Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
any more than the product of an evolutionary imperative to procreate, an it's attendant psychological needs?
He's actually watching Transformers. So don't expect anything intelligent from him for at least... say a week.
is amazing. :D
are enternal spirits on a cyclical human journey of creation. So there.
of self replicated d.n.aaaaaaaaaaaa
my parents were married like 15 years before having me.
I meant personality, character and being, not physical presence a la 'my parents had me coz...'.
well i think i'm an awesome genius and have something to give to the human race too.
also i love you.
pretty good for getting girls?*
(*restlessboy's 'creation of art' thread-centric)
But the answer is no. I was just wanting to be perverse, as usual.
the evolutionary theory was thrown up baby
that was nasty
That was freaky
with abnormal bark like growth on his body, and it's making me sick just thnking about it
the main reason for brawling is to prove superiority in an animalistic way right? Which totally fits.
is to flatter him.
I can't even keep track of my keys.
luckily God does not need keys to enter a property or use a vehicle.
b) i feel like a ball of bollocks on legs.
Is one of these what you meant?
well i was going to say that i was apparently 'a mistake'. Or 'not planned' or some crap. But i think you already said it's not about that.
But i do think that there must be some greater purpose for humans right? Even if it's as cannon fodder for the future ducks in their space suits.
is not connected to the ongoing psychological need of humanity to procreate, then I'd argue against.
It seems to me that most societal constructs are extensions of evolutionary needs.
what i mean is that one can exist without the other. They CAN be mutually exclusive. Is what i meant. i believe. Yes.
that's almost nihilism!!!!!
nihilism is stage one, baby.
that i believed in fate because the entirety of existance is one pan-scientific reaction being executed along preset rules and you were like "omg! you cant think taht! thats almost nihilism"
so i quoted you teehee!
hows the video????
i'm saying that the whole of history, present and future is mapped out as a phase of this reaction or series of reactions
if its much of a variation on it as a whole (i cant be bummed to look) is totally irrelevant. it doesnt effect how i live, cos my belief in it is just another manifestation of it, and any following or rejection of it would just be playing into its hands. it doesnt comfort or upset me, its just dem facts.
although in my version of it to be 100% watertight and fully imaginable there needs to have been an effective beginning of relevant reality, like the big bang provides, and im sure quantum physics fucks it up, so if anyone proper smart wants to disprove it for me they can go ahead
yeah its exactly what im saying.
im still proud that im smart enough to have invented it for myself
* *slow handclap*
determinism is a circular concept.
WHEN WILL I START USING MY KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF BEVERAGE???
on a notion of causality
so all is go!
i kind of think of fate as something that will happen despite the odds, by some force making it happen no matter what gets in the way.
unlikeliness or not
at least not objective probability
but who cares? we cant tell the future, so the "knowledge" that its determined don't make a jot of difference
or do you act like you actually have a choice?
it doesnt make any difference to me. its just what i believe to be true.
i dont generally analyse my decision making at the time, but when i look back at it i see the prevailing forces - generally logical consideration for the "best" outcome versus pride - but i dont think i ever sit there and go "oh no point in acting, cos the outcome is decided" cos i know that my acting or not acting is part of that outcome. or something.
i suppose it does sometimes help me accept when i've fucked up and help me move on.
its not something that i think about a lot, just something that i believe to be the way it is, and thus something thats fun to debate, cos i'm perfectly happy to have my position changed, i just dont see it happening any time soon, at least before i get old and discover god
but that doesn't mean it's not right. I suppose you make use of it when it's helpful and ignore it when it's not. It is annoying that i can't get my head around it at all though.
its intuitive to me, whether i explain it right or not. i dont see how it can be seen as untrue though. i think tim has been trying to show me how it is, but it hasnt been working
i mean, i dont really see whats to get your head around. your decisions are based on your options and your moods, and those are based on your surroundings and your personailities and all these other things are dependent on phenomena that we analyse with scientific disciplines, whether we analyse them right or not
im going to write a bunch of songs about determinism now. using metaphors like vaginas and stuff. i'm going to be so ricj
which means that people are not responsible for their actions. Whatever anyone does you can just say "oh, they can't help it", society just wouldn't work.
the reactions arent free either.
you cant shrug off wrong doing as not your fault because the people who have been slighted have involuntarily put into a certain emotional state
i don't follow. What's that got to do with whether people are responsible for their actions?
is a result of determinism
the people that we are are a result of determinism
i could say "we are not responsible for our actions" but "we" is just a concept
but we have to live with the consequences of our actions, which to all intents and purposes is the same thing
im very tired. this all makes sense in my head. if i was talking to you face to face id be gesticulating a lot and repeating cycles of words until my throat hurt
or i may have just forgotten what i didn't understand.
yeah, but it's not something i believe in so i don't really need a rigid definition.
