We Are Unique As A Species
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0That is the crux of the problem. The opening to belief. Why are we unique? How did we come to be so? Why are we so very different? Why didn't the evolutionary process produce anything that comes close?
I'm not really interested in hearing religious theories. I don't need anyone to speak for their deity. Your deity is welcome to speak for itself, if it chooses. We've all read the literature. What I would be interested in hearing are theories as to why, from those who don't believe there is something we haven't identified. A higher force? Poorly worded, but I'm at a loss for a better term. We don't appear to be the product of chance. Why, in your opinion, does humanity stand alone and isolated in this reality?We are unique only in that we have more sophisticated tools and nothing more. If winning a lottery(wisconsin) three times in a row(winning it once Ian one in a million chance) is not chance then human evolution is also not chance.
Of course we are unique as a species, but so are all species. We use tools but we are not the only species that uses tools, we just do it best. Evolution has made us what we are for survival. Ever try to do the math on paper required to throw a rock or spear at a target? Human are able to do the math instantly in our brain. Trajectory, force and aim without a thought. Could our need to hunt with tools have developed a brain like ours?
Ever watch a small child, say around 2, try the same thing?
It takes years and years of practice to do that. We aren't calculating the math at all, just going on the experience of 1,000 other similar attempts. Good memorization, not good analyzing or math skills. Put a man on the moon or on mars and you'll find they can't hit the broadside of a barn with a rock, not until they've practiced it many times.Oh perhaps your right. I guess we should be able to train any other mammal to throw a ball with accuracy? You only helped to make my point. I don't throw well, but if I change the trajectory I instantly change the required force needed to hit the target. Sure some can do it better than others and it requires practice, but that is further evidence of evolution. Can you think of another species that can do it?
There is a fish, I cannot remember the name, that can spit water from under water on its prey. Another 'unique' species, if you ask me.
Yes, the archer fish. And not only does it have to take the trajectory into account, but the refraction of the water surface; the target isn't where it looks like it is.
There are some animals (a cobra?) that will spit at you, aiming (and hitting) the eyes. Monkeys will throw nuts from high in the trees at you, and I don't think they're alone. Part of the problem with throwing is the bone/muscle structure of the arm and shoulder; other animals don't have the proper arm movement possibilities to throw well.And they don't have the proper bone structure because???????
They walk on all fours. Which does, indeed, tie into intelligence although other considerations are more important. Free hands contributes to the development of intelligence, but only if having those free hands doesn't preclude a high survival rate from predators.
My "deity" says he doesn't speak to anyone who has their back turned.
I would think it would be impossible to turn your back on a deity. Aren't they supposed to be everywhere?
What has led you to believe I have figuratively turned my back on a deity? The statement that I'm not interested in conversing with someone claiming to speak for their god?
You mentioned that their God should be able to speak for themselves. God is real and he can speak for himself. No problem.
Ok. When he does he will have my full attention. But, those who want to play God don't interest me.
Well, it might be the only common ground we ever find. As of this moment we appear to be simpatico. That's nice.
Don't take it personally when we do not see eye to eye. You have much integrity.
All my beliefs integrates religion concepts and scientific findings, for me, they aren't to be taken separately but together so I will not quote nor give scriptures, just my reason why.
By integrating science and religion I find evolution is of the lifeforce and not the physical manifestation. The metamorphosis suggests evolution of the physical isn't true while the religious concept of karma suggests the lifeforces evolves through every life type, attribute and gender of them. With the religious concept of The Rapture and science's findings of NED {Near Death Experiences} and OBE {Outa Body Experiences} happens with man we feel ourselves superior to all other lifes.
My belief is The New Birth{/b] is the equivalent of the metamorphosis since religion say we become [b]new creations, that is, we will return to being Bigfoot like, I believe, domesticated sheep will, if left alone, return to being Bighorns. What evolution of the body I've seen in man is we evolved from what is called Bigfoot in loosing our hair, size and what I call dominion abilities, like domesticated sheep, after being domesticated Bighorns they lost their horns and ability to defend themselves.
I believe it's the [Amoeba[/b] which divides itself to reproduce but they don't have genders which would make the Eve being removed from Adam only a metaphor since one gender produced the other in man's supposed division.
What I believe the rapture does is carry man who complete the physical laws of Karma and are to maintain our bodies as we evolve through other planes of existence to the next plane. That's because man are the last link in the unrealized Karma evolutionary chain and, thus, we tend to feel we are life's superior beings.I can honestly say I either have no response to that or.......say what? Did I hear you right? We are going to devolve into Big Foot?
That is correct, man before the Adam concept were Bigfoot, all man except the few who were supposedly in the ark, {the law of the supposed god}, during the flood became what we see daily, the few in the ark are Bigfoot who some few of us see not and then. Everyone who survives the setting of this civilization's termination will become Bigfoot once again. And the beat goes on.
Are there any other options? Bigfoot, being a mythological creature leads me to think there might be. What about sprites? Will there be any? I think I'd like to be a sprite. I've already lived with big feet. I can tell you it isn't that great.
Some DNA scientist have some samples they seem to believe belonged to Bigfoot, a man like creature but larger and hairy who lived about 100,000 years ago. Using bible symbolism I determined the {supposed Adam concept} took place about 81,000 years ago and the 7 days of creation are thousands of years making it about 91,000 so we are in the same ball park.
As for being spites, I'm not familiar enough with computers to talk about them.My avatar is a sprite.
Anyway, everything you posted is news to me. But I did read somewhere that when either Da Gama or Magellan sailed around the tip of South America they documented sightings of natives with exceptionally big feet in what is now Patagonia. Maybe they were related.It appears that most of what I post is new to most people on these forums I post on but the open minded and objective just might reason some possible truth to what I say,
How can you be so sure? Cetaceans, for instance, could have an "equal" intelligence, just one pointed in such a radically different direction that we (with our own much vaunted intelligence) can't recognize it enough to even communicate.
In addition, other species have begun to travel the same road, using tools and actual language. We may be an eyeblink further down that road, but that's about all. Some of the great apes come to mind as do some other primates. So does the extinct Neanderthal - we don't really know why that species failed and although it could have been contact with home sapiens it could have been a dozen other things as well.Ok. This is the first point made worth responding to. I suppose, I never put it into that perspective. Possibly, other species are traveling a road that will lead them to where we have gotten to. But, why none before? Maybe others did and we simply haven't found evidence? Doesn't the fact that, from what we can tell, we are the only ones to reach this pinnacle imply that we might be the only ones who will? That we are uniquely unique?
Isn't it rather arrogant to think this is the pinnacle?
That seems a little...egotistical...I guess. Being first doesn't make us special, it just makes us first. Somebody has to be first, after all. Somebody has to get the specific breaks, the mutations, the supportive climate changes, etc. that forces that "first" position.
If we are the only ones to ever reach the pinnacle we have, it will be because we eliminate all competitors, and that's how evolution works. Nothing unusual or notable about that.I disagree, but thanks for the input. I don't think it is egotistical to ponder why we are what we are. But then I don't believe that we are simply the first in a long line of species with exponentially larger intellects. Any species that had dominated the landscape before our arrival did not achieve the advances, or do the damage that they had the intelligence to avert that we have.
I don't think we are more important than any other species, but I think to deny that we are uniquely different implies a refusal to be willing to explore all the possible reasons that we are.I'm not sure that "egotistical" fits what I mean to say, but it's what I've got.
Every species is uniquely different - we are all unique in that respect. It actually isn't particularly our intelligence that sets us apart, except that that intelligence is a large part of our adaptability. We can adapt to nearly any environment, more so than any other creature.
In any case, it's a little like saying that the earth is special, or at a special distance from a specially sized sun in that it was able to give birth to us or to life. Those things are all variable, however - if it were further away maybe we'd all be penguins - closer and maybe we'd be descended from the slime around yellowstone hot springs. Different environments give rise to different life.
Likewise, having intelligence doesn't make us special, any more than the super immune system of crocodiles makes them special or better than humans somehow even though there is no other animal that can match it. We are what we are, and we weren't here there could well be a smarter version - a version that we killed off in it's infancy before it had a chance to develop.
There is also a possibility that we will evolve into something even more intelligent. Slim chance, in my mind, because we take too good of care of our "defectives" and encourage them to reproduce, but it could happen, whereupon we aren't special OR unique.You don't consider the fact that we are posting back and forth on the internet a little different? I find that odd.
However, you first say it isn't our intelligence and then (in the same sentence) say it is. But, again, you are offering an answer to the wrong question.
Of course we could look incredibly different, were the environment we evolved in vastly dissimilar to this one. But, if we had evolved to manipulate our environment as we have done with this one; had we advanced to the point that we could literally destroy that vastly different world; had we the inventive capabilities that we possess...and been the only species to reach that height I would be asking the same questions.
The crocodile example is another reason I don't think you follow my train of thought. Of course every living species has an advantage that allows them to survive. But, they don't have the ability to manipulate their environment. They have adapted to it. We adapt our environment. After which, we scratch our heads and ponder deeper thoughts. If there are any other animals that do this, I'm not aware of them.We are not alone in adapting our environment to suite our needs. The beaver has adapted to change it's environment to suite his needs. What makes humans unique is the depth that which we can use tools and weapons and our ability to run long distances without overheating.
Why waste time, the only answer she accept is "I don't know".
Our ability to run long distances without overheating? Gees. Is that what gave Einstein his edge?
I'm not attempting to be difficult here, but do you guys understand the question? It doesn't seem like it.There are still people who hunt by chasing prey over long distances in Africa. The prey eventually overheats and gives up. Humans have been doing this for a very long time. We sweat from our entire body which helps us cool off. No other animal can do this. You may want to do a little research before you mock me.
I understand the question perfectly, you may not be able to understand the answer.
I've never said I don't know. I've showed you how we are different and how we are not. You're looking for "I don't know"No, I'm not looking for an 'I don't know'. But, each of you has been focused on our physical characteristics. That is not what makes us unique. That makes us a separate species with certain advantages built into our make up.
