Speaking of Chestnuts. What do you thinkGiradius wrote:Not this old chestnut again
of Level 0 of Chaos Strikes Back?
Speaking of Chestnuts. What do you thinkGiradius wrote:Not this old chestnut again
hmmmm, ish.You can still look at the trends affecting humanity as a whole.
DOOOHHHH!By the way, you just referred to "humans" as a collective.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that human intelligence is not superior to animal intelligence, my argument is merely that many of the things people claim make humans unique are not exclusive to humanity.you can get better results when you actually understand what's going on. Numerous studies have been done involving animals that instinctively know how to build something or other, and it's always found that they're not very good at all at adapting that knowledge to a different purpose.Giradius wrote:
yet the problem was overcome anyway, again this suggests you have a bias toward conscious over unconscious behavior.
Maybe I am a bit of a utilitarian, but as far as I am concerned its results that matter
Certainly, beavers are dam builders, not carpenters.If you instinctively know, like a beaver, how to build a dam, then you can build dams, but you're never going to figure out
That is how it was meant, my earlier point about moon landings is tied to what you said next.Anyway, earlier, you said "Change is not an indication of superiority," which is true-- if you mean that change is not an automatic indication of superiority.
This was what I was saying about the moon landing technology, necessity is the mother of invention, and so human technology has been dominated by attempts to make practical gains rather than the pursuit of pure knowledge or to create marvels.However, this notion of flexible technology is a form of change that is often good, because it allows people to be able to do things that they couldn't previously do.
absolutely, that's why humans form societies, because more can be achieved for the good of everyone when individuals co-operate.If those things are for the betterment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or whatever), then that's a good thing, don't you think? Curing a disease that we couldn't cure before is good. Feeding people who would've formerly gone hungry is good. And so on...
I disagree, it was the main publicist of morality, it seized on it and claimed it as its own, but morality (which is simply a code of behavior) does have instinctive origins, you can see moral and social codes in many animals, especially in chimps.That's the thing, though. If we're talking about the birth of civilization, religion was the source of morality.
Religion did the marketing, but the R&D dept. was human social instinct.What they did have was religion.
But it isn't, because history is full of instances of people stepping out of line, its good for making one population feel superior to another "infidel" population, (and thus social cohesion) but as a tool of social control, its pretty weak.This was all well and good because convincing the people that god(s) would punish them if they stepped out of line was a great tool for keeping people in line,
As well as the king (or local feudal lord) threatening to chop your head off if you broke the law.but that did also allow order to take hold.
again, don't get me wrong, religion had its uses back in history, but I do feel that it is an anachronism and long over due for retirement, along with the flat earth, the 5 humors, and anything written by Pliny the elder.Living in our secular world with the benefits of our modern sciences, we tend to forget that for a long time, there was pretty much nothing else and this stuff was real.
of course, due in no small part to the fact that most of peoples understanding of history came from their holy books, whether its the bible and its "history" of Adam and eve, noah's arc, or the Viking edda's and their tales how Odin created mankind from bits of wood, or how Thor lost his hammer.The "Religion is the source of morality" types who say that now ought to know better. Back then, nobody did.
hmmmmm, not sure about that, because I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, religious texts make very specific claims about what god is and what it can and what it has done in the past.I'd say that anyone making an unprovable statement based on faith, whether that faith is in one god, many gods, or the absence of any of them, is holding a "religious belief."
I would probably fit into that category, I would say that I am a strong atheist, and can with complete confidence deny theistic deities exist, as a matter of evidence, scientific and historical evidence.By your definitions, this would include the strong variety of atheism, but not the weak one, I guess. Interestingly, I've noticed most people (at least around here) who call themselves "atheists" (most of which professing the complete absence of any sort of god-- that is, strong atheism) are more against the Jewish/Christian/Islamic concept of "God" rather than actually not believing in any sort of god of any kind.
The right wing usually do! especially in the US it seems.The right wing here tends to endorse some completely unscientific nonsense.
It was a bit insensitive of me, I admit that, your original reply rubbed me up the wrong way and seemed hostile to a newcomer whose defences were up.However, the ones who continually fail to tell the difference between this and any skepticism at all and want to just tar and feather everyone who dissents in any way whatsoever as "one of them" aren't adding anything to the discussion either.