I may have been agreeing with you about probability. But you didn't really get anywhere.
expand on what you may have agreed with then.
i don't think i do. i was/am interested in where you thought i was going though.
Yeah I generally argue against determinism mainly out of instinct.
I haven't started the video yet! I have jobs now and a vibrant, thrusting series of seismic social engagements!
I'll do it this weekend.
as in, across all the sciences, or all of science
as in its a chemical reaction, but a physical one too
i guess biology is defined by chemistry is defined by physics anyway
so i mean physical.
empirical fact than I do.
comes through a very limited filter, and everything is subject to being proved wrong at a later stage. Everything and anything is subject to ebing wrong because our minds are so narrow and we know so little.
thats why i dont pretend that i can predict the future using determinism
within an artificial closed system.
that's what the closed system makes us think.
The closed system is just a self-organising emergent epiphenomenon of pure immanence. Like an eddy at the edge of a stream, trapped for an instant, only to dissipate again.
then there's a stream
It's not a real stream. It's only possible to talk in metaphors because what I'm talking about isn't a thing and is impossible to conceive. You just have to try an imagine it's there, just out of your field of vision.
english degree triumphs again (n)
i dont see your point anyway, and ive tried for at least 20 seconds now
two metaphors strapped together.
its a metaphor phrased explicitly, using indicative words like "like" and "as"
or any of the answers
albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that i can trace my ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo -- which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead.
because work is boring today.
Your premise implies we are little more than animals and our instincts and behaviors are based on survival and procreation. As humans we clearly have those characteristics but we are separated from the animal kingdom by our minds.
Our minds have the ability to reason. We are not necessarily always thinking range-of-the-moment. It is through this ability in which we can sustain love... instead of merely fucking. We have the ability to appreciate art. Art cannot be considered a part of your premise. I have more examples but one is enough to sabotage your theory.
You of all people John should know this.
that chasing success of any kind is an extension of the battle to prove your superiority over your fellow man, and doing so garner 'alpha-male' respect, which is a part of an animalistic pack mentality.
don't have the characteristics you've described... I'm just saying we're much more than that.
Lately you seem to have this "I'm just a nobody cog in the wheel" mentality going for ya. Snap out of it!
is spiritual, or souls or whatever
and god is gay.
Basic nihilism is very lazy though.
Its a kind of boring view to take a "we're just animals" view. I like to think that we're a bit more than that, even if we're not.
maybe a bit depressing.
its liberating. but it is boring. See below.
its more productive to think that theres more motives for doing things than biological. If you think that your music is in fact you communicating spirits or some shit, then you are. and then some good stuff happens.
the very idea that youre questioning evolution as a motive for your actions shows that youre above it.
That's a load of crap. Spirits? Gimme a break.
Although: I was thinking on the bus home that any view of reality is entirely subjective and empirical knowledge is impossible is the experiential, phenomenological sense, so all people can really do is live by what they CHOOSE rather than what they KNOW.
Which makes me think that someone who believes they are communing with spirits may well be expressing some valuable connection to 'things' that they instinctively feel, even if it seems empty of value to the passer by.
but not right now.
i believe in the spirits though, i think. i dunno.
Why not? It's better fun and more productive than "oh its my evolution". Who cares.
We've kind of evolved enough just now I think. Thats why people are evolving minds and ideas rather than bodies.
EVOLVE YOUR MIND PEOPLE
I care! I'd rather attempt to garbner some insight into liing than trip around in a drippy twatty dreamworld because it's more fun.
You said reality is subjective? whatever you believe is the truth, to you.
I mean, if youre convinced that by making some music, youre touching something metaphysical, then basically, you are. If you can take some sort of applicable higher meaning from things then you should, rather than reducing it down to evolution.