It is our ability to question, to create and to build on the intellect of those who preceded us that makes us unique. We don't know what any animal thinks or feels, but we can observe behavior and we are vastly different. Have you never wondered why?
Maybe, we are simply one mutation too many. We certainly haven't proven to be an asset to the environment. But, there is still the why.Emile, this thread has been entertaining. You basically asked a philosophical question, but requested only atheists respond. By definition atheists are limited to materialism and have no answers to philosophical questions, such as what makes man unique. Yet you are surprised when the points you were looking for are not addressed. Admitting we are anything but the product of chance, and therefore no more special than a slug, a bug or a banana, undermines the materialistic premise. If atheists are correct, we can't be special, (other than perhaps more evolved and therefore advanced by pure chance), or their whole ideal falls apart. That we obviously are unique and special among creation cannot be acknowledged, because they cannot explain it.
I guess I assumed they had pondered the question. It has been fascinating. It is as if there is a mental brick wall they have erected and can't see over. I do think it is why pure atheism, as displayed in the answers on this thread thus far, could never catch on. We are a species who demands answers on every level and this level has stumped us at this point. Stumped me, anyway.
Is it your need to be "special" that forces you to put forward illogical(contradictory) arguments?
A little more grey matter is what makes as unique along with the illusion of free will.
A tiger that was brought up alone can never hunt and cannot survive. It needs the lessons from its mother. Our only advantage is a more developed language which can be written down and be handed over to the next generation. Those tribes that happened not to get in touch with other people and didn't get or developed any new ideas still remain like our ancestors who are no different from animals.No different from animals? It's attitudes such as that one that cause genocides.
No human is different from animal. Do not re-interpret what I said, I'm discussing things as they are not trying to be politically correct.
Primitive human behavior is not different from animal behavior but we both, primitive or modern, have the same intelligence.
Our only advantage is the language which helped us transmitting thread knowledge we gained to other people and next generation.You still don't understand the question. That's OK. I appreciate the attempt to participate.
Since you have already decided that humans are unique (begging the question) no answer will satisfy you.
We had some species similar to us which became extinct.
Does Neanderthal ponder the philosophical question? Do the aborgines do that? No. Why? Because they haven't got much leisure time nor language good enough to ponder. With agriculture we got free time to think philosophically.First, we have no idea what Neanderthals thought. Second, aborigines do ponder philosophical questions. Third, I've got to tell you. Your belief that it is an attempt at political correctness that keeps us from comparing some humans to animals really creeps me out. Your attitude may explain why you think aborigines don't have higher thoughts.
We do know that Neanderthals were successful, but not creative. They had bigger brains then us and all people outside of African decent have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. Which make us and them similar to the horse and zebra. Drawn apart by the environment long enough for us to be different, but still about to reproduce.
Higher thought? My foot. Philosophical questions are that come out of an idle mind, the one that has leisure.
Have you seen any aborgines? If you were in their place, you would die of hunger.
Behavior, you understand the term, don't you? Then don't change what is discussed.
Don't change what is being discussed? I'm the one that posed the question. Remember? A question you haven't addressed. You have, however, insisted we are no different from other animals. Ignoring the fact that no other animal is currently participating in this (or any other) philosophical conversation. You've made a very aryan sounding observation that tribal cultures are no better than animals....claimed agriculture gave rise to religion (ignoring that the three major religions were born of a nomadic race) Now you claim that aborigines don't have the time to ponder their place in the cosmos.
You do understand that there are aboriginal religions, don't you?That shows it? You want to fell "special", "unique"?
You nor me nor nor any civilized person nor any aborigine are special, they are just animals.
You started the topic yes, but you are the one who side tracked into genocide and such nonsense and about my attitude.
" A question you haven't addressed"
Question is not addressed to your satisfaction. You had a loaded question, one with the 'begging the question' fallacy. You implied humans are unique while humans are not. May be satisfying to your ego, but just an assumption still.
"You've made a very aryan sounding observation that tribal cultures are no better than animals"
I have made an observation that no human is different from animals except for his more sophisticated tools and language skills and the only thing that really made a difference is the speech ability humans got, while no other animal was lucky to get that brake. The aborigines who now live in the forest and our ancestors behave the same and that behavior is no different from animals. Some one in our past invented agriculture, that is , we(our ancestors) got lucky to be in a terrain suitable for agriculture and started agriculture and got time enough for philosophical questions while the ancestors of aborigines was not that lucky.
Aryan? You might be thinking that I am an aryan, while I am not. I belong to one of the suppressed races, suppressed and oppressed by aryans, but that doesn't change anything does it? The aryans were lucky to invent better weapons(tools) which they used to kill and oppress their enemies. For me it an animal behavior, for you may be it is a philosophical one.
"claimed agriculture gave rise to religion"
You know that our history has a hunter gatherer stage, an agricultural then industrial and present service stage. Humans individually and collectively are nomads in most of his history. The people who started the three religions were not hunter gatherers.
Does aborigines got their religion? They do. They worship stones and thunder, that too not all but only some do.
Have you ever seen and talked to a tribal in his tribal stage? Have you ever interacted with lower strata of society? At the least have you talked to any humans other than you "civilized", "unique" circle? Then you will note that most people have just followed on through their parents foot steps and never pondered any philosophical questions. Most people's first concern is how they get their next meal(you might never have seen people who have nothing to eat), if they can afford how to get leisure and an improvement in , if not theirs their kids, life..Look. I thanked you previously for attempting to respond to the question. I don't particularly want to argue with anyone. Nor do I want to continue this conversation, which you insist on holding in a curricular pattern. I have no desire to be special or unique. Identifying us as unique was simply pointing out the one characteristic that separates us from other animals. That characteristic is unique. You appear to find that troubling, so insist on pretending that isn't true. I don't fear any answer, so have no need to live in denial. And, I don't feel compelled to continue a conversation with someone who does.
Again. Thank you for responding to the thread. However off base your responses were.Why should I need your thanks?
You want to make humans "unique" while disregarding that each species has specific characters that make them "unique".
From all your post what I felt is your need to feel unique and the need to have a "higher power".
Now whether I should comment or not is my business not yours.OK. You may be more obtuse than I thought. I did not imply that other species were not unique in their own right. I am simply asking why humans, alone, developed such a high level of intelligence. This is our unique trait. Really. Do try to keep up. I've explained this ad nauseum. If you want to discuss why the slug is unique. Start your own thread.
Perhaps a discussion of why crocodiles developed their uniquely powerful immune system could shed light. Or why the eagle developed is uniquely powerful vision, the bear it's super sense of smell or the elk its super hearing. The cheetah it's huge speed (unique in land animals) and the dolphin with it's huge advantage of super sonar. Maybe the shark with it's electro-receptors or tubeworms that live in near boiling temperatures and without benefit of sunlight - that lives off of gases that are poisonous to nearly all other creatures. The list of unique traits in the animal (or plant) kingdoms could go on forever.
If we understood why other animals the world over have developed such strong unique traits it might shed light on why humans developed their own uniquely strong intelligence.
Unless, of course, you are looking for someone to declare that it's because we have a soul, or God made it that way or some other metaphysical/supernatural cause that exists only in our imagination.No. I think you are right. The more we learn about how everything developed the better chance we have of understanding who we are, what we are and why we are.
Then it would seem the the crux of understanding will come from as thorough a study of evolution as possible, both in general principles and specifically in our own past.
While we can see some little amount in our past it becomes important as well to understand as much as possible about the environment our ancestors lived; climate, competing animals, predatory forces, food supplies and all the rest that makes up the environment an animal lives in.
Not an easy task and barely started at all, but one that would take a lifetime to get the start of understanding the "whys". We can postulate a very beginning of random mutations, but from there the "forces" of evolution take over and those are generally very misunderstood (and/or denied in total).
For instance, we can postulate a mutation that gave just enough intelligence to use a rock or stick to kill with. That gave another source of protein, resulting in better brain development and better killing capability. Coupled with a change in environment that killed those individuals without that minute increase in intelligence it would provide another small boost. Maybe a new predator on the scene, or man killed off easy prey, which would mean additional intelligence necessary to sharpen that killing stick. We will never find all the puzzle pieces, but we can (and continue) to find some - enough to slowly piece together at least some of the "whys". At least in the physical sense; the theological answers will be beyond our comprehension until death at a minimum.And that was, all I meant. In our niche, if we hadn't had enough grey matter we wouldn't be here to wonder why we are here. The species that had managed the mutation for a bigger brain and speech ability survived, the ones that didn't, died out.
May be I was obscure in my language, wilderness explained it beautifully.The fact that I agree with wilderness on one level doesn't imply that I agree with most of what you said during our conversation. Nor do I find myself respecting this type of view; as it appears to have developed in many. I think, by not understanding the complexity of life, it is easy for some to belittle it.
I find that many of those I have encountered during the course of my life who consider man little more than just another animal will treat their follow man with little more respect than they do an animal. Conversely, those who look at the unique characteristic man has as either a Divine gift, or an incredibly lucky fluke, tend to develop a more compassionate view toward all life. I suppose, by appreciating what one has it is possible to be more appreciative of everything else.
By not accepting the place we inhabit within the web of life here on earth we, effectively, deny our responsibilities. We, as a species, are the only ones in a position to make the choice to make a positive contribution. The dog might be a fine companion, but he will never develop better ways to grow food in order to feed the growing population. Nor does it have the ability to understand the concept of sharing what little there might be if there wasn't enough to go around. It will eat its fill and let its neighbor starve. The crocodile may have an incredible immune system, but it does not possess the means by which to understand the importance of balance. If the last herd of water buffalo on earth went to cross the river, the crocodile would suffer no remorse at eating them. Nor would it spend a moment wondering how that loss of a single species would affect the whole.
