[Suska]

Evolutionary history is what presented us. We are an extension, not a departure.

The animals I know are happy to let nature handle the big questions. That we can do this for ourselves is no recommendation if we do it much worse than nature would have.

[Potemkin]

Evolutionary history is what presented us. We are an extension, not a departure.

The animals I know are happy to let nature handle the big questions. That we can do this for ourselves is no recommendation if we do it much worse than nature would have.

Those two paragraphs contradict each other, Suska. In the first, you assert that humans are part of the evolutionary process, and by implication are part of nature. Then, in the second paragraph, you talk about 'nature' as though it is something separate from human consciousness, and something to which human consciousness is opposed. Which do you actually believe?

And you seem to be misinterpreting what Vera Politica and I are trying to say - when we say that humans are qualitatively different from all other animals, we are not trying to assert that humans have somehow transcended nature in some mystical sense. We are simply asserting that humans are qualitatively different from other animals, in exactly the same way that the first protofish which developed a functional hinged jaw was qualitatively different from all other animals which had existed up to that time. We mean no more and no less than that.

[Suska]

What we do is take responsibilities from nature and time. We want things fast and we want things our way, and as if this won't have an effect on anything else that we need. Animals trust nature to give them a fair shake, we need the same things, we just imagine we know all the things we need as well as the total process of natural effects because nature put us at top. But something was always on top, we aren't new except in superficial details, there was probably always some sort of creature around that thought enough to believe themselves special.

If by qualitative difference you mean different in detail you're just saying something obvious. We aren't the masters of nature though, not even equals. We have no idea how to run systems because when we're planning we calculate ourselves as brilliant abstract thinking masterminds, and in reality what comes out is a shameless irresponsible monkey, because we don't want more than what nature has, we just want to take credit for it, and we don't want the natural solution, it takes too long and shows no bias in our favor. Our idea of balance is a population bomb and the hope that this leads to a higher stable solution.

We are animals still, plus pride, that's all. Smart enough to get into trouble, or on the other hand, natural enough to not warrant a new category.

Those two paragraphs contradict each other, Suska.

cool story bro

[Potemkin]

What we do is take responsibilities from nature and time. We want things fast and we want things our way, and as if this won't have an effect on anything else that we need.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Animals trust nature to give them a fair shake

Wtf? Animals have no abstract concept of 'nature' from which they expect anything. And you seem to be ascribing subjectivity and intentionality to nature, as though 'she' is some sort of goddess.

we need the same things, we just imagine we know all the things we need as well as the total process of natural effects because nature put us at top.

'Nature' did no such thing.

But something was always on top, we aren't new except in superficial details, there was probably always some sort of creature around that thought enough to believe themselves special.

I doubt it. The point is that humans use abstract symbolic logic, unlike other animals, and are therefore able to mentally abstract themselves from the rest of the natural world and think of themselves as something 'special'.

If by qualitative difference you mean different in detail you're just saying something obvious. We aren't the masters of nature though, not even equals.

Again, I repeat: we are not separate from the natural world. We cannot be 'masters' or 'equals' of something of which we are merely a part.

We have no idea how to run systems because when we're planning we calculate ourselves as brilliant abstract thinking masterminds, and in reality what comes out is a shameless irresponsible monkey, because we don't want more than what nature has, we just want to take credit for it, and we don't want the natural solution, it takes too long and shows no bias in our favor. Our idea of balance is a population bomb and the hope that this leads to a higher stable solution.

Without significant predation and with an adequate food supply, any species of animal will experience a population explosion. Humans are no different in that regard.

[Suska]

As usual Potemkin you surprise me. You make statements that demonstrate nothing as if they were cutting my arguments apart.

First, and as a matter of general treatments, I never said nature was a 'she' - I would regard that as a matter of convention anyway, it doesn't change nature what we call it. Second, with regard to the intentionality of nature, whatever form that takes - accident even, is what 'she does'. Third, of course we are both now suggesting that we are not super-natural, but before you insisted on the idea that there was, as you put it a 'qualitative difference' the exact denotation you wish to convey with your choice of words escapes me, but evidently you suppose an important distinction to which my reply was, there are differences, none of which elevate us as a whole beyond the scope of natural selection and instincts better discussed as animal properties than as a matter of ideology or science. Even when we really put our back into such things and hold initially to a rigid notion of artificiality, the end result is inevitably messy and organic, which is to say; chaotic.

As to the matter of intentionality in animals and people as distinct from the actions of nature either view is acceptable to me as neither is complete without the other. We and animals give or take responsibilities from nature - the sum total of Earth's biology, past and present - and also nature has given or has taken, but I understand too that this is a matter of speaking; these are all internal workings of nature.

As I understand it the issue at hand is what it is, not if there is a difference between animals and humans. There are differences of course, my entire position can be summarized by the first lines I wrote in this thread; there are differences, none actual. Which is to say that if in our thinking we consider the distinction crucial we are liable to make a huge mistake - as we often have on this basis, thinking that we don't have to play by anyone's rules, all the while acting like a meat puppet without enough sense to just let nature decide the matter. Civilization carries the implication of artificiality, in as much as it carries through with artificiality it is pure poison.

