I'm going to regret, humans were not made to love. Strategically (perhaps) we cultivate love in order to survive. We require protection etc and love is useful. and selfish.
I'd argue that we were not 'made' to do anything, we just ARE. And we werent 'given' free choice, we just have it. But think thats probably irrelevant to the general debate
If we were not made to love and be loved, then why do children that don't get it, die from neglect, die from hunger, so on and so forth. Why is love selfish? I want to love someone, and I want to be loved, don't you? So then if we just are, then why are we here? To just stand in stupor? And go gogo gaga. No we were made in the image of beauty. And as humans we want affirmation, we want someone who will listen, and most of all we want someone to just accept us with all our good points and bad ones.
Everything humans do is selfish. Love is an emotion we feel just like any other emotion. There is no reason why we are here. We just are. It's a random chance of events and you make of it what you like. I generally recommend being happy, and yes, often love makes us happy. Often it doesnt. And yes, we want all those things you said at the end, but we want them because they make us happy. and that is selfish.
I might be wrong of course, but I think he meant what he said. This line surfaced several times during the thread, quite clearly - law, police, order... He is not talking about choice at all
Really? well I was trying to encompass all kinds of love. I don't know that anyone can define love as such ...
Well, you are talking about love as a human emotion, Denys is talking about love as a creative force of the Universe. A bit different things, you know
Oh, well I don't know about creative forces in the universe, I've only ever experienced love as a human (or concievably animal) emotion, either love I have given someone or something, or love that I have gotten from someone else.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding. I am sleepy. I must sleep now. Goodnight everyone. I will come back to this tomoro, if the thread is still active.
Emotion is a result of the destructive way. Emotion causes chaos.
When we are sad, we make other people sad too. When we are mad, we cause trouble to everyone of you.
Yea bad emotions equal evil, good "intelligent" emotions equal love
WRONG! Emotion is never good, emotion is always chaos. Love is the most extreme chaos you would have ever seen. It leads to the ultimate destruction.
Yes sometimes it does, if we don't have enough depth in us to grasp what the true meaning is.
I think you are referring to "unbridled emotion"...and that can most certainly have dire consequences. However, without emotion, we would be nothing more than animals...
That would be good wouldn't it? Evoloving back to the constructive side...
That's a good point Panda...if you think about it, there aren't a whole lot of species (there are some) that attack there own. Humans seem to be the ones that like to kill their own more than any other...
To be frank, there is no love in this world. If there were, then there wouldn't be the oxymoron 'unconditional love'...
Nature > Human.
Nature will ultimately remove humans.
Well I will certainly agree to the fact that if/when humans kill themselves off, that the rest of Nature, (or at least some faction of it), will survive. It has through many devastations, and I doubt mankind can give it anything worse...
If nature is greater than human, how can human alter nature?
Mankind is a pest. Remove humans and you have world peace. It's as simple as that.
Yea but unfortunately, I'm not a Panda nor am I a cockroach. So I guess I get thrown out with the rest of the trash, eh?
I think that is an animal answer. We as humans have the logic and reasoning to work out our problems through debate and conversation, yet some of us prefer to still drop bombs.
no we do not we only follow our need and wants in life we do not worry about what happens from it. we would have to be one the the most self centred animals in the wild kingdom
It's just coincidence that we evolve faster. Everything was following constructivism and will gradually switch to the destructivism. There is only one creature that follows the latter right now. In the future, everything will follow destructivism.
Humans are self aware, thoughtful, and creative. We make our own path. We do not need predesigned rules. We are the best and we are the worst. We will work hard to save a puppy stranded in raging water and we'll also kill babies for the fun of it. We cannot be bounded by natural rules; we must overcome them. We're likely to destroy are own environment to prove that.
All this following nature talk.
Damn but it's easier being green.
*empathises with the lowly (lost) youmans*
If you want to know where do we come from ,just wait and see where are we going!
I'd save your breath Mark. We had this exact same argument on this thread last night.
Yes he thinks humans are clearly superior to all other animals.
Animals with complex brains are some birds and dolphins, among others I don't recall right now. And animals don't change the world ,because they aren't as stupid as human beings. Nature shouldn't be changed!