That was the claim, it would be silly to say that has ALWAYS been the case, because I mentioned previously that a healthy vegetarian diet is possible due to advances in dietary science.Which claim? If it's that you can eat a nutritionally complete diet without any meat, then, in the Western world, sure, probably.
As I said before, I am a pragmatist, if soya beans wont grow, but you CAN graze a goat, so be it, vegetarian is only worthwhile as long as it is practical and preferable (in terms of actual benefits)Another difference is what food is actually available, so, in the developing world, I'd wonder about protein sources.
[/quote][/quote]I will say, though, that comparing your typical doesn't-care-what-he-shoves-in-his-mouth American to a diet-conscious vegetarian and making a health claim is no more fair than comparing a diet-conscious non-vegetarian to some hypothetical vegetarian who subsists on McDonald's apple pies and french fries and sugary colas (but no meats).
Communism seemed to work OK, as did National socialism (despite massive other problems with these ideologies)Interesting point about religion encouraging cohesive civilisation. The evidence that nothing else works as well:
Thats true, but there will always be mutant or deviant strains that occur in any group, they usually remain small because selfish behavior is not an evolutionary stable strategy (and so never flourishes in large numbers), however neither is pure altruism.Enlightened self interest does not work alone. There are too many examples every day in the paper, or in visible view, of people's selfishness or small group mentality over-riding the common good.
Personally I think state sponsored birth control is a good move (like they have in china)People are not racing to expand their surroundings with more people for the added benefit, every addition to a city or country is not welcomed by its constituents.
I don't know, I certainly agree with you in terms of history, but i think technology has advanced to the point that travel and communications make a global empire not only feasible but desirable.That leaves forced expansion of groups (empire building by the rulers for resources, etc). History shows the logical limit of expansion, every empire has collapsed under its own weight or the resentment of the constituents.
And even then, its only usually the flavours that make exclusive claim to the truth.Meanwhile, religions are still going strong. The only divisive element are people choosing a flavour since, as pointed out, people don't like to act in large groups for a common good.
There are other ways of doing that.Even given this, general religious belief can still be used as a call to arms or a common connect between countries that otherwise would not come together, even for the common good.
The prison level?Speaking of Chestnuts. What do you think
of Level 0 of Chaos Strikes Back?
I think it's a bit more difficult than Level 0 of Dungeon Master.Paul Stevens wrote:What do you think of Level 0 of Chaos Strikes Back?
No, it's OK, it's fine!Giradius wrote:I am probably not making a very good first impression here am I!
Why? Maybe they wrote a history and then went extinct and archeologists are digging it up later. I mean, you could say the Ancient Romans are now "extinct," but they wrote plenty.Giradius wrote:"only societies that don't go extinct get to write histories at all"
I didn't advocate one specific religion, I just said "religion." They all have similar laws because that's what worked and what created the most orderly society-- to a point, anyway: they of course all had different opinions on worship and what exactly was a "sin" beyond the big bad stuff. In the old old (OLD!) old days, there was pretty much no such thing as a secular society. It's easy to separate "faith" and "reason" with the benefit of our modern secular outlook, but, back then, there was no such thing as "faith based reinforcement" because it was all reality to them anyway. I'm not denying the bad side of it, merely backing up my claim that religion was essential to the forming of civilization.Giradius wrote:Have you not noticed the fact that religions separated by thousands of miles, have strangely similar laws? that is because many of these laws give the religion an advantage and many others simply make sense when living in a community (don't kill, don't steal) these rules are simple enough that they can be arrived at on their own without need for faith based reinforcement.
Wait, what? Most animals just kill whatever they feel like eating, or steal it if that is easier. If by "totally selfish" you mean they don't look out for their own kind ever, then maybe, but there are a lot of animals who leave their young to fend for themselves, too.Giradius wrote:totally selfish behavior usually doesn't occur in nature
And where did the king get his authority? Usually from their god(s), if they didn't believe the king himself was a living incarnation of their god(s). You said that religion was a weak tool of social control, but I think this "divine right" makes it pretty solid. Sometimes we underestimate that because we're used to societies where people believe that figuring things out rationally is the best way to solve problems, or, more cynically, the men with the biggest guns come to power and they don't need god on their side.Giradius wrote:As well as the king (or local feudal lord) threatening to chop your head off if you broke the law.