We're beyond evolution. The body and the mind have come together now and you have to find a middle ground. Theyre two different entities that are connected in whatever way you choose.
We are never beyond evolution. That's a flippant dismissal of the my premise with nothing to back it up so far other than that imagined communing with the spirits is fun.
Im talking about it in a practical sense. What's the point of reducing everything to evolution? I'm saying we're at a point where we can think beyond that, and that in itself is our evolution.
you can begin to understand yourself, where your thoughts and drives come from, what makes people be who they are and think how they do.
that we're all acting on evolutionary instinct?
Drop a bowling ball on your foot. Then tell me the pain you're feeling is "subjective".
Some people derive great pleasure from pain. Some people simply think it fucking hurts.
essentially. i'd say some of us aren't. But i'd say most of us are just topsoil with iPods and digestive systems.
I see people walking around like passionless robots and i hate them. I'm fully aware that i'm not better than them, but i swear i wont turn out like them. Im basically an ego maniac holden caulfield idiot teenager.
i don't think i'm much better than most people. But i see certain people and i feel like they transcend being mere masses of existence, animalistic or otherwise, and are...something much better. Something worthwhile i guess. i can think of a few genuinely extraordinary people, luckily.
But no i don't think you're arrogant.
It's Bjork, isn't it.
They're not all pop stars though.
My list of people in rNr's thread. Plus a few more.
That's really gay of me. All my heroes are dicks.
i think heroes are dangerous things to have.
they make you try and be better than them
they make you think that their superior position above you is unreachable and you are forever destined to feel inadequate.
heroes should also be equals
or anyone else defines me as in any one particular instance.
The idea that I have a purpose or that I am the product of anything is simply part of another process of discursive violence.
I'm not more, or less than anything. When I'm not thinking about myself, or nobody is thinking about me, I'm nothing in particular - pure undifferentiated, atemporal immanence. 'I' is just a recurrent habit. I'll grow out of it.
Do I win?
for trying to disassociate yourself from the undeniable narrative of time and space.
I'll deny them til the cock crows. And then kill the cock. And eat it.
i.e. the passage of time and the undeniable process of the universe hapenning? Never mind our fleeting perception of it....
of conceiving 'time'. Not all of them take a narrative form.
Narrative time is like a road from A to B. Henri Bergson made an important distinction between time as conceived as a narrative or 'durée' and time as experienced, in terms of intution. He came to some silly conclusions after that, so maybe ignore this.
I like to think about time as like lots of different things:
A spider's web.
A river splitting into an infinite number of tributaries.
An infinite number of fractal spirals emanating from a single point in an infinite number of directions. That's my favourite one.
A pair of bellows. I just made that one up. It doesn't make any sense.
run free flower child!
arguing about determinism though, so presumably there was something in it
I'd still rather not risk it.
You agree that all knowledge, on a "long term" basis, is worthless, right?
If you enjoy trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, then do it. If you don't, don't.
What makes someone who does better than someone who doesent?
As long as you can function youre alright though surely? If your lack of knowledge causes problems, you learn stuff to get round them.
Why is tackling philosophical problems make you a better person?
I dislike it when fun conversations get reduced to these ever-imploding basics.
So what's your problem with it?
You seemed to have a problem with sivvays post, so explain yourself.
he's doing the "discussing philosophy can be bliss if thats what youre into, but it doesnt make you superior on any real level" argument
He's doing ignornance is bliss (see below). And bugger off with the implication that people talk about this stuff to make themselves seem more important than people who don't.
Theyre probably just doing it to be the alpha male, right?
Sorry, I'm starting to find responding to you a bit tiring.
a rip in reality!
the man has a point.....
chiaroscuro | 27 Jul '07, 00:48 | Send note | Reply
Sorry, I'm starting to find responding to you a bit tiring.
John_Brainlove | 27 Jul '07, 00:49 | Send note | Reply
It made me think of the idea that every man is painted into a corner the second he opens his mouth, because anything he says falls into the framework of having to impress or make a point and that links directly back to the evolution argument. Which is umbilically connected to certain aspects of determinism, depressingly.
(I'm ignoring Tim's "I'm free of any system!" flower child thing).