Maybe if we have the ability to change nature, it's for a reason?
I do not know what that reason is. Mark Knowles probably knows though.
I think Man have the wrong reasons. I think we don't deserve to live here
Maybe we don't deserve to live here. If the majority of us think and act like we don't, maybe we will be ended.
On the contrary. If we all go around acting like we're superior and above the laws of nature (ahem!), that is how we doom ourselves. If we maintain some humility and respect for our environment, we're more likely to survive.
Ok I agree, maybe it's not wise to say we are superior to nature. I simply wanted to make the point that we have the ability to "alter" nature while no other animal like of my knowledge has the power. If we have superior ability over other animal life, does it not make us superior? I will also say that with superiority comes destruction as everyone has witnessed from the human destruction to the planet and other animal life.
well then... Are we superior than animals? Maybe yes.. but we are not more intelligent. We are very dumb, we are destructive and we get what we deserve... and I can care less! It can't be fixed, not by you or me.
I think you are speaking in majority terms, I could be wrong. I agree that us by majority do not quickly learn from our history or our mistakes, yet "some" of us do. With saying that "some" of us do, "some" is a reason for "hope".
If you want to think that way ,go on. I think we're on the verge of massive destruction. i'm not worried about it though...I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be very interesting!
Why are you looking forward to mass destruction? I would guess to say you don't have children?
I have a daughter... She's looking forward as well . we're not afraid of it. Common sense says it's going to happen
How do you know or believe that we will be ended soon?
If you live for death, do you ever live?
we are born condemned to dye..is it not? enjoy your life...that's why is there for !
Are we? We now have cloning. We are progressing/progressed to changing natures law of being born with our human mind.
Cloning doesn't mean we are not going to dye..i really have to leave now Bye!
That like in the movie, I think it was called The Island with Scarlet Johanson and Jude Law (I think).
Anyways, so they were the "clones" and when it came down to winning the lottery to go to the Island, what they were really doing is replacing their clone in the above world.
So when they found out, they were pretty flippin mad! Great flick.
Did you read my earlier post on cloning from wikipedia? It is pretty wild.
"Cloning may become a viable tool for preserving endangered species. In January 2009, scientists from the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon, in Zaragoza, northern Spain announced the cloning of the Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, which was officially declared extinct in 2000. Using DNA from skin samples kept in liquid nitrogen the scientists managed to clone the Ibex from domestic goat egg-cells. The newborn ibex died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs. However, it is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned, and may open doors for saving endangered and newly extinct species by resurrecting them from frozen tissue. It has also increased the possibility that in the future it will be possible to reproduce long-dead species such as woolly mammoths and even dinosaurs". Wikipedia
we will be ended all right... and it's all our fault... But you know what ?...I can't be bothered! i'm too happy 4 that !
While animals do follow instinct patterns and mimic each others personalities, I think that people arn't much different in that catagory (when they do not control themselves, learn, grow, etc.) While we are the most intelligent species (sometimes...) history DOES repeat itself and we have done the same things over and over again!
just look around ... Look I have to go now. I enjoyed this conversation with you. maybe we can catch up tomorrow, if not, it was a pleasure!
by Richard VanIngram7 years ago
One often reads about "human nature" or claims about humans having a nature. For example: it is often said that people are, by nature, greedy or violent or what have you.Further, serious ethical claims...
by Captain Redbeard4 years ago
So if morality does not come from God and is a inherant idea that has come from generation to generation of tradition and culture. Example, in the animal kingdom, male sharks forcably mate with female sharks but is not...
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 months ago
The Pantheists among us believe that Nature and "GOD" are the same thing, thus the natural world that we are now discerning and discovering was created by Nature itself ... a self creating entity so to speak....
by vveasey3 years ago
Is Your reply based on truth and real experience or on belief?
by SandCastles3 years ago
I recently discovered that Orson Welles watched thousands of bullfights. I used to like him, not anymore. He seemed so civilized to me with is poetic speech and charm. But he watched animals die for entertainment. In an...
by Liam Hallam5 years ago
I'm in the position of choosing not to follow a religion. Why do you follow your choice of religion? Do you consider you have a choice in your religion? Ans would you ever consider or have you considered switching faith?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.