All species contain unique characteristics as does every animal within that species. IMO. So, to deny the uniqueness of life, on any level, denies it all.Aren’t you speaking with a little mis-understanding, a false generalization and confirmation bias? You are speaking emotionally, not analyzing the facts. People who consider themselves as entitled and others akin to animals are not the same as those people who have an educated knowledge that humans including themselves are another species of the animal kingdom and have more compassion towards animals as well.
Abraham Lincoln is considered one the greatest humanist American President, but he didn't consider blacks equal to whites. So you can imagine what his fellows, who have kept slaves, might have thought. These are the same people(and an age) who considered all humans are specially made by god and is the descendents of Adam and Eve. In fact very few religious persons,people who are supposed to consider all humans equal, have ever considered all humans “unique”. The fact is that most humans, irrespective of their caste and creed have considered only their own group unique (group loyalty). The old colonial leaders went to “civilize” the old world and convert the heathens.
Wars and other strife are caused by men who think themselves and their group unique. But the wars over human history are another proof that humans are not unique. Humans, just like other animals, strive for resources. If humans were unique unlike other animals they would have found the members, at least of their own species, as brothers, but they do not. Humans all throughout history has fought for land/resources and females. And “divinity”(just like nationality, tribes, language) always helped them to distinguish themselves from others and help them consider themselves unique while their fellow humans as lesser beings.
Humans are animals, that is a fact, just another species in the primate family. Just like an animal has a well developed organ for a particular niche, humans have a well developed organ for their niche - brain. Even with that our behavior, just like other animals, is determined by our genes and experiences. We have wider range compared to other animals when considering the brain function, but that won’t make us any special. We have no special rights but the same right as a cockroach or a lion to live.
But considering humans as special is, if emotionally satisfying for you and is needed for you to love your fellow beings, so be it. But for me, I am no more unique than my neighbour or a dog or a lion that inhabit this earth, each competing and cooperating at the same time, nor more entitled.We'll start here. Because this is actually very funny. I suppose, by saying all of that, you have created the delusional belief that you have made a valid point.
Have I misunderstood, or am I simply in disagreement? Does being in disagreement with you automatically equate to being wrong? What false generalization have I made? And confirmation bias? Are you projecting on that one?
Anyway. I am not speaking emotionally. If you are becoming emotional from reading my post I'm not certain what I can do about that.
Let's recap. Shall we? Your post was to the effect that you are not like an animal and tribal cultures are. You have set yourself above others in your own mind. I think, that doesn't show an educated knowledge. It shows a great deal of ego and inflated self worth.
What does this have to do with anything? We are discussing what we know. Not what our ancestors believed they knew. Are you implying that we have learned nothing from history?
Don't look now, but riddle is now guilty of the following:
mis-understanding
a false generalization
confirmation bias
Another generalization, but one I do agree with. Unfortunately the old colonial ways have not changed. You, yourself, are a prime example. Tribal cultures are little different from animals (Your words, not mine) Aborigines don't have philosophical thoughts. Again, your words. Seriously. Do you not see that you, too, consider yourself better than others that are different. Pot-kettle thing going there, don't you think?
I'm sure the inmates of Auschwitz would have something to argue about on this one.
This is a prime example of the fact that you still do not understand the question. You might find a conversation you can follow in one of the other forums. Philosophy appears to escape you.
So, that is the only characteristic you would find to be unique. Good to know.
Ummm, no one is arguing that point. No one has been arguing that point.
The rest of your post appears to, once again, ignore the question posed at the beginning of the thread. No surprise there. I don't see any reason to continue typing. It isn't as if you listen, or have the ability to follow.Then why don't you give us your answer Emile? It appears you've been given many answers, but you dismiss them without giving your own perspective.
This troll prefers to ask questions and ridicule all answers it gets. Not really sure what possible benefit it gets - feeling superior perhaps?
If only there were a yawn emoticon. It's about all one needs to respond to you. You are like riddle. You might even be riddle. Disagree with you or someone you agree with and you automatically cry troll? The Knowles Inquisition doesn't scare me. So sorry.
LAWL
This thread is a perfect example of trolling. Do you feel superior? Scare? What are you talking about? You are an anonymous internet persona - why would you be scared? I know you like to troll and, hey, it appears to work for you. Go for it.
I haven't ridiculed all opinons. I have ridiculed the opinion of one Hubber in particular. But, aryan sounding posts aren't ones I''m prone to agree with. It appears you do. Good for you.
And, no I don't feel superior. If you had read any of my posts, as opposed to jumping in to attempt to ridicule you would know that. But, I doubt you have ever read my posts. That's OK. I rarely read yours either.
I haven't been given answers. I have, however, offered my opinion throughout this thread. If you don't read my posts, why complain that you don't know what I think?
You have been given answers, just none that you agree with.
I've read your posts and only see you critiquing others answers and offering nothing in return.No. What is happening is that we are all critiquing each others posts. The fact that you call my posts nothing is telling. Feeling superior yet?
Ummm, feel about what? That we are all indisagreement and explaining why we disagree? Yes. I do think that is the case. I don't, however, consider anyone right or wrong. These are opinions.
If you consider yourself right, then yes. I do believe you are wrongly considering yourself superior. You did say that I had offered nothing.I'll gladly take that back and apologies when you show me what you've contributed.
Answer me this. How could you respond to my posts without reading them? Basically, you are saying that everything I have said is, in your opinion, wrong and worthless (again, in your opinion). Assuming that you did actually read my posts and did not simply use them to stand on top of for a soap box.
Anyway, I'll tell you the same thing I told riddle. Thanks for sharing your opinion and attempting to participate in the conversation. I appreciate diversity (even if I appear to be in the minority at the moment).
And, I don't need an apolgy. We aren't children.I just took another fast look through and found nothing from you but rather rude comments. You asked a question and then laugh at the answers, but provide no thought into the answer yourself.
Rude comments? So, to disagree with you is rude. Gotcha.
Just so we understand each other. I started a thread and made a statement. You came in and attempted to prove that my statement had no merit. I didn't see anything in any of your posts that appeared to even understand the statement. Sorry if that upsets you. But, seriously dude. The arrogance of the opinions of a few of the nay sayers who came into this thread was laughable. I enjoy laughing when it is appropriate. Sue me.More rudeness without substance. You don't have to agree with anyone, but showing respect for the opinion is warranted.
Point to remember. I don't feel the need to show respect for arrogance and ego. If you and one other Hubber ( make that two since one called me a troll for having an opposing view in my own thread) think it is acceptable to call the lesser advantaged animals and state that higher IQs mean that some are somehow better, that cultures vastly different from ours are inferior, imply that money is a measure of the worth of an individual and generally belittle anything outside of your limited mindset; I'll throw it right back at you.
If you don't like it. Don't engage me in conversation when you feel the need to step on the dignity of others in order to convince yourself you are special.Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said a higher IQ makes you better. I said a higher IQ will likely bring a better education and more money. Better or worse is something completely different. I certainly never said cultures that our different then mine are inferior? Where do you get this from?
Without putting words in other people's mouth, how can she argue and reach the conclusion she want?
This is some quality trolling - you have to admit. Ask a leading, assumptive question, offer no opinion of your own and then ridicule everything anyone says and lie about what they said. Personally, I fail to see what possible benefits it gets from doing this. Any idea?
And I was starting to think it was just me who noticed the hypocrisy and ridicule.
No, I notice the hypocrisy and ridicule in your three posts. You guys are really in denial.
Here's the thing riddle. (and this is for you too rad man) I suppose it was a given that those such as yourself would hijack the thread. Mark Knowles goes out of his way to egg this type of behavior on.
I think my frustration lies in the fact that the views displayed by the two of you who have become so offended that I won't acquiesce to views which lack merit are showing the same arrogance the out spoken theists do. And you are just as blind to the arrogance as they are.
We all probably agree more than we disagree on this question, however the fact that you consider views that belittle others unnecessarily the unvarnished truth that lacks political correctness does truly offend my sensibilities. Other cultures, no matter how backward you may view them to be, cannot be used to make the points you are attempting to make. And their minds are just as sharp as yours They can wax philosophical with the best of them. They just obviously don't think what you might approve of.
To imply that the the job one holds makes someone more fit and better adapted shows a serious lack of understanding. There's a sign in my office. It says "Someone has to make the fries." That person has just as much dignity, just as much value and is just as good as the CEO of that company. Better in some ways, I'm sure. That individual is just as unique as you are and has adapted just as well. He/she doesn't deserve to have another human being arguing otherwise. The argument presented implies that they are less fit. Less evolved. It's insulting to them and degrades the person making such a pathetic statement.
To state that more intelligent people chose better spouses doesn't even deserve a response. It's ludicrous and ignores every behavior pattern even the most simple mind can observe.
Bottom line. If either of you feel insulted; who cares? The two of you and Mark. How many countless millions have you belittled by your views? Who cares? Obviously none of you.
It's one thing to say we are just another animal. I agree with that statement on some levels. The problem with this philosophy is that few think this; when it comes to themselves. If you doubt that, you haven't thought about what you typed while defending your views. This is a serious problem with that belief. Coupled with an unbridled ego it can manifest in unspeakable acts. As history has proven.
The behavior patterns this belief appears to instill are little different from those displayed by the Jesuit priests who smashed all traces of tribal cultures. The Spanish Inquisition who attempted to railroad everyone into bowing to their beliefs. The only difference is you are powerless to force your beliefs on others or to make me bow to them. I am thankful for that.I don't think it at all arrogant to view humans as just another animal. It seems arrogant to me to view us as special. I certainly appreciate this post and have a greater understanding of our apparent lack of ability to communicate, but I think arrogance is the wrong word. Perhaps opinionated would be a better choice. I can look at myself and acknowledge that I could be perceived as opinionated, but arrogant I don't see, as that would imply that think I'm better then others and that is not the case.
You've lost me hear a little, perhaps you're speaking more to something riddle said that perhaps I didn't read, but I can assure you I personally have no views that belittle others.