I resent the idea that anything people do or say is connected to animalistic needs or behaviours, but I don't see any way around it sometimes.
I guess, my argument against restlessboy was that while any behaviour can be linked to these needs and possibly takes root in them, that doesn't mean the entire scope and possibility of everything is pre-defined just because the root cause is partially identifiable as having come from an evolutionary need.
i accept that evolution might not be all, but i'd need something else shown to me to see any different, and all thats been come up with, to my knowledge, is god, and he is faith, and i dont have that faith, so he doesnt exist.
he's the untouchable outside, the ultimate cause which validates our conceit of being autonomous, creative agents.
Truth is an aspect of god, so is understanding, so is existence, so is self.
God won't leave us alone. We smashed him, but he just broke up into infinite, multiplying fragments that are impossible to defeat. We may as well try and live with him.
its in the rules
the only proof for him is faith, i dont have the faith, thus he doesnt exist, and thus to others he exists
I'm not trying to be cryptic. He doesn't exist, in a way, but in a way, none of us can help believing in him, or one of his facets or substitutes.
What I'm saying is, an instrumental notion of causality (of which God is just a personfication) is an unavoidable corollary of consciousness.
I'm free of any system. I don't believe in freedom at all.
I was just saying that you don't have to view things through the prism of evolution, or even of 'needs' per se.
You seemed to be arguing that everything can be boiled down to this as a root cause. If you start arguing this, though, you undermine yourself because your very motivation for making the point in the first place becomes part of the whole process of male status competition. Which, if you're talking about it like this, it is.
So this takes away any stable ground for your argument because you realise that you aren't 'outside' it, viewing it from a position of authority, and that the whole process of trying to explain, to grasp and to understand is itself part of this libidinal instinct.
Sooo...it fucks with your head.
Yeah, that kind of sums it up.
So, can we identify any reason for attempting to understand, create or analyse that comes from outside the framework of the libidinal instinct?
Its a philosophical question. Their are no correct answers.
Except mine, but thats largely driven by my huge ego. I think somewhere at the back of my mind, im convinced that although i know its impossible, if i try hard enough... I mean REALLY try, i'll be able to figure out the objective truth of the subjective universe, write a book about it, then chicks will dig it.
Though I won't be doing it so chicks will dig it. I'll be doing it for whatever reason i figure out.
Or i could just form a band or something.
I asked for ideas. Stop being so reductive, please! It gets frustrating.
whatevs. I'll have a think about this thread then post tomorrow maybe.
Im gonna try and think up some more Lord of the rings Smiths puns then go to sleep.
I'm glad you weren't in charge of inventing penicillin or figuring out relativity.
You can think about things any way you want to. You don't have to think about it in terms of sex or power. There are plenty of other ways of thinking about the world which you seem to be dismissing because you don't see them as 'real' or 'ultimate'.
But you're burrowing further into the quagmire. Or trying to find something by ripping up an infinitely deep pile of carpets. You're still asking for reasons, and when you boil it down, reasons are causes, and causes are invisible from desires - both are the ungraspable process in between states A and B that make A gravitate towards or 'want to be' B.
making a succint argument for all the reasons that something might not be true doesn't actually make it any less true in principle.
'true' is circular. All attempts to 'reason' or 'understand' are circular.
Why would anything be 'true'? What does true even mean? Why do you want your words to possess this magical property?
And believing something that is said contains truth or may be true, is essential in positing anything. Just as you believe in the arguments and points that you pose yourself.
If you do away with the notion of anything being true or right or correct or valid, then thigs get, to use a techinical philosophical terms, very wibbly.
so we can stop trying to 'know' and 'understand' things, and start thinking about ideas in terms of whether they're 'useful' or not, and what they might be useful for.
what is the point of it at all? Seriously, why would you consider 'knowing' something as an end in itself?
whatever. I havnt been reading properly. I definitely NEED to stop now.
To use a crude metaphor, if you know how to make a spoke, then one of these days you might have enough to build a wheel, and if you keep making rnough, then one of these days you might have enough to make a cart, and then you'll be getting somewhere indeed.
how do we know that the cart's going to go somewhere nice?