Given the size of the universe and the amount and level of detail we've actually surveyed, I'd say it'd be akin to me looking in one corner of my bedroom which also includes a small view outside one window, and then deduce that since I can't see any goats, goats must not exist at all anywhere. You've got a point about evidence, but the sample size, relatively speaking, is tiny. With our current level of knowledge and the size of the universe it's pretty much impossible to say "X doesn't exist at all anywhere ever" and not be making a pretty big leap. If one religion makes falsifiable claims, and you can falsify them, you've disproved that religion's idea of god, but haven't really done anything about some other religion's idea or the general (deistic, pantheistic, whatever) notion.Giradius wrote:its a matter of epistemology, it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, it is rational to not believe in something if you have no evidence to support it.
I'd fire scientist 2, too, for not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're."Giradius wrote:scientist 2 "your fired!"
Ok, then don't take the risk of alienating someone well-meaning and open-minded but not quite on board yet from your cause permanently with an obnoxious allusion they may be a holocaust denier.Giradius wrote:Global warming is too important an issue to take risks on.
*runs for a banana*linflas wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBJV56WUDng
Second bet I lost today. The first is more private.Giradius wrote:The prison level?
Its quite nice!
WOW, I made a post with less than 4000 words :p
yes to the first point, and to the second point I think quantity AND quality is higher, but we are still fundamentally talking about the same things.you basically say that they just have more of the same that other animals already have, so it's not a big deal, don't you? The quantity is more, the quality the same?
Certainly, like i said previously, humanity is probably the first species to reach that level of intellectual sophistication, in the same way that at one point in time there was an animal that was the first to fly.I believe we need another ten thousands of years to explore and understand the posibilities and potential of self consciousness, which allows self-reprogrammation among other things.
I think we're currently and locally the only ones capable of this - at a significative scale.
This does interest me, transhumanism and the idea singularity.However, computers, maybe, are not very far from attaining these capacities with the correct software or restructuration - in less than a century, say. Though probably through a reproduction and imitation of our own brains and social structures, and thus arguably they would only be a partial duplication of our specificity, and not really a different evolutionary route, not in the natural speciation sense.
As for alienating people from my cause! its not MY cause, you have to live on this planet as well, you face death just like the rest of us.Ok, then don't take the risk of alienating someone well-meaning and open-minded but not quite on board yet from your cause permanently with an obnoxious allusion they may be a holocaust denier.
Short reply this time:Giradius wrote:I was simply asking if you are fussy about what empirical facts you deny, I was just curious if it was only scientific truths you see yourself qualified to deny, and I wondered if you extend your well-meaning and open-minded skepticism to matters of more delicate historical significance as well as matters which impact upon the future of human civilization as we know it.
Indeed!cowsmanaut wrote:It's not a cute little world out there where bunnies are innocent..
I coulnd't help having a big laugh.cowsmanaut wrote:cats and dogs have been shown to have great problem solving skills..
This sounds quite reasonable, my cat has figured out how to open doors in order to get into the spare bedroom so he can sleep on a bed instead of the floor.Cowsmanaut:
A dog or cat put into a situation where it's mind has been challenged from a young age will exhibit decent problem solving skills. They observe and examine the world around them trying to decipher what is happening.
The health issue is currently one in a million which would be the probabilitity to eat someone infected with Kuru or CJD, unless you live in Papua New Guinea.Giradius wrote:while there is a health issue with cannibalistic behavior (as we found out with CJD and mad cows disease), a large percentage of humans posses a gene which confers resistance to these (implying that the ancestors of many humans had engaged in cannibal behavior long enough for a gene to develop).
Damn - You beat me to it! Play me offSophia wrote:Keyboard cat?
I cant remember it at the moment, it was a documentary on cannibalism I watched some time ago.Zyx:
I'm not aware about the resistant gene, do you have any source?
I agree, but this coupled with the archeological evidence of early cannibalism certainly makes it a possibility, cannibalism was probably not always the taboo it is today, and there are several places where funerary rites involve ritualised cannibalism.As for the implications of a resistant gene, it rather implies than humans have been eating meat, but not necessarily human flesh.
A prehistoric endemic animal prion disease that was able to cross the transmission barrier to carnivorous humans is a possibility
OR
[...] repeated episodes of endocannibalism-related prion disease epidemics in ancient human populations