WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta
However, it seems to me that consciousness (as we know it) is growing rather than pre-existent. By the same token, our consciousness was primitive until we developed.
This is the essence of our inability to communicate. I believe in an ineffable conscious source of what we call creation taking place within the Source.. Conscious understanding for human being is remembered You believe that we create conscious understanding over time through the mechanical process of living similar to animal life on earth.

Secular understanding or the belief in Man on earth as the source of conscious understanding must oppose the awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective. That is why great universal ideas such as Plato's cave promoting awakening must be condemned and devolved into secular interpretations

All individuals within which the attraction to eros has not been crushed have to understand what the human condition is and why it must reject attempts to open to a universal perspective to have any hope of becoming aware of why we are here as opposed to imagining it.
Age
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:46 pm
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm But I do NOT misunderstand your words, usually. They speak loud and clear, to Me.
Then why do you keep asking me questions if you understand me loudly and clearly?
So that the readers can see that you really do not understand what you, yourself, think you know.

Your responses or your usual inability or unwillingness to answer my questions shows just how much you really do know, or more correctly not know.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm So that the readers can see that you really do not understand what you, yourself, think you know.
Is the reader a mind-reader?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm Your responses or your usual inability or unwillingness to answer my questions shows just how much you really do know, or more correctly not know.
I know how much I don't know. That's why I keep correcting you on being less wrong, not "always right".
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:57 pm Greta
However, it seems to me that consciousness (as we know it) is growing rather than pre-existent. By the same token, our consciousness was primitive until we developed.
This is the essence of our inability to communicate. I believe in an ineffable conscious source of what we call creation taking place within the Source.. Conscious understanding for human being is remembered You believe that we create conscious understanding over time through the mechanical process of living similar to animal life on earth.

Secular understanding or the belief in Man on earth as the source of conscious understanding must oppose the awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective. That is why great universal ideas such as Plato's cave promoting awakening must be condemned and devolved into secular interpretations

All individuals within which the attraction to eros has not been crushed have to understand what the human condition is and why it must reject attempts to open to a universal perspective to have any hope of becoming aware of why we are here as opposed to imagining it.
You hypothesis about eros fails because almost no one is without eros. As things stand, some of the most dried up and joyless beings in existence are Christians.

However, you are right to note that some atheists will disagree with everything theists think of almost out of principle. This is because for millennia they have been thought of and treated as subhuman scum by theists - discriminated against, beaten, vilified and sometimes killed. So your complaint refers to theism reaping a little of what it has sown.

In previous debates you made clear that you have no interest in the protection or conservation of any nonhuman species or ecosystem. Now you talk about your "... awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective". So, if humans are insignificant, and other species even less significant, what actually is significant? What life will become? Stars and planets? Galaxies? Galactic superclusters?
Dubious
Posts: 2609
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Dubious »

Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amIf humans go extinct and rats or mole rats survive, then they are already highly intelligent creatures, immensely more so than the shrewlike mammal that started the mammal line, and it only took 60m years to go from them to modernity.
That depends on whether any adaptation adjustments are required for their future survival. If not then there's no point in becoming more intelligent than they already are. It would be a waste and could even be inimical to the species.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amIntelligence is expensive energetically but powerful if the resources are available.
Yes, intelligence is a major expense to the organism and the reason why it won't happen if a species is already adapted to and comfortable with the resources at hand. In such cases the demands of intelligence on the organism would be both superfluous and possibly toxic.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amYou (and many scientists) are a strict Gouldians - with the tree of life being touted as "more like a bush" claim. It is obviously been proved wrong IMO, one of the few areas where I think the scientific orthodoxy is dead wrong.
I’m not a “strict” anything. I’m too skeptical on nearly everything to take any fixed positions. Also, I don’t know enough about Gould to claim that honor. He certainly was brilliant which doesn’t conclude in him being right in all instances. His theories have always been controversial and under scrutiny which wouldn't’ happen if they had no credibility. Besides which, there is much more to the story than just what he had to say.

Whether life is more like a tree or a bush is also immaterial to me. It is what it is in spite of whatever metaphor is applied to it.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amAll of the evidence suggests a direction - from 3b years ago to now. Ignore that evidence and all manner of theorising is possible but that is by far the most important evidence available - all else is window dressing by comparison.
The evidence for that cannot be ignored because the fossil record states it. What remains highly questionable is your assertion

...it is almost certain that another intelligent species would take our place if we died out, not just possible.

that being precisely the least certain of all.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amThe only way to settle this difference ultimately is to wait many millions of years to see if the trend of the last 3b years will finally be bucked and there will just be an endless cycle of dumb animals. as you think most likely.
Ignorant, demeaning comments like this makes me see RED all over. Reading some your responses makes me think I may have done Nick an injustice. The way you word it implies a semi-religious view that intelligence is the Omega point of nature otherwise there will just be an endless cycle of dumb animals and what’s the point of that!