[R_G]

The only thing that separates us from animals is our brain capacity to convince us we're more important.

[Vera Politica]

The only thing that separates us from animals is our brain capacity to convince us we're more important.

How enlightened...

[Suska]

Vera you are the poster child of Pofo for exactly what R_G is talking about. What use is your specialized dialect and refined logic? You use it to browbeat people who don't know the passwords instead of speaking a language other humans speak. At least when I browbeat people I do it plainly and directly, and I base my arguments on real things that include pathos, sensations and necessities, not just logic games played by 8th year philosophy students. Don't get me wrong, I'm grinning when I shake my head, because a part of me admires your method and the difficulty of achieving it. If I were to go back to school I would study philosophy too - and probably use it to browbeat the whole world, but I don't place any value on scoring technical points, and I realize there are forms of reasoning around that could change everything, and no one will care or understand if they care, if you babble it in a foreign language built for specialists. Getting real in this thread means one thing to me and R_G put it bluntly.

[Vera Politica]

Vera you are the poster child of Pofo for exactly what R_G is talking about. What use is your specialized dialect and refined logic? You use it to browbeat people who don't know the passwords instead of speaking a language other humans speak. At least when I browbeat people I do it plainly and directly, and I base my arguments on real things that include pathos, sensations and necessities, not just logic games played by 8th year philosophy students. Don't get me wrong, I'm grinning when I shake my head, because a part of me admires your method and the difficulty of achieving it. If I were to go back to school I would study philosophy too - and probably use it to browbeat the whole world, but I don't place any value on scoring technical points, and I realize there are forms of reasoning around that could change everything, and no one will care or understand if they care, if you babble it in a foreign language built for specialists. Getting real in this thread means one thing to me and R_G put it bluntly.

I understand, and in a sense, agree with the point you are making here Suska. I do, however, have three things to say in my defense:
(1) I have never shied away from explaining any of my terms or reasoning when not understood.
(2) R_G did not really show what you are reading into his post. Moreover, his post doesn't add anything to the debate, doesn't demonstrate any interest in what we've actually been debating, nor is it substantiated.
(3) My argument in this thread did not apply any tools or methods of reasoning that would escape any inquisitive highschooler. Where terms were unclear I clarified them, and my argument is quite simple: language presents us with a clear instance of a qualitative difference between humans and animals.

R_G attempted to be clever. The comment, however, came off arrogant and imbecilic. I doubt he even read our exchanges in this thread. Do not read into his post what took you a sustained paragraph to put forward.

[Suska]

all true, good show

[R_G]

I just think nihlism makes too much sense.

I'm not a Science Major and my understanding of the Universie is minute compared to those people who dedicate their lives to such understanding.

But of the basic points that I do know, we as humans are horribly unimportant in the structure of our little corner of our galaxy.

We, if to be compared to other living entities on this planet, are parasites, we utlize everything even if it's for the most useless of purposes, like for instance we mine emeralds for nothing else than they are pretty to look at.

Likewise look at the guys who made youtube, they made hundreds of millions, oh yes it was a smart diea but what does youtube actually give us? There are more negatives to our modern inventions than positives, and inveitably the creation of technology that only promotes less physical and mental activity will only help serve to continue our meaningless existence in the universe.

That's why the big distances between us and the rest of the animal kingdom are, at least to me, of little importance.

If I die tomorrow, little will change, if a whole village dies tomorrow, it might make headlines, if a whole city is destroyed it will make everyone talk, and if a country lies in ruins it will cause tremors in the global political landcape.

However if a cattle of cows is harvested tomorrow, all that results is a continued supply of partial meat burgers at your nearest burger stop.

And then we have all these people searching for a stronger meaning, personally to me I think the life os a simpleton is much more glamorous than the life of a wealthy broker, because when you don't search for a reason to live, you enjoy the basic physical motions which is what sets your mind at rest.

[Wellsy]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/man/ape-man-1.pdf
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/evolution-language.htm
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/phylogeny.htm

From the sources above, I am in agreement that the qualitative distinction of humans and other animals is in part our ability for abstraction and language that hold meaning absent immediate situations.
However we can perhaps focus also on how such an ability come about in considering man materially in his origins.
But the two things I’d emphasize, skipping the explanation in the above links is that we have control over nature and ourselves through the use of tools and signs. We shape nature to meet our needs rather than react to the world to meet our needs. We make tools, create habits of work. And in part of this with signs/symbols for communication with others and eventually ourselves is also the continuity of human activities, culture or traditions. We become acculturated to ways of life and continue them on with future generations. This transmission of ways of life is much narrower for other animals, they do not have the material and symbolic culture we have such that any biologically healthy human child can adapt to conditions of modern life.

[Agent Steel]

Humans are genetic clones of the Annunaki.

Animals use their entire brain. Humans are the only species that only use 10% of our brains. The Annunaki put their entire DNA into us but sealed us off at the 10% mark so we cannot access the majority of information inside our brains. Nature has no adequate explanation for this. Nor can nature explain the fusion of chromosome #2. This is evidence of genetic engineering.

[ckaihatsu]

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists)

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... eationists


Ten percent of the brain myth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_perce ... brain_myth