Ultimately, its going to fall apart and we'll have to make a new one. Maybe we'll keep making carts until we realise carts aren't really so great. So we'll make an engine, and that'll take us somewhere else, and then we'll get bored of that and make a plane, and then a spaceship. Where does it end? Sooner or later we're going to end up filling the universe with broken machines, or end up staying where we are and seeing it's not so bad here after all.
I'm just not someone convinced by the supposed unquestionable value of knowlege, science and technology.
not knowing anything or allowing anything to be known is crippling. Thinking the way through things, and finding ideas that hold true, and slowly piecing them all together into coherent structures, is what understanding yourself and life is all about.
but when it comes to this kind of high level discussion, we can start talking about other things than 'knowing' stuff, because it might get us somewhere more favourable.
the point at which your argument undoes itself, or rather folds back on itself.
See above for a better response.
but starts eating its own arm or something
i said that they did it because it helps them achieve a certain fulfilment
that your lack of knowledge was calling problems?
I.e brainloves argument.
Someone obviously thuoght "oh its getting a bit chilly here, better do something about that"
come out of people being interested in stuff and exploring it more often than it comes from a direct need.
And philosophy does play a role in how people live their lives, it's not all about getting enough food and keeping warm.
knowledge was worthless, and didn't tell anyone else how o do it.
antelopes and rhododendrons and cliffs get on just fine without it, and they don't torment themselves with questions about why they exist.
we'll just sit her and twiddle our thumbs.
What if you dont care?
serious point actually. The past is only imagined in the present.
Evolution is just a rhetorical strategy used in the here and now, for immediate purposes. It's useful for describing and thinking about certain things. It doesn't make it some kind of universal theoretical panacea, much less some kind of ultimate guiding truth.
implied by itself.
It's taken as a first principle. What causes a thing that causes something? Something else? What caused that? Something else etc. etc. etc. until you have to stop somewhere - god: the causeless cause, who already 'possesses' the property of causality.
The big bang, similarly, doesn't avoid this paradox, its just god wearing different clothes.
I can't 'disprove' it, but it can't be verified empirically without recourse to circularity, so we can't take it as an unquestionable principle.
that spherical teabags would make the perfect cup of tea, so go do one
why do you need a first cause? something was the cause of something else, this goes back for ever and ever. what's the problem with that? why do you have to stop?
always and will always 'exist'
Are there any unquestionable principles?
without something to conceive it as existing?
No, there aren't any unquestionable principles.
with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? yes, of course it does.
are there any first principles?
everything is relative, so it doesent, though obviously it technically does.
It probably has something to do with the schroedingers cat thought experiment. thought maybe not.
anyway, it doesent make a sound, as a sound is just something somebody hears. Technically a sound is just particles vibrating.
If the question was "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it cause particles in proximity to it to resonate?" the there would probably be a different answer.
And no, it doesn't make a sound. The concept of sound is a way of imposing some kind of coherence on that which is not coherent, or linear, something that ONLY consciousness does.
The Schroedinger's cat example is a great one. If nobody looks at the cat, it doesn't exist in a superimposition of alive and dead states. Whether it's alive or dead is just irrelevant.
Whether the tree makes a sound isn't the important question. If nobody hears it, why is it relevant whether it does or doesn't make a sound?
The concept of 'real' is a purely human idea.
Other things can witness things too. Animals certainly can, but they don't see something as being real or otherwise, they just see them and behave accordingly.
On another level, the ground 'experiences' the tree. It doesn't think about it, or witness it, but it is affected by it.
The tree doesn't have a sense of self, so the only thing that can imagine its existence, coherence, or treeness is external to it.
The tree is never a tree 'in itself'.
I do not agree that perception gives things their form. Their form exists regardless of our perceiving of them. Our perception may be partial or flawed, but I refuse to acknowledge that it takes a human perception to give things form. This feels a bit too much like saying the Earth is the centre of our solar system; it's the wrong way round. Our perceptions give things from in our minds, but not in the world itself.
then there's not a lot more I can say.
I'd try and frame it differently, but I really have to do something about going and seeing my family.
My refusal wasn't me trying to be immovable. You're supposed to get up in my face with counter-arguments there :D
A sound can be something that happens, not something that is heard.
(I know im going at a tangent here) It will be exerianced by other animals if not a human ....birds will take flight...or if no birds or insects then the soundwaves air compression will subtly alter the air currents and influence the merest waft of wind which like the butterflies wind goes off and possibley does other stuff.