Why would anyone think that creatures well-adapted to their environment, still existing, often preceding humans on the planet, but without the ability to do calculus are dumb animals? You have almost no understanding of what “intelligence” denotes in the history of evolution, when it’s required, when not or even becomes dangerous to the species!

Let’s see how long we last compared to them. After all being “dumb animals” they don’t possess the distinction of being stupid enough to screw up the planet while knowing that they’re doing it.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amWhile I see massive culling of numbers ahead, I don't think it likely that humans will become extinct any time soon anyway.
Heat being much more difficult to defeat than cold massive population declines are almost inevitable and perhaps sooner than expected by geopolitical upheavals in its wake...meaning a vast exodus of peoples from their heat incinerated lands toward areas which are, at least temporarily, more habitable. That could cause an Armageddon before the real one arrives.

Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head, intelligence having had such a short career!
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:37 am
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amIf humans go extinct and rats or mole rats survive, then they are already highly intelligent creatures, immensely more so than the shrewlike mammal that started the mammal line, and it only took 60m years to go from them to modernity.
That depends on whether any adaptation adjustments are required for their future survival. If not then there's no point in becoming more intelligent than they already are. It would be a waste and could even be inimical to the species.
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amIntelligence is expensive energetically but powerful if the resources are available.
Yes, intelligence is a major expense to the organism and the reason why it won't happen if a species is already adapted to and comfortable with the resources at hand. In such cases the demands of intelligence on the organism would be both superfluous and possibly toxic.
If conditions become more harsh and remain that way until the Sun heats beyond tolerances then intelligence probably won't re-emerge. Other traits will be more helpful. However, I think it more likely that climate will stabilise again. Note that when dominant social species lack much competition from other species, they will still compete internally and evolve new characteristics.

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:37 am
All of the evidence suggests a direction - from 3b years ago to now. Ignore that evidence and all manner of theorising is possible but that is by far the most important evidence available - all else is window dressing by comparison.
The evidence for that cannot be ignored because the fossil record states it. What remains highly questionable is your assertion

...it is almost certain that another intelligent species would take our place if we died out, not just possible.

that being precisely the least certain of all.
"Almost certain" was over enthusiastic, yes. "Likely" is about right IMO. I wish you'd honed in on that in the first place and we could have cleared it up in no time.

Once innovations occur in nature they repeat due to interactions and environmental shaping. Trilobites were the first animals with good vision and they dominated the Earth. When they became extinct other organisms' vision developed further, stemming from ancestors that had eaten, competed with or fled from trilobites. Dinosaurs were dominant due to size, strength, weaponry and strong defences. Humans have taken that a step further with technology and they have abstract intelligence and expanded temporal awareness and memory.

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:37 am
The only way to settle this difference ultimately is to wait many millions of years to see if the trend of the last 3b years will finally be bucked and there will just be an endless cycle of dumb animals. as you think most likely.
Ignorant, demeaning comments like this makes me see RED all over. Reading some your responses makes me think I may have done Nick an injustice. The way you word it implies a semi-religious view that intelligence is the Omega point of nature otherwise there will just be an endless cycle of dumb animals and what’s the point of that!

Why would anyone think that creatures well-adapted to their environment, still existing, often preceding humans on the planet, but without the ability to do calculus are dumb animals? You have almost no understanding of what “intelligence” denotes in the history of evolution, when it’s required, when not or even becomes dangerous to the species!

Let’s see how long we last compared to them. After all being “dumb animals” they don’t possess the distinction of being stupid enough to screw up the planet while knowing that they’re doing it.
:lol: A splendid tantrum, spiced with a couple of tasty ad homs and topped with supersized strawpersons, misrepresentations and misconceptions. I liked the way you added a swipe at Nick in there, but making it seem like a pat on the head.

I said we'd have to wait to be sure. Do you deny that is true?

Do you deny that you posited it unlikely that intelligence will re-emerge?

If not intelligent, how is "dumb" inappropriate as a shorthand? What term would you prefer - "abstractly intelligently challenged"? Are you really playing politically correct at me about "dumb animals" when I am perhaps their biggest defender on this forum?

Is the weight of my hundreds of pro environment and pro animal quotes (just this year) entirely negated by a single shorthand comment? is that really the depth at which you want to operate here?