Okay, now we are getting to where communication has torn us apart. You are assuming that I'm saying some people are better then others because of the poor way I communicated and articulated how people chose a mate. The diversity of intelligence and appearance of humans has always been an issue for me. It's one of the things that made me start not believing in any God. Do I think that a person born with an IQ of 150 that looks like Brad Pit is any better then a person born with an IQ 50 and looks more like me? No. I don't think any person is better or more important than any other. Do I think it's unfair? Yes. Would I rather be smarter, better educated and look like Brad Pit? You betcha. If we set aside our emotions for just a moment and look at the human race for what it is rather then an ideal of what it should be I might be able better articulate what I was talking about. Intelligence doesn't make you a better person, but it opens doors and gives options that otherwise wouldn't be open. Two friends that I have are both well educated. One a lawyer the other an engineer. Both have children that have been given full scholarships to both private high school and university even though affording the education for both is not an issue. Is it fair that people that can afford the education don't have to pay? No. It's just the reality. Is it fair that the CEO makes million and the cashier makes thousands? No, it is however reality. So, when I say that the well educated get to chose a BETTER mate, do I mean that the mate is a better person? No, they are not better people, just a better choice genetically for ones offspring. Is it fair? No. When given a choice for a genetic make of your children. Do you chose the smart/well educated Brad Pit or the genes form a person with an IQ of 50 that looks more like me rather than Brad Pit? I'm not saying one person is better, but I am saying most people will chose the smart Brad Pit because of the better genetics. Fair? No. Reality? Yes.
Again, calling me arrogant because I think we are just another species while others think we alone were made in the image of a God rather confuses me. It doesn't matter that many people feel they have a soul and animals do not, it's just what they have been told and because there are more of them doesn't make the right. Implying that I am attempting to railroad everyone into thinking we are only animals is rather ridiculous. I'm aware, for some religion is necessary, but I am aloud my opinion, and that I will give. I don't feel it's fair to equate Atheism with the spanish inquisitions as Atheists are not forming political groups planning to control the masses with deaths threats unless everyone complies with our beliefs. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?We're going to focus on your comments about mating. Simply because I still find you wildly off base. First, you have taken your perception of reality and used it to spring board into a belief. Just because our society has led you to believe one thing is preferable to another does not make it so. Simply because the media calls beautiful people genetically gifted doesn't make it so. They are only beautiful because you have bought into that belief. What means success in our neck of the woods doesn't equate to another part and happiness coupled with harmony is different for every individual on earth. You are taking your beliefs and aspirations and attempting to imprint them on an entire species.
But, you are right. You didn't make the aryan sounding statements. That was all riddle.Reality sucks. A recent study showed that most women would prefer a criminal to a bald short nice man. The reality is in our society good looking wealthy people get whatever they want. I don't like it, but I also don't like no life after death either. But it is reality.
I don't know anything about Riddles Aryan sounding statements. If I get a change I'll read a few posts back.Don't believe everything you read. Bald is beautiful.
And I don't think but one man I've ever dated was as tall as I am. It isn't that I like short. I'd love to wear heels more often. But there is no rhyme or reason to pheromones. I don't give a hoot whether people like it or not.
But, I have to tell you. I'm happily married. I put on make up once in a blue moon. Either way, my husband thinks I'm beautiful. It wouldn't matter to me if the whole world disagreed because how we feel on that point is all that matters. I have friends who dress to impress even when they go to the grocery store. They wouldn't be caught dead in daylight without make up.They want to and need to turn heads; or they aren't happy. They are single and unattached. Have been since I meet them and they bemoan the fact. I don't know why they have had miserable relationships and can't be happy, but I think it is because they aren't willing to look at another human being for what they are. They are worried about how they are perceived and will be perceived. They don't have the security to see past the facade because they are so concerned about creating their own.
We all make our own reality. But buying into a reality created by another doesn't buy happiness. It buys insecurity and feelings of inadequacy. Don't buy into a belief that drags you down.I agree with everything you've said here. My wife is a lot taller then me and doesn't seem to mind my bald head. We do get looked at out in public, but so what. Would I rather be taller? Yes. Would I rather have more hair? Yes. Am I depressed about it? No. It's simply my reality.
There was no Aryan sounding statement. She thinks philosophical thought is superior and when I pointed out that philosophy is product of leisure and ancient man, hunter gathers, have to spent all there time in surviving and do not have leisure she interpreted it as I'm saying that they are inferior.
I also gave her an example that even modern man who do not know from where their next meal will be coming is not philosophical, she ignored that. bias!Here are the things you said;
Those tribes that happened not to get in touch with other people and didn't get or developed any new ideas still remain like our ancestors who are no different from animals.
Does Neanderthal ponder the philosophical question? Do the aborgines do that? No.
If that isn't aryan philosophy I'll eat my hat. I'll say it again. Your way of life and way of thinking is superior to no one else's. An IQ test measures what we want it to. You are no smarter than an aborigine. I find it hilarious that you claim agriculture gave rise to religion when it is the nomadic races who have contributed more to the roots of most religions practiced in America.
Yes, it appears agriculture allowed the white races to adopt those religions. Your obvious dismissal of the contributions nomadic races have made to ancient religions as they are practiced today and your refusal to acknowledge the religions practiced by tribal cultures now makes no sense; except to help you make points. But those points are worthless primarily because you dismiss everything that doesn't fit into your philosophy.Now tell me where did I say "our way" is superior? Where did I say they have less intelligence than us? I repeatedly told you that they are using their intelligence to survive while we were freed from most cares we have spare time to think other things. Why didn't you read the other post which I said it is behavior I'm talking about? And above all where did I say I'm not an animal or I'm different or special or superior?
Now have you ever seen and talked to an aborgine? Have you ever seen and talked to people who are so poor that they do not know where their next meal come from? Have you seen any family starving because the bread winner is ill? I have and those people's concern is not how the earth originated but how they will feed themselves and their family.
Is a hunter-gatherer same as nomads? Hunter gatherer stay in a place till there is prey and go out for days together to hunt, while nomads may hunt or may not. There are still nomads in our midst, are they hunters?
Please read and understand what I have written instead of putting straw men arguments.Actually, yes. I've spoken to people in both groups. And, I was impressed by their wisdom in many ways.
Not the people who are helped by government as in America, but the rikshaw puller of India and the uneducated families that starve the whole day. They don't think philosophy not because they can't but because they have NO TIME FOR SUCH SILLY THOUGHTS.
Look, I would agree that starving children in Africa have not been able to satisfy the most basic building blocks of their heirarchy of needs and cannot think of much more than the fact that they are hungry. I will not agree that the rickshaw puller doesn't ponder higher thoughts, And that statement is offensive.
Yes, I have traveled abroad enough to encounter peoples of many cultures. I stand behind my statements. Obviously, you are not well traveled and are simply making assumptions based on your superior education and knowledge.
Superior education and knowledge? I'm an Indian and I'm talking about my neighbours, friends and grand parents.
I would have to meet your family, friends and neighbors and talk to them in order to agree with you that they have no philosophical thoughts. I find that hard to believe. Maybe, they just don't see the point in discussing them with you?? I could certainly understand.
As if my friends will find so obstinate a person who is out there to ridicule others and quote them as saying things that they never said just to win an argument, better than me to reveal their heart!
Stooping too low to put words in other people mouth to prove them wrong is a dirty trick and I guess that makes humans unique!
Not to fear. I went back and read what you said. You said nothing that sounded racist in any way.
Thanks Rad Man, I don't understand how she manages to make the statement "we are all animals" to mean I'm or modern humans are superior or even humans are superior.
Okee dokee. If you two don't think that saying tribal groups in third world nations are unable to think philosophically and are no better than animals; far be it from me to enlighten you. Have fun feeling superior.
Ahhh. you're not understanding what was said. I'm not sure why, perhaps your only reading parts of what he said? What was said was that we are all the same, we are all just another species of mammals walking the earth.
Are you really a troll as mark says or have you got a comprehension problem?
How does "all humans are animals" make one superior or inferior? How does "we are animals" get translated into "they are animals"?
When in the hell did I say philosophical thoughts are superior? Does leisure means superior in your place?I think you possess the comprehension problems. If you can't read and understand what you wrote; that's a problem. All I did was copy and paste from your post. You can certainly attempt to back pedal and try to qualify the statement. The problem is that you made the statement.
Saying we are all animals is one thing. That wasn't what you said. And I have told you that to make those statements, in an attempt to drive home the point, belittles other cultures unecessarily. It doesn't imply that we are all animals; what it does imply is that some animals within our given species are better than others.
Anyway; you obviously have comprehension problems you have no desire to surmount. I'm tired of attempting to make you look at your own words and understand what you have said. Please, call me a troll if you like. That is the standard response from those who cannot back up their arguments.What I said was aborgines that is huntergatherers of present and our ancestors behave the same and are animals. When you mis interpreted it I corrected and made clear that I was talking about behavior and not intelligence.
My post No human is different from animal. Do not re-interpret what I said, I'm discussing things as they are not trying to be politically correct.
Primitive human behavior is not different from animal behavior but we both, primitive or modern, have the same intelligence.
Our only advantage is the language which helped us transmitting thread knowledge we gained to other people and next generation.
Even then you didn't understand and I don't know how many times I repeated that We are all animals and there is no superior and inferior but will not enter your thick skull.
I can't make you understand what you do not want to.Um, please attempt to think here riddle. Even with this attempt to clarify you are still belittling others. This post, aborgines behave the same and are animals. You are creating a separation. One that raises your social structure and lowers another within our species simply because their culture is different. You didn't say 'we are all animals'. You said aborigines who are hunter gatherers like our ancestors are animals.
What is it that you are missing? Please enlighten me. Because, I have to tell you, this is really getting tiring.