The tree falling in a forest is a bad example, because it only truly works as example for humancentric intelligences.
To make the example pure you would have to remove all other organic life forms that are susceptable to sound waves and then you would have to consider the effect the vibrations would have on crystaline structures....etc etc.....i.e. I can go on being more an more pedantic .....so this example cannot work because it is silly to take it as an extreme.....the very fact that one uses the tree...a living thing as the example.....this would also percieve of its change (with its own perception mechanisms) Perhaps you could say if a stone falls from a cliff.
Sound of course is only recognised as sound when there is something that is equiped to detect this form.
electromagnetism......this is actually one force ....yet we register it in two different ways electricity and magnetism......us and other things can experiance it in different ways....it is the existance of these othere things that create the division.....otherwise it is one force......ultimately this would also apply to all other 'forces' as well....as other things appear in 'timespace' then the forces become apparent as distinct they are not otherwise.....energy/matter gravity matter and therefore space and matter and therefore matter and time are actually just different realisations of the same thing.
gravity electromagnetism are all one, unless their differences are realised by the existance of other 'things'.
When I said realised...i do not mean consiousness (do I?...or do I?) realisation by the thing......it is as much realised by the forces.
Its a bit difficult to explain in words..I can do it far better inside
I subsequently noticed that someone had previously mentioned vibrations.....I hadnt read forwards....I was reading the posts in reverse order.....because of brainloves linear time post \/ down there somewhere
the sun is still bloody there, even when it's night time where you are.
Because if it wasnt we would all freeze and die.
If the sound wasnt there i wouldnt know any different. No-one would, in fact.
You are arguing that perceiving something is all that makes it real, and I am saying that things happen regardless of whether they are perceived. I've always found the idea that the sound doesn't exist because a human doesn't perceive it, to be remarkably arrogant.
perception is reality.
Reality still exists without perception.
once you accept this point, a whole new world of possibilities open up.
You are so ripe for conversion.
possibilities than 'existing', that you don't have to think of a 'world' that consists of 'stuff'.
The Heideggarian phenomenology etc. I was never hugely sympathetic to it, although I see it's worth.
the idea that the world stops mattering or happening when people turn their backs on it.
what about gay people? What's their behaviour driven by?
replace satan with...
All of the other things that come from sex and relationships. Support, self-worth, belonging, validation, feeling wanted, pleasure... whatever. All the same things straight couples using contraception get from sex or relationships.
Where does sex come from? It doesn't spring fully formed into the world. There has to be something 'before' sex.
Does a baby act according to its procreative instincts? How about a foetus? An embryo? A chimpanzee? A bacteria? A rock?
We're only made out of matter - where does the sex bit appear from?
Why do plants grow.
Why does cancer spread.
We don't know.
They just do.
And so do we.
I'm just trying to illustrate that the whole sex thing isn't somehow 'primary' to everything. It's a story, made up of the same kind of modulated sequence of sounds they used to use around the campfire before they invented other big stories like 'history' and 'science' and started scratching them on stones because it made them seem more 'weighty.'
I can understand the idea that history is itself contingent and subjective, but you must agree that the past exists? That you were born, that your parents were born, and that events go backward, in a sequence, that "since records began" means something, as do the names scratched onto sporting trophies down the years, and therefore that there IS a history to our species, whether we are capable of seeing it or not, and that our species DID come into being by another set of events, whether we know them or not.
I don't get this constant denial of the past, or of the possibility of there being an sequence of events that we can look at, puzzle over, and attempt to take meaning from to better understand our own motivations and behaviours.
is a pretty common concept.
and a pretty impractical one
time is just as linear as can be.
You cant fuck physics, or more importantly science. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a universal fact.
im going to sleep.
p.s no need to be a git
is physics not interesting, while sociobiology is?
Time is totally motherfucking linear as far as I am concerned.
I'm off to bed now, and I fully expect to wake up at a time that is later than now, when it is light again. But hey you never know, there is this fisix thing going on so maybe I'll wake up yesterday.
It's only experienced by you in a linear manner.
Time isnt even a thing. Time-space is more relevant.
But that's physics. Fuck physics.
you will go far, young man!