Whatever, aside from what looks like a meltdown (that is hopefully a glitch), I seriously doubt that intelligence in nature will peak with humans, nor that our kind of intelligence is the ultimate form of intelligence to emerge. I think there's a good chance it will be supplanted, bettered. It's probably a phase like everything else that's happened so far.

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:37 am
Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:04 amWhile I see massive culling of numbers ahead, I don't think it likely that humans will become extinct any time soon anyway.
Heat being much more difficult to defeat than cold massive population declines are almost inevitable and perhaps sooner than expected by geopolitical upheavals in its wake...meaning a vast exodus of peoples from their heat incinerated lands toward areas which are, at least temporarily, more habitable. That could cause an Armageddon before the real one arrives.

Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head, intelligence having had such a short career!
The shape of things suggests that climate change and resource depletion will hugely reduce the human population in this and the next century. I suspect that the predictions of 11 billion by the turn of the century are a dream/nightmare. Logically, transitional times will be strange and troublesome for existing inhabitants.
Nick_A
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:54 pm
Nick_A wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 8:57 pm Greta
However, it seems to me that consciousness (as we know it) is growing rather than pre-existent. By the same token, our consciousness was primitive until we developed.
This is the essence of our inability to communicate. I believe in an ineffable conscious source of what we call creation taking place within the Source.. Conscious understanding for human being is remembered You believe that we create conscious understanding over time through the mechanical process of living similar to animal life on earth.

Secular understanding or the belief in Man on earth as the source of conscious understanding must oppose the awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective. That is why great universal ideas such as Plato's cave promoting awakening must be condemned and devolved into secular interpretations

All individuals within which the attraction to eros has not been crushed have to understand what the human condition is and why it must reject attempts to open to a universal perspective to have any hope of becoming aware of why we are here as opposed to imagining it.
You hypothesis about eros fails because almost no one is without eros. As things stand, some of the most dried up and joyless beings in existence are Christians.

However, you are right to note that some atheists will disagree with everything theists think of almost out of principle. This is because for millennia they have been thought of and treated as subhuman scum by theists - discriminated against, beaten, vilified and sometimes killed. So your complaint refers to theism reaping a little of what it has sown.

In previous debates you made clear that you have no interest in the protection or conservation of any nonhuman species or ecosystem. Now you talk about your "... awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective". So, if humans are insignificant, and other species even less significant, what actually is significant? What life will become? Stars and planets? Galaxies? Galactic superclusters?
You hypothesis about eros fails because almost no one is without eros. As things stand, some of the most dried up and joyless beings in existence are Christians.
I would agree that Man on earth has a normal attraction to eros. The problem is that the human condition as it manifests in society as a whole promotes spirit killing and metaphysical repression to sustain the imagined supremacy of conditioned dualistic human reason.
However, you are right to note that some atheists will disagree with everything theists think of almost out of principle. This is because for millennia they have been thought of and treated as subhuman scum by theists - discriminated against, beaten, vilified and sometimes killed. So your complaint refers to theism reaping a little of what it has sown.
Secular atheism and secular religious expression are the same in that they debate earthly interpretations. Atheists are killed. Proponents of religion are also killed. Man is a killing mchine. it is the way it is for the human condition
In previous debates you made clear that you have no interest in the protection or conservation of any nonhuman species or ecosystem. Now you talk about your "... awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective". So, if humans are insignificant, and other species even less significant, what actually is significant? What life will become? Stars and planets? Galaxies? Galactic superclusters?
I've explained several times that Man doesn't hurt the earth by our failure at conservation. The earth heals itself. Rather we hurt ourselves. Organic life on earth is an energy transforming machine. Each part of the machine plays its part in satisfying nature's needs.

The collective human essence has higher and lower parts. the higher parts and those capable of consciousness require a higher finer quality of material to grow. This quality exists in Man and also in the more exotic places in the world such as coral reefs and rain forests. When we destroy them we destroy a quality of matter (energy if you prefer) necessary for nature's needs. Consequently she has no other choice than to take them from Man.

Even though cosmic conditions are favorable for the increase of collective consciousness on earth, humanity is becoming more coarse - more thick, due to the rarity of nutrients necessary for conscious awareness. This is the effect of the destruction of the sources for higher qualities of matter.