You can't say one thing, then another and think that the first thing you said isn't going to be reviewed. Calling us all animals is one thing. Using a specific group to make that point is another.What are you missing? your question was why humans are unique, why they are different from animals and my answer was there is nothing unique about humans. That means humans are similar to animals so naturally I didn't elaborate till you replied misunderstanding me to which I clarified that all humans are animals and we have philosophical thoughts only because we gave leisure otherwise we are all same and have same intelligence (quoted above)
And when you started putting words into my mouth I stated everything in capital letters which you ignored.
So once more read this (you can check all my posts)
All human beings are animals.
All have the same intelligence.
Philosophical thoughts are the product of leisure not superiority.
We got the leisure because we(our ancestors) were fortunate to invent agriculture.
What makes humans different from other animals is the added grey matter and language ability which helped as survive in our niche just like speed helped a cheetah.
Even with our philosophy our behavior is more like animals'(dependent on nature and nurture), and the hunter gatherer behavior is more so because of less tools and less information.
If you read again you will find that through out I said the same thing and never did I say anyone is superior or inferior. I even said there is no difference between any human, including myself, and animals. I still cannot understand how you made that to mean one group superior to another.Sorry Emile, you are completely off base with this one. He has repeatedly said all humans are the same. You are basically calling him a racist, which is completely unfair. I've reread everything he has said and find nothing that sounds racist. He is right that the starving don't have time to ponder the universe, they are just trying to survive. They have the ability, but not the time.
I have already agreed that the starving don't have the time. That was not his statement. His statement refered go aboriginal cultures. And he did not, in that statement, say that we are all animals. He compared tribal cultures to animals and clearly stated that they did not think philosophically. Basically raising our culture above the other. To make that statement, and then come in to say that we are all animals, doesn't negate the intent of that first statement.
We have lost so much rich philsophy and history over the course of the European move to convert the world. We will, most likely, never gain it back. To belittle their way of life in this manner shows that many of us still don't understand that. We talk, as if we are compassionately concerned, about bringing other cultures into the 21st century. We still consider ourselves superior. No different from our ancestors from our recent past. I find this troubling.For a white Caucasian who still harbor superiority complex like you it might be correct. I gave you the reason that I didn't think you'll misinterpret- I belong to the very race whom you are saying is not inferior. So why should I even think that saying my race behave like animals is to make you think that I'm saying superior?
Yes it does. You've taken one sentence from any entire paragraph and are using it against him. Read the entire post and every post since.
Sure it would be troubling if that was what he said. Atheists are the ones who do not consider ourselves superior. We think we are but just another mammal. That is what riddle has been saying. Besides I don't think he is even European, I think he may have said he is from India. Lucky him. I love Indian food. My kids say that I'm white on the outside, but brown on the inside where is counts.Now it is intent, isn't it? Earlier you said that I said tribal "cultures" are inferior where as I said aborgines and when you said nomads I specifically corrected "hunter gatherers".
Only now I got it, it's your "all are equal but some are more equal" thing but when I say equal it means equal, when I say all are animals it means all, everyone, is animal with no superior or inferior ones.
In fact it is you who used superior, I NEVER said anyone is superior or inferior.
You just want to hang on to a statement which you only partly understood and want to ignore all the statements which clarified your misunderstanding. Why, to feel superior and unique? Then please continue, and berean might be a good company that you both can use fallacies and misunderstandings to say everybody they are wrong and feel superior.
Fini.
Truth is to be spoken whether we like it or not. I would like to feel special and unique, does that mean that I'm special and unique? So shall you tell me am just another human being or that I'm special?
High and low are your constructs not mine. What I said is we both have the same intelligence and they didn't get the lucky brake our ancestors got so have to use all their intelligence in surviving while we got leisure and can think philosophical thoughts. But how does that make one high or low?
Backwardness is regarding education and because we consider them backwards is the reason by the government is trying to educate them, so is that my fault that the govt thinks so? I never said they are backward and you brought it up. If the government decides they are not backward and stop educating them, is that fair? The knowledge currently we have was discovered by other people and because they have taken the time to bring as "forward" by educating us is the only reason why we are forward.
History says it is those who consider themselves or their groups special while others as animals made the wars. The philosophy that all are God's creation didn't stop them as you said.
But those people are different from people who think themselves as animals,as just another species. Before Darwin almost none thought like that and after that also for a century only academics understood that. Even today those people who understand themselves as another species of animals is a minority, so when did they belittle others or brought atrocities?
It is not by covering up and avoiding unpleasant things that humans grow, but by boldly facing it.
I suppose because it is so much easier for you guys to feel superior when you are patting each other on the backs (without bothering to offer anything other than prejudicial views), I should leave you to your orgy of ego. You three have fun.
You said people who consider all humans as just another species has no compassion, while that is not the fact. The people who know that they are animals, just like other animals are mostly educated people and I have not seen those people lacking in any compassion. But there are a group of people who consider themselves above all others and consider others like animals that is not because they are educated but because they lack empathy and education or lack of it doesn’t make any difference. It also does not make a difference whether they believe that humans are divine or not.
So you made a generalization, and showed bias. The people who consider themselves as another species of animals is not the same as those people who consider others as inferior.
That is purely your invention. I never said I am special and others are animals. What I said is all humans including me, is animals, a species of primate family. And I didn’t say tribal cultures are animals, but what I said is tribal people and our ancestor’s behavior is no different from animal behavior. Philosophical thought is higher is also YOUR invention, what I said is such thoughts arose in people with leisure while the tribal people are more concerned with their survival that they do not have time to think of useless thoughts. You are the person who set yourself apart; you are the one who needs and want to be “unique”. I always maintained the same thing “humans including me is just another species of animals and we are unique only as much as another species is unique”. Without the “human beings are divine creation” and “unique” thought it is you who is discomfited, not me and since what I say is not emotionally satisfying to you, you put words in my mouth and say it is me who is emotionally responding. So for your benefit I will say it once more, ALL HUMAN BEINGS, INCLUDING ME, ARE ANIMALS.
You made a claim, a claim that people who consider human beings are ”divine creation” tend to consider all humans unique and treat them better, and I gave an example that the claim is false.
I didn’t say “all”, you might not have noticed that. The early Christian Europe and America has considered humans as descendents of Adam and divine creations but that didn’t make them consider all humans as equal as you claimed but treated them as inferiors, heathen and slaves. The hindus considered the lower castes as inferior to the higher ones, they too thought “human” as divine creations. So where is my false generalization and bias?
I am an example? I am not a colonial. I belong to one of the races considered inferior by the aryan races. My nation was under the colonial rule and impoverished by them for 200 years. You are the person who thinks philosophical thoughts are higher I don’t have any such misperceptions. What I said is philosophical thoughts are the product of leisure. I never said animals are inferior, that too is your creation.
Simply saying something that has no relevance. You want to divide humans and put words in my mouth, what I said is ALL HUMANS irrespective of caste or creed are animals.
The question is a loaded question where you want a “force” to create the “divine humans” to feel unique.
If you cannot listen and comprehend, I can’t help you. I said the extra grey matter and language is that which separates humans from other species and there is nothing unique to humans.
No surprise here either. You are the person who says a cube has more than four sides because one cannot see or understand other sides. You always want your answer, I do not know, as the answer. For that you will reify and argue incessantly ignoring basic rules of communication.
As I don’t want you to put words in my mouth, I’ll state once more.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS, INCLUDING ME AND YOU ARE ANIMALS, AND WE ARE NOTHING BUT ANOTHER SPECIES OF ANIMAL.
HUMAN BEINGS ARE UNIQUE ONLY AS MUCH AS A CHEETAH OR WILD BEAST IS UNIQUE
OUR UNIQUENESS IS BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA GREY MATTER WE GOT AND THE LANGUAGE ABILITY WHICH HELPED US IN STORING AND TRANSMITTING INFORMATION ACROSS GENERATIONS.
THESE ARE THE PRODUCTS OF EVOLUTION WHICH ARE NEEDED TO SURVIVE THE NICHE WE ARE IN. IF WE WERE UNDER WATER WE WOULD DO JUST WHAT THE DOLPHINS ARE DOING NOW.
ABORIGINES WHO ARE STILL HUNTER GATHERERS ARE THE SAME AS OUR ANCESTORS WHO’S BEHAVIOUR IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR.
PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHTS ARE A PRODUCT OF LEISURE AND IS NOT GREATER THAT THE INTELLIGENCE WE (OUR ANCESTORS/ABORIGINES) USED TO EVADE PREDATORS AND GET PREY.
EVEN THE MODERN HUMAN BEHAVIOUR IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT FORM ANIMAL BEHAVIOR IN THAT OUR BEHAVIOUR, JUST LIKE ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, IS DETERMINED BY OUR GENETIC MAKE UP AND EXPERIENCE.If you say it long and loud enough, it will become true.
666, your statement seems clear, but just to be sure, please confirm this for me. You basically believe all that is keeping you from having a meaningful discussion with a hamster is the language barrier? You suspect critters for whom food, shelter and security are not an issue, such as the family pet, might be pondering the cosmos and speculating among themselves regarding their origin and destiny?
Please consider a comparison relevant to your comments:
Helen Keller, both deaf and blind from 19 months old, at a time that isn't exactly known for having been sympathetic or accomodating to people with disabilities, still managed to accomplish amazing things in her life.
Attempts have been made to teach sign language to primates, who many (most?) evolutionists still believe we evolved from, or at least have a common "ancestor" with. Results have not exceeded requests for food, toys, attention or perhaps expressions of discomfort or mood. Bobo sad, etc. Even then, comprehension of some of these things as opposed to just performing what they have been shown, is questionable.
These primates have all their needs met, leaving them free to ponder anything they choose, and have a mechanism available to them to communicate. They have been offered a genuine language with patient, hopeful teachers. In spite of their very attentive and wishful audience, ready to magnify and proclaim any real or percieved positive result, nothing consistent with your supposition has manefested itself.
Why can a human with such profound barriers to communication, overcome them and excel while a primate who is considered one of the smartest animals, even when given every conceivable advantage we can offer them, cannot even express an original thought?