You is well kleva for a sixteen.
pretty similar to that of one that doesnt do exactly what you want it to?
not as something that may a be potentially useful strategy, but certainly as some kind of concrete backdrop to the present. An infinite series of instances or events happen, but they are over before you ever get a chance to grasp them.
Even if the past did exist, it's irrelevant, because it doesn't anymore. We exist in the present, and any attempt to create a coherent 'past' is again a strategy - rhetoric. Yes, we need to imagine the concept of past, but we don't need to be hidebound by it, or give it some kind of unnecessary authority.
Do you know many historians?
you can't fiercely denounce determinism and then face a counter-argument with "they just do".
I struggle to see what your point is. You savage others with nihilism, and then get touchy about other's acceptance of evolution's spiderweb. What, exactly, is your standpoint? You may have already stated it, I apologise in advance if you have.
my evolutionary mandate does not extend to finding it, then. I'll leave you to your web, you querulous so-and-so.
like, what functions do they fulfil in society as far as these urges go.
also: suicide/self destruction. clearly not a means towards furthering your genetic stock.
killing yourself sort of raises the mean mental health of the populus
more proof we're moving beyond genetics.
thats the opposite of what i was saying. im saying that society is an extension of our control over the environment in which we procreate or whatever
gay people are a way of society to check the amount of people that are created, so that we dont all starve?
please note that im just coming up with these ideas on the spot and they dont reflect any attitudes that i have towards homosexuals
and is easily disproven by the fact that shifting attitudes towards homosexuality throughout history have absolutely no correlation with shifts in environment.
really, I don't think so.
If it worked like this, then the world's human population wouldn't be the ridiculous size it is now.
I took DiS out of my favourites today in an attempt to cut down.
I like this thread.
but dawkins is a twat.
joke's on you
will categorically not help you with this thread.
I know, I just read some more of your responses and pretty much failed to understand them.
You = far too intelligent
it's just discussion on the internet like this is so much more convoluted than in real life
three bags full
I don't think anyone else is though.
but the conscious me (I doubt the conventional conceptions of both the term conscious and me) for now would say yes I do think we perform some actions which can't be explained by evolutionary drives.
I think a restlessboy thread. I will have a look what I wrote there. Also do you define evolutionary imperatives as including memetic as well as genetic influences?
me is consistent with an evolutionary imperative to procreate.... Ok
nothing about me makes me a likely target as a mutual procreator. There are many like me.
One of your overriding characteristics is worrying about how attractive you are.
it makes me so irresistible!
In the state of nature, I would be killed or shunned and not be able to procreate and have equally awful children.
that's an extension of the point i was trying to make.
Are you funny?
and all the people in it.
i dont want to upset him
Im not sure I can fit all of me into that definition
Although I guess my desire to increase the general fecundity and variety of many other types of organic life could be shoehorned into the statement I guess..........does that halp make your definition seem bigger to you, it seems as if youve reduced stuff to something that I cant help feel is phrased slightly pessimistically.......almost with the sub text of 'Is this it?'
If you could fit the 'likeing variety in other species' into the definition.
Then how would one explain also the fullfillment given by relatively barren austere landscapes (i.e. ones that do not appear to be able to support life....or the raising of offspring) e.g. deserts (sand or ice or steppe) or desolate marshland, or mountains? or indeed space?
(one liners don't count as convincing alternatives)
you can predict my every move :(
lets see you predict this
Where have I put my hand?
Ho fo's bound to get it right though
no i left clicked with my nose
...on the first one, that me trying/wanting to just generally increse fecundity and variety is just inbuilt, because humans being adaptable are likely to have more food scources given more richness of ecosystem, so basically richness of life just seems pleasing and reassuring, because even if you are helping species you dont plan on eating, to survive, then you will probably at some level be aiding the things you will be eating to be healthier.
This is a subconcious thing that is in our evolution.
Which is probably why I feel such disquiet at modern reliance on a few species and the unequal preference and favour we give these....they will be needed to feed the overnumourous humans......but subconciously as an animal I feel uneasy, because I must be feeling that my food/life support is under threat and more at risk....it is less robust, than if it were more varied.
my cat smells like cat food
a split, flattened chicken?
I like that word, thank you for introducing me to it. Spatchcock spatchcock spatchcock spatchcock