Animal Man is only objectively significant for the planet. It is insignificant in comparison to conscious Man serving the universal purpose of connecting levels of reality - higher and lower consciousness within our being .
Dubious
Posts: 2609
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Dubious »

Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amI said we'd have to wait to be sure. Do you deny that is true?
Not at all. Do you think we’ll live long enough to be sure OR is our only option to speculate now based on what we already know?
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amDo you deny that you posited it unlikely that intelligence will re-emerge?
Again, not at all. But how does “dumb” refer to animals who are successful in their adaptations and ability to cope within their environment and where “intelligence” as expounded by humans can actually be a liability?

However, I know what you meant and have to admit my response to that was over-blown and unjustified! You always have been the main and chief spokesperson for the rights and welfare of animals on the forum. That’s for sure! There was just something which struck me as vulgar in the phrase “dumb animals” in its given context as something hugely inferior vis-a-vis human intelligence while nature itself makes no such distinctions.
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amWhatever, aside from what looks like a meltdown (that is hopefully a glitch), I seriously doubt that intelligence in nature will peak with humans, nor that our kind of intelligence is the ultimate form of intelligence to emerge. I think there's a good chance it will be supplanted, bettered. It's probably a phase like everything else that's happened so far.
No, it wasn’t a meltdown just a momentary indignation episode. Meltdowns last longer! But, as mentioned, it wasn’t justified. It was MY Mia Culpa knowing how you feel about animals.

Anyways, I don’t question that more advanced forms of intelligence can and probably will emerge. The question is where and how probable the emergence of circumstances which led to human intelligence the first time around. But that’s already been discussed with different perspectives on the subject.
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amThe shape of things suggests that climate change and resource depletion will hugely reduce the human population in this and the next century. I suspect that the predictions of 11 billion by the turn of the century are a dream/nightmare.
On that I couldn’t agree more. For those surviving, I expect real-estate prices to become once again extremely favorable.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:42 am
In previous debates you made clear that you have no interest in the protection or conservation of any nonhuman species or ecosystem. Now you talk about your "... awareness of the insignificance of Man on earth within a conscious universal perspective". So, if humans are insignificant, and other species even less significant, what actually is significant? What life will become? Stars and planets? Galaxies? Galactic superclusters?
I've explained several times that Man doesn't hurt the earth by our failure at conservation. The earth heals itself. Rather we hurt ourselves. Organic life on earth is an energy transforming machine. Each part of the machine plays its part in satisfying nature's needs.

The collective human essence has higher and lower parts. the higher parts and those capable of consciousness require a higher finer quality of material to grow.
I think it important to muster empathy for our fellow travellers of other species. To think otherwise is to simply "trample the weak", to be a bully. I personally could not care a jot for humanity's survival if such a lack of ethics was ubiquitous.

Unfortunately mass production of meat has taken away the personal aspect of hunting, where a prey's wits, speed and strength were acknowledged, respected and taken into account. Then, when the quarry was brought down the hunter would pay respects to the animal, rather than treating it as a mere commodity. This is what I think of as a much more harmonious attitude, accepting our existential situation but with as much decency as the situation allows. Sadly, now animals are commodified, processed in factories providing conditions akin to concentration camps, or worse. The suffering involved is beyond comprehension but we pretend it doesn't matter, that they are just "machines".
Nick_A wrote:Even though cosmic conditions are favorable for the increase of collective consciousness on earth, humanity is becoming more coarse - more thick, due to the rarity of nutrients necessary for conscious awareness. This is the effect of the destruction of the sources for higher qualities of matter.

Animal Man is only objectively significant for the planet. It is insignificant in comparison to conscious Man serving the universal purpose of connecting levels of reality - higher and lower consciousness within our being .
You have not been paying attention, Nicholas. You see, the masses are a profit generating machine. Each part of the machine plays its part in satisfying corporate needs. Sound familiar?

Corporations are now the humans and the masses are the animals. What goes around, comes around. Had we shown love and respect for other species then our powerful might be more inclined to show love and respect for us. These kinds of dynamics resonate through societies.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:38 am
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amI said we'd have to wait to be sure. Do you deny that is true?
Not at all. Do you think we’ll live long enough to be sure OR is our only option to speculate now based on what we already know?
I just figure that, if civilisation holds, future people will know the answers that we can, as you say, only speculate about.
Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:38 am
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:03 amDo you deny that you posited it unlikely that intelligence will re-emerge?
Again, not at all. But how does “dumb” refer to animals who are successful in their adaptations and ability to cope within their environment and where “intelligence” as expounded by humans can actually be a liability? However, I know what you meant [etc]

There was just something which struck me as vulgar in the phrase “dumb animals” in its given context as something hugely inferior vis-a-vis human intelligence while nature itself makes no such distinctions
Aside from shorthand, in context was I was trying to put across that there are few future prospects for the biosphere if humans or their creations can't start new life and emergences on other worlds. The emergence of humanlike intelligence and capacity means that panspermia need not always be a fluke, but can be directed, and maybe that life need not start from scratch. The latter would be especially helpful as the road from abiogenesis has been beyond brutal!