How does this fit with your view that "no human is different from animals except for his more sophisticated tools and language skills and the only thing that really made a difference is the speech ability humans got, while no other animal was lucky to get that brake"?How can I talk to you when you do not even acknowledge that logic is an essential part of communication?
Nice dodge. Did you notice your attempt to "expose" my lack of logic in the thread you made trying to "call me out" didn't bear the fruit you expected? Just because you have a blind spot to the logic based on your materialist blinders doesn't negate the logic was and is valid. I am not sure why you were obsessed enough with it to bother. I only responded to that thread to avoid being misrepresented, not because I had any hope of getting through to you.
In another thread you comment about, (not to), me not even being able to see my own contradictions when the example was not a contradiction at all. Again, knowing you wouldn't get it, I didn't waste my time responding.
Your statement which I responded to in this thread, however, was so ludicrous I could not resist exposing it. Again, not that you will see it, but as with your logic issue before, others will. And now you have no valid answer so you dodge it in a typical fashion. Emile is right. Little point in conversing with you.Find out what is special pleading. Only you are blind to that, most people can understand that logical fallacy.
Your still dodging the question I posed earlier regarding your ridiculous assertion that animals are basically a voice away from reason. "Special pleading" and "logical fallacy" are frequently thrown out in the forums when someone either doesn't get the point or can't figure out how to defend their position and want a buzz word to get them out of it. More effective than clicking your heels and saying "there's no place like home" I suppose.
Oh, who am I kidding, 666? You've exposed me. How can I possibly defend myself against such an eloquent and well thought out prosecution? I am not worthy of the attention of your intellect. Please don't bother yourself with me.
I believe the actual misunderstanding here is not knowing the definition of animal is beings having self-mobile abilities which would include insects, flying, crawling, slithering, swimming and all other kinds of mobility beings. Each specie and the individuals of them are unique. It is only because man are the last specie the lifeforces evolves into that many man believe they are a gifted or unique specie.
I am a reincarnationist, and believe every lifeforce evolves through every life type until it becomes man. I don't know the first life type because I recognize inanimate objects like rocks, sand, metal ore and crystals as living entities we have evolved through. There's a sequence, I call timeline, in which each lifeforce enters earth's plane and evolves through the billions or more life types prior to becoming man. In that vain, I believe man are equal to all life types but are to be able to exceed -- dominion -- their abilities as supposedly demonstrated by Jesus.
There is no "life force". And just as elements from other animals reach humans, elements from humans reach other animals. A man eating tiger do not think man as the "end product" but as a prey.
If inanimate are living, what do you mean by living? Just because man is the latest species doesn't mean he is the last.Aren't you an evolutionist? The only evolution I recognize is the energy which sustain every form of existence, that I calllifeforce. Science has discovered energy nor matter is created or destroyed so what happens to the energy of decomposed beings?
No, riddle, I can't show you the energy is transferred but its transfer is explainable.
The energy leaves the body once what we call life is gone out of it and remains in a place of no manifestation until it is time to reincarnate then it enters the substance, egg/sperm combination in man, from which the specie derives giving it a lifeforce to develop into the specie.Rad Man,
How does energy taste? If bugs eat the energy then man does also in the things we eat, so how does it taste/Rad Man,
I want to know how not the manifestation of the energy taste, I want to know how the energy taste. Yes the substances we consume does provide us energy but I want to know how energy itself taste, not what it manifested as.Delicious. If you've ever gone long enough without food you know that you begin to lack energy, even thought become difficult. Within a few minutes of eating you start to feel better and food has energy. Just read the label. Energy can be defined in food as Calories.
Riddle,
The energy which goes out of the manifestation is the lifeforce, an energy which entered into the egg/sperm combination in most species to provide for it's becoming the specie. There's another energy, the egg and sperm's, which keeps it from decomposing instantly and gradually leaves at death, or as Rad Man said, the bugs eat.Lifeforce energy is measured by recognizing the entity no longer has life in it, it's at least the full size of the the entity it provide life to.
What? Mind repeating that in a different way, because that makes no sense at all. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term, "measure."?
OK, Mark, let's see how I can restate it.
The are people who see the lifeforce or energy of living things say sometimes the lifeforces are a foot or more outside of the entity. Some, they say, have holes in them while others are smooth and complete. When the entity discarnates they can see the energy no longer, therefore, the measurement for those of us who are unable to see the energy it's measure it by the size of the entity.
When an entity has lost a limb the energy is still where the limb was and is how Jesus supposedly healed people, he conversed lifeforce to lifeforce instructing it to bring healing to their specific temple we call body.
Can you wrap your mind around that?So - basically - what you are saying is that it is not measurable? There are just people who can see it and this is the lifeforces you are talking about? But the rest of us don't have the ability to see it? We just have to take other people's words for it?
Who supposedly did what now? Is that what it says in the bible, or did you make that up yourself?
That's what we do with most scientific findings, we don't usually perform the experiments to come up with the results they tell us theyobtained, we accept their words for it although, in the scientific world, one doesn't have to have special skills to see it.
Very little in the Bible is explained, that why in the KJV Hebrews 11:1 it says [b]now, faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen," it require objective observing, participating and reasoning to determine, if possible, what the book is really saying.Interesting - you need "special skills," to see this lifeforce? It doesn't actually exist.
So - you made it up yourself then?
That's like saying Outa Body Experiences {OBE} don't exist because you haven't experienced it. If you have ever heard two people who've had OBE talk a bout them to each other you would believe it does. It Isn't really special skills which causes one to believe, it's because they haven't limited what they choose to believe to only what they have experienced, or, have experienced but wasn't aught by their parents not to believe so because we tend to unquestioningly believe our parents we block it out of our memories.
Let's stick with one majikal force before exploring another shall we?
So - you can see this "lifeforce," yourself?
OBE are the lifeforces leaving and returning to the body is why i used it, it's the same thing we are talking about.
No, not as of yet, but will in the future be able to see and speak lifeforce to lifeforce without words, as we know them in the physical sense.Crikey - you can see into the future as well?
You didn't answer my question - can you see this "lifeforce," yourself? And when some one is doing a OBE - does the lifeforce vanish?
Reread the second part of that last post, I answered it right out first.
What do you believe No, not as of yet means.
Look I've already showed you how our intellect most likely evolved. You're not listening. Our need to hunt in these useless weak bodies has forced us to develop weapons and tools. Making and deploying the tools and weapons require a unique physical and intelligent person. The more intelligent were able to hunt, feed and mate far better then the unintelligent.
I never said, or implied, that we hadn't evolved. However, I do find it odd that one species, and one species only, has evolved to the level we have. Random chance, to me, would mean that we wouldn't be alone. Other species would be somewhere close to the level we have achieved. As it stands, we stand alone. Which begs the question.
Please stop focusing on the purely physical. We are the only species on this planet asking this question. Maybe neanderthals did, maybe they didn't. We don't know.I'm not only focusing on the physical. I've stated that our need to hunt and use tools has developed the human brain.
How do you know we are the only species asking questions? We don't know what goes on the minds of elephants, dolphins, whales, chimps, squid.
That's right we don't know, so why do you continue to make the claim that we are alone? Look at the time it took us to get here, why not ask why nothing has evolved to our level of creativity and communication before now?I believe I brought up the fact that nothing has even come close to our level of creativity and communication. I would think it should have, if this is all random.
I don't have any answers. But I do have another question. Say we are just an unfortunate mutation that the earth would have been better off had we not happened. Say there is a cataclysmic catastrophe we caused that brought the earth to the brink of extinction of all life. Life would go on at some point....just not human life.
Say, you had the ability to infuse one trait into the species you felt would evolve to the level we had. What trait would you infuse, in the hope of averting them from making the mistakes we've made?
Actually, this comment is funny. That may have been so historically. But the lesser intelligent now appear to hunt and mate better. Why the switch up, do you think?
The less intelligent of a species seems to hunt and mate better? You're saying the less intelligent people make more money and select better spouses?
No. But doctors don't kill deer as well as carpenters. And every rake that I'm aware of isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
It was just a joke. Not a good one, obviously.Okay, it was a good joke then. I just didn't see it yet.
You don't see it because you say hunt, but you mean make more money. You say mate and you are talking about spouses.
But, to follow your train of thought; the more intelligent don't make more money or select better spouses. Not even the better educated do. Making money has nothing to do with your level of intelligence. Neither does love.Really? Just how many doctors and lawyer have a below 100 IQ? How many dumb NFL quarterbacks do you know? How many CEO's have a below 100 IQ?
I can't believe you think that. George Bush probably didn't have an above average IQ. He was president. We were just talking the other day about a multi millionaire they have a show about. Some redneck that makes duck calls. Understanding the market and building a better mouse trap does not make you more intelligent. It makes you market savvy. Getting a law degree or medical license doesn't mean you are more intelligent than the person who chose a different career path, or even no career path. It means you chose a different path.
And, if you think the rich are smarter, shame on you. Some of the poorest people I know are full of wisdom.
And, I don't know where you come up with more intelligent people choose better spouses. Please explain that.Totally concur with Rad Man, people in higher level professions 9 times out of 10 have a higher than average IQ. Intelligence level is operative in what type of career one has. People with higher than average IQs tend to have more education which oftentimes lead to better jobs with a commensurate salary.
Ex-President Bush has an IQ of 125. People with lower than average IQ(100) are oftentimes in poorer paying jobs where reasoning skills are not an essential part of the job. Such people are considered to be in the bordeline or slow category.Seriously, how many people have an IQ under 100? A lower than average level intelligence would certainly limit one's options. I simply don't think that everyone with a high IQ is raking in the big bucks and I know for a fact that the level of intelligence doesn't determine your pay grade.
I do agree that it would be more difficult for someone with a lower IQ to graduate medical school. The problem I have with Rad Man's statement is that it appears to generalize quite broadly and it belittle those who have chosen service industries unnecessarily.
Plus, the statement that smarter people chose better spouses is laughable.I'm really surprised at you Emile. I didn't say all people with a higher IQ make more money then those with a lower IQ. Half of the worlds population has an IQ below 100. 100 is the average and 50% are between 80 and 120. One would be hard pressed to get into law or med school with an IO below 130. How many CEO's do you know who didn't go to some fancy business school where the high school cut off average is 95%? Sure you don't need that education to develop a huge business, but you do need the intelligence.
Now what is it exactly that smart pretty girls want in a man? Power and money.
A beautiful women walks up to a powerful rich man and says. "We should get married, with my looks and your brains just think how smart and beautiful our children would be". He looks her in the eye and says "but what if they got my looks and your brains?"
"We Are Unique As A Species"
Intriguing title...
Flat have not read the previous 60+ posts.
A new beginning.
I submit that we are not.My observation of other species. We are as common as dirt.
How so? This question wasn't intended to imply that we are special, if that is where you thought I was going. I personally believe every species is an integral part of the whole. None more important than the other.
But, come on. Humanity writes books, builds machines, explores space. To name a few. No other species can do any of this. The only reason we can is that we and we alone have the intellect to do so. Why? Why are no other species capable of half as much? What happened along the evolutionary procession that made us the only ones to evolve to that?
Anyway, we aren't as common as dirt. There is a lot more dirt in the world than there are people.I am warming up to you. More to follow.
Play time...
I have seen the same fear in a lizard as I have seen us.
I am serious. Saw it. Poor stupid, dumb thing.I have seen the same emotions in other animals as well.
We really are just the currently highest subset of animal.
That was a lot of posts. I agree and have seen emotions and behavior patterns in animals that defy common perception. I could tell you stories about a horse you wouldn't believe. But, Skip was still a horse and as smart as he was his behavior didn't supply an answer to the question.
Here it is...
We are not the most superior intellect in the universe. For us to think otherwise is as when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe.
Quite frankly, we are a piece of crap on the landscape of real.
Would you like to hear more...?The universe? I was limiting the scope of the conversation to the earth. It's difficult to include the universe. That would be like an angel fish born in a fishbowl insisting it was the most beautiful fish in the world. It only knows what's in the fishbowl.
But, please share more. I'm curious why you think we are a piece of crap on the landscape. Nice thought though. Crap is ugly and smells like...itself. But, it serves an important function.I have changed my mind. We are not doodoo.
What then? Just a single "doo"? You can be really hurtful, paradigm.
I just did an image search for doodoo. Yes, I did.
Now I'm really getting worried about you, paradigm.
pssst - so do we look like "doo" or "doodoo"?
It depends what is meant when we use the word unique. Just because we can manipulate nature
try to get what WE want,create clever hightech devices .doesn't necessarily meann we are 'unique' in a good way. We can all strive to be ultimately truly unique in a (good way),but I think we a long way to go yet,especially when we can see the mess we are making on the planet.
My parrot is unique,when she says ''good morning'' to me first thing everyday, and ''see ya later'' when she sees me put my coat on. And sings 'Somewhere over the Rainbow to me''. I think some animals may not view us as 'unique'. yours ununiquelyYou are correct, I think. Unique doesn't necessarily equate to better. And we have done a fine job of proving that as we muck up this world.
Muck it up? How can you say that?
Mankind has successfully populated every ecosystem on the planet; something no other species has ever done. We have more individuals than any species of equivalent size. We have eliminated more competition for space and/or food than any other species.
We have changed the world environment, but that was necessary if we are to spread and reproduce as we have done. We could not begin to feed ourselves without CO2 production, without rain forest destruction, without paving over half the landscape. At least not with the technology we had when we do those things; the future will bring better methods.
Evolutionary-wise we are absolutely the most successful species to ever hit the earth with the single exception of longevity and time may prove that one out, too (I doubt it, but it might!). We are obviously "better" than any other species in the only thing that counts; reproduction and spread of that species.In addition to your point I have always found it curious how evolutionists can on one hand say we are just part of nature, nothing special, and in the next breath condemn what we do to nature. If evolution were true, we could do no wrong because anything we do is just the course of nature. Even if it brings about our extinction or that of others, it is survival of the fittest giving rise to the next prevailing life form. Right? If we aren't special, why hold us to a higher standard?
That's about the size of it. We aren't any different than any other animal and will act as evolution has provided for.
We can hope that we are intelligent and empathic enough not to destroy the world that we use for survival, but that has yet to be proven. Evidence is against it so far.
I heard on NPR the other day that the air quality in Beijing was so poor that the pollution was 25 times higher than what we consider to be safe.
I'm not attempting to belittle the powers of man. But, we have mucked up the environment. You say we had to, to spread and reproduce. Really? We rape resources to ensure we all have access to the latest trinkets here in the first world. And we export this insanity hand over fist. We set a standard every developing nation aspires to. I'm afraid that with all of our ingenuity and creativity we won't have the time to find the ways to fix the problems we are all creating with our universal desire to consume as much as we can.HERE, HERE -Its wrong to assume we have the God given right to destroy
anything we want. Yes we have free will, but what we do with that determines how unique we really are not.So? Who or what will stop us? We must have that right (God given or not) or something/someone else would surely have stepped in by now.
We cannot live in mud huts and plow the ground with wooden plows pulled by oxen while feeding the world's population.
Sure, we have a few trinkets but those trinkets aren't what is destroying the world.To live in a world of peace,fairness, equality and respect for each other, doesn't mean we have to to go back to such basics wilderness.
Pure guess on my part, but I would strongly suspect that at least half the world population lives in the equivalent of a mud hut or less. Half the population lives on the edge of starvation every day.
Would "fairness and equality" then require that we move into tiny wood shacks so that we can build the equal of them for all the third world? Shall we give up our fine paved roads so that we can, in all fairness, provide at least dirt roads for the entire world? Give up our cars so that everyone in the world can have a horse?
We could probably feed the entire world, by cutting our own intake by 50% (which might actually be good for us even if we're a little hungry) and killing all the dictators in the world. Of course, that will require the good roads, the giant boats and all the rest that we would have already given up to "equalize" things.
You can't bring up the third world to our standard of living, not in 10 years and not in 50. At this point in humanities development "fairness" isn't in the cards, not with the population levels already in existence. Cut the world's population by 50% and it might be possible from a technical standpoint if not from a practical one.Yes ,if just half the aid the first and second world send to these so called third world countries got through to the people that need it,instead of their so called Governments/leaders misusing it for their qwn ends,,we possibly could be half way there in relieving the populas's plight. Improving their accomadations,to live in somewhat.,But it doesn't mean they want to create and live in concrete polluted jungles like most of us have to . Yes they can learn from us,and indeed we could/and are learning much from those peoples.
I don't want to live in a mud hut with oxen. But I consider you to be an intelligent guy. So I'm surprised by your comments, to an extent.
There is much that could be done to conserve resources without giving up our lifestyles completely. But, a society built on consumerism is designed to waste resources.
Look at our homes and appliances. Designed to consume electricity unnecessarily. Appliances designed specifically to ensure they will be replaced sooner, rather than later.
Look at cell phones. We buy into the belief that every new phone has to be had. Plans set up designed to ensure we buy them. I tried to keep my last one, but they are apparently only good for a little over a year.
Those are just a few examples, but everything within our society is designed for us to constantly consume more and more. If we stop, our economy collapses around us. Worldwide.
I'm sorry, but none of this is sustainable. We have to take the first steps to change the way we view the world and our environment. We owe that to the developing nations. We owe it to the earth. We don't have the right to ignore the problems our way of life has created.
Which brings us back to one of the reasons why our species is unique. We have the ability to change our behavior patterns because we have the ability to think about how they affect the whole. We are special because we can understand that in the grand scheme of things we aren't special. We aren't animals whose primary thoughts are of themselves and their own needs and desires.Here.here. to most if what you just scripted,Emile
To some degree you are right. We could design and build better appliances, for instance, although we would quickly run into diminishing returns; our appliances aren't as poor as you indicate. Same thing for energy use of those appliances; we can do better, but not a whole lot with current technology and cost (both money and resource) limitations.
But I really don't think that is the biggest problem with resources. We use some for trinkets, yes, but we use far more to support ourselves. We use a steel plow and an oil burning tractor to make grain, but without both we won't eat. We burn oil in trucks, but without them we won't eat. We burn coal to provide electricity to heat our homes, but without it we'll freeze (we aren't in the tropics, after all). We put down tar for roads, but without them we won't eat again.
That kind of list goes on forever; it requires resources and energy to live as densely packed as we do, and in the latitudes we do. I just don't think that the list of toys (at least the toys I own) contribute that much damage when compared to what I need.I do realize that resources and energy are necessary to survive. And I don't mean to sound like my grandparents, but they really don't make things the way they used to. I don't believe it to be poor craftsmanship as much as planned obsolescence. To help drive the economy. As developing nations come into their own there will be that many more people striving to live as we do. I'm afraid there will be disappointments all around down the road. The earth can't sustain this.
I don't know, Emile. I used to figure a car at 100,000 miles was worn out and dead and that just isn't true anymore. My 'fridge is 15 years old, the fans in my furnace have turned for 10 years. All of my appliances except the microwave are at least 10 years old. Considering that most of them have some kind of moving motor I don't see that as bad.
My new roof is guaranteed for 30 years; 20 used to be the maximum. The latest set of tires is warranted for 90,000 miles; 25,000 used to be a long time. Electronics don't last so well, but part of the reason is that they are becoming so miniaturized that it just isn't possible to produce them in such a manner that they can be fixed. It's like fixing a burned out CPU; it just isn't possible, so the whole thing is replaced instead.
Part of it is also cost; your grandparents paid far more (in terms of hours worked to pay for it) for their fridge than you would for one of the same size and capabilities. When it takes 6 months work to buy a refrigerator it had better last! We have consistently increased the capabilities of our "machines" while reducing costs; it might be too much to ask that they also last twice as long.Those are all points I hadn't included in my opinion. You are right, except I've never had a warranty that was worth a hill of beans.
I suppose I wander through life with a measure of guilt at my own affluence. We have so much and we are constantly desiring more. While so many others have so little. I find myself wide eyed when abroad. Fascinated at how little there appears to be to go around. We are fat dumb and happy. Which may prove to be a lethal mix if we continue to put our desires above the needs of the world, at large.
On a lighter note, it occurred to me that maybe we'll find that whales travel long distances in the ocean to monitor our waste and are frantically working to minimize the damage. Maybe we'll discover a bacteria that will eat radiation from our spent reactor fuels. And, I suppose it isn't far fetched to believe we'll develop a way to suck pollution from the air economically, before it is too late. Where there is a will we usually find a way.
I don't know if anyone will manage to read this, but here's my opinion ...
It's basically the most general theory combining all beliefs.
So we have planets, stars, etc. Everything lies on the space time continuum (yes, Einstein's general theory of relativity has been proven by nasa last year, check it out on youtube )
That's great ... so now all that's left to do for us is to prove the String theory ( basically that in the heart of what we call matter, there are little vibrating strings ) ...
And let me just mention that scientist have proven that a brain wave travels great distances after it leaves the human brain ( yeah, just science )
And do you know how everything connects ... Well, you have vibrating little strings that are all around you and your brain waves, that travel great distances ... If we look at the world that way, everything can be explained .. even the so-controversial Law of attraction ... There's a belief that we all have a connected mind and while it sounds surreal it basically is true ...
I really can't explain it in a few sentences, but everything's just waves and vibration ... we are what we want to be and the world is what we want it to be ... basic truth ... Parallel universes also exist and we move forward constantly to the reality that we choose to believe in ...
In a matter of 300-400 years humanity will have changed a lot, basically what we now choose to see as superficial, won't be ... you know .. the indigo children, the psychics ... yeahInteresting, Ivan, quite similar to my views of existence.
Thanks ... My reply is a bit messy, but I am glad you got my point
No problem, it's like I said on another forum, we don't always word things alike but the bottom line has the same meaning.
Einstein's general theory of relativity don't this mean everything is connected.
My thoughts have been the same as these except I've never expressed it so well even to my self.Well, I love science, unsolved mysteries and the "why we are here" question and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it ... I still believe my explanation is confusing and messy, but I'm glad you understood me and that we share the same opinion ...
BTW .. If you are interested in science - everything's possible .. check out NASA youtube channel for hidden magnetic portals in space .. (generally wormholes ... yeah ) ...
We are too intelligent to believe in the bible, but that doesn't mean that miracles aren't possible. Generally if you believe in yourself, you will succeed ... Positive attitude and strong craving can actually help us live the life we want to live, we've dreamed of ...
The Bible is a fraud ... All the stories from the Old Testament are plagiarized from the Mayan, Sumerians and the religions of other old cultures.
I don't quite agree, they may be similar but isn't necessarily plagiarized from some other source.
It's like saying Goldie Locks And The there Bears is the plagiarized version of The Three Little Pigs, their meanings are the same but their symbols are different and we don't know it they both came from the same organ. So it is with the Bible, their organs may or may not be the same but their bottom lines are the same, showing us how to comprehend life on earth.
BTW ... Out of Body experiences (I've had quite a few myself .. I love astral projection) can also be explained by science ...
You know .. our brains are very powerful ... If we don't think about it, like our soul leaving our body, OBE's become much simpler ...
As I stated, everything is just strings vibrating at a different frequency ... and everyone's brainwaves travel great distances ... and there you go ( again ) ... OBE's are just our body (brain basically) receiving and transcribing frequencies and other ppl's brainwaves ...That's not quite right, my friend ... there are seven summerian tablets ( currently in the British History Museum ) that tell exactly the same stories that we can see in the bible ( I believe the old testament ) ...
For example The Ark of Noah ... It is copied exactly as it is on the tablet ...
The seven days and six nights of creation ... Mayan religion ... (check the Mayan's holy book - the Pol Pol Vuh) ...I understand The0NatureBoy and what he means ... basically "lifefore" is the energy of the body ... as I said everything is scientifically explainable it is just the matter of how we like to perceive this .. knowledge ..
As I explained everything is waves and vibration ... everything is connected through waves ... What NatureBoy says is that in the future our brains will be capable enough to understand what the other person means without using words ...
You know .. it's just like when you meet someone and you know you'll click ... or someone is near you and you get the shivers .. Aura, Chackras and everything ... It's just our brain waves, body waves and our body vibrating ... ... As simple as that ...As simple as that huh?
Thanks for the explanation - it is nonsense. Or can you see the future also?
... It is not nonsense ...
Read more! You know ... when you read books, other than the bible NON-FICTION books ... you start to understand the universe a little bit more ...
If you want I can go into details ...
You see ... The string theory basically is an addition to the theory of relativity ... In his dying hours Einstein was trying to prove that there is a general theory that can explain both the quantum world and the real world, because as you (don't) know in the quantum world there are N+ physic laws that don't apply here ...
So yeah .. the string theory is almost proven by scientist and is currently the number 1 theory in how the world works ... it basically says that fundamental particles have little vibrating at different frequencies strings that makes them what they are ...
Basically, in every particle there are 6 additional dimensions that are wrapped around in themselves ( yeah, it is actually non-fiction ) ... and here we have only the 4 that we know as width, height, depth and time ...
The reason the 6 additional dimensions are trapped is because of the process of creation ( the big bang ) ... and basically in another parralel univerese there could be 4, 5 or 6 dimension ... or an additional time dimension ...
Moreover, scientist have proven that the brainwaves leave our physical body and travel great distances. They use this knowledge for example to build devices that can tell how many ppl are there in a closed room and where exactly in the room they are .. through a wall .. (yeah this is already possible) ...
Or for example the device that lets us control the computer with our mind ... ( currently we are far behind .. the only developed device is a on-screen keyboard and when you concentrate on a letter, the letter is typed on the screen ... ) ....
MOREOVER, when the world was in war, (1939-1944 or sth like that I've forgotten almost everything from my History class) ... Russians made experiments on ppl regarding psychic and sleep abilities ...
They've made a lot of research on sleep deprivation and obe ... Nowadays there is even a research clinic on sleep and astral projection in sleep and yeah ... it is proven to be real .. and it is possible ... I didn't believe as much, until I started experience it myself ... there are a few exercises you could try in order to achieve it, but it took me like 6 months ... it is basically a waste of time, because the experience is not that cool ... i mean you can't go to your friends house and see what he's doing ... you basically see yourself sleep and fly around ... it's even kind-a scary ... but check it out OBE is proven during sleep ...
So yeah, if you think I am a nonsense talker, think again ... I believe I know a lot more than you do, and you know what .. I'm just 19 years old ... yeah ...Thanks for your advice. What books do I have on the third bookshelf down on the left? Project yourself over and tell me.
Please stop lying at me - no such things have been proven. String theory and astral projection are the same thing huh? Scientist have proven that brainwaves leave our physical body and travel great distances? Please direct me to the evidence.
It's not the same thing, I am telling that if you think about it astral projection can be explained through science, without the additional lifeforce, chackra-aura stuff ...
For Mark - Watch this thing ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMPJ6ah3xM ... and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASf55cov5F8 ... and I can't find the video but here you go ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing ... (1.2 is about the research which were made during the war) ...
And Rad Man, just wait a bit and I will get you the article on brain waves ... ( I am sorry I am slow in finding the links, but my knowledge generally comes from a lot of science magazines and watching discovery/bbc/cnn .. stuff like that, since I was a little boy ... and ofc .. reading books ) ...Wikipedia on Remote viewing,
The scientific community rejects remote viewing due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. It is also considered a pseudoscience.
Astral projection? Anyone can claim they had an OBE, but when it's studied it falls short. Don't believe everything you read. All memory, thought and consciousness comes from and are products of the brain. When the brain shuts down all such products stop. Making an out of body experience impossible.
So Rad Man ... I've lost interest in finding just the right thing, but here ... you'll get it ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=squid+% … c+field%22
Click through 2-3 articles to understand what research is exactly done ... and ... check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_oscillation ...
and here's sth interesting ... http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/01/ … t-we-hear/ ...
and simpler version ... http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01 … -mind?lite ...My idea is that your energy doesn't leave the body, but your brain simply perceives the world around it ...
Note that there were funded research on remote viewing and most of the remote viewing research are shut down, before any actual results are shown to the public ...
But whatever ... I like that you have a strong opinion ...
Have a great night m8 and thanks for the creative mind struggle ... It really was quite fun ...
Related Discussions
- 6
if you are given a chance to be someone else who would you like to be and why?
by dianne143 3 years ago
if you are given a chance to be someone else who would you like to be and why?
- 10
What is more important? the past? the present? or the future?
by aefrancisco 11 years ago
What is more important? the past? the present? or the future?
- 84
If we all came from Adam and Eve, why are there different races?
by topgunjager 7 years ago
Why are there so many different races if we all came from adam and eve? Does it support evolution that we changed to different faces and colors and body types because we were exposed to different conditions that made our body adapt? If not then pls. explain.
- 26
Questions about Evolution
by janesix 8 years ago
I have some questions about evolution.1. Random Mutation. Is it really random?"To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same...
- 54
Which is more important: Being beautiful or being smart?
by ChasingKhaos 3 years ago
Which is more important: Being beautiful or being smart?Are you more attracted to a smart person or to a beautiful one?
- 124
Fossil Evidence 4 Creation, TONS :: Direct Evidence 4 Evolution, NONE.
by Timothy Donnelly 11 years ago
There’s a link below for starters, folks.Watch it first, and then go on with your reckoning. It goes by the title: The Fossil Record, Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D. It can be be seen on YouTube.com at this address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … mmngKew5EE Happy hunting. I’ll check in from...