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:38 amNo, it wasn’t a meltdown just a momentary indignation episode.
:lol:

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:38 amAnyways, I don’t question that more advanced forms of intelligence can and probably will emerge. The question is where and how probable the emergence of circumstances which led to human intelligence the first time around. But that’s already been discussed with different perspectives on the subject.
I suspect that intelligence most likely thrives when life is neither idyllic or tortuous. If you can eat by picking fruit off a tree and can sleep under the stars then there's no much incentive to create. If life is too harsh then it's a matter of always handling incidents and never having the chance to solve problems in the longer term (eg. with agriculture).
Age
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:25 pm
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm So that the readers can see that you really do not understand what you, yourself, think you know.
Is the reader a mind-reader?
You would be VERY surprised what the actual Truth is here.
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm Your responses or your usual inability or unwillingness to answer my questions shows just how much you really do know, or more correctly not know.
I know how much I don't know. [/quote]

How much do you not know?
TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:25 pmThat's why I keep correcting you on being less wrong, not "always right".
I already KNOW you are not "always right". You do not need to correct this. I have NEVER suggested that you are "always right" anyway. In fact the opposite could well be closer to the Truth.

I have only shown how, to me, through your words you come across as though you believe that you are right, true, and correct.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:37 am You would be VERY surprised what the actual Truth is here.
Ohhh truth with a capital "T" :)

Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you know The (actual) Truth?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm How much do you not know?
42. And if you want to be a stickler for precision. It's actually 42.587124522358763434432876534.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:37 am your words you come across as though you believe that you are right, true, and correct.
That's ironic. My words have stated the EXACT opposite of what you claim I "come across" as. So I guess that's just your BELIEF?

But it's not The Truth ;)
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Nick, I might not much know my philosophers but it seems that I've stumbled to the same conclusion as Kant did centuries ago. I found this while searching for info about Kant's noumenon concept (and the general difficulty in apprehending or comprehending actual reality, as opposed to useful abstractions).

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
- Immanuel Kant

Now the masses have become the New Animals (move over Eric Burdon) while billionaires and corporations take the role of the New Humans, at least in terms of roles and power dynamics. One controls and milks the other.
Age
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:43 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:37 am You would be VERY surprised what the actual Truth is here.
Ohhh truth with a capital "T" :)

Are you absolutely, 100% certain that you know The (actual) Truth?
Yes, and with a capital 'Y'.

Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:43 am
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm How much do you not know?
42. And if you want to be a stickler for precision. It's actually 42.587124522358763434432876534.
And what is that figure in relation to exactly?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:43 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:37 am your words you come across as though you believe that you are right, true, and correct.
That's ironic. My words have stated the EXACT opposite of what you claim I "come across" as. So I guess that's just your BELIEF?
I told you already. I do not have beliefs. I just express what I see. I have also expressed that what I see could be completely and utterly WRONG, but as of yet there is NO evidence for it being WRONG.

As I have previously stated, you can say one thing, but you can also show another, completely different, thing.

What you may WANT and HOPE you are, and to be doing, is NOT necessarily what you really are, and what you are really doing.

But you would have to KNOW they Self first, BEFORE you could also be able to SEE what is really going on.

Any person can say/write any thing, but what is REALLY True can be OBVIOUSLY seen, and understood.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:43 amBut it's not The Truth ;)
What is not The Truth?
Dubious
Posts: 2609
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Dubious »

Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:30 amI suspect that intelligence most likely thrives when life is neither idyllic or tortuous.
I think that the rise of intelligence was, in our case, an adaptation to prevent extinction and give survival a fighting chance. Most other animals weren't as vulnerable as we were or they just died out as an experiment that failed. The other major difference, we were already standing upright ready to improvise with our former front paws.

To nature, intelligence is just another adaptation for survival but once truly planted and operative it becomes self-fulfilling, more independent having a purpose beyond what it was originally meant to accomplish. I think that could be one reason why human DNA which has so much propinquity with that of Chimps and other primates can still be so far beyond them in intelligence which begins in self-awareness.

Metaphorically speaking, the first time one cave-man called the other one stupid by gesture or grunts is a testament that human intelligence has arrived ready to expand beyond its initial trials and limits.
Last edited by Dubious on Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply