An Agreed Concept of the Human Place on the Planet
Joseph Humming
what crows and crocodiles do. And life performs up to its
capabilities. Within the flock (though I believe "murder" is the
correct collective noun) of crows and the float (yes) of crocodiles
there will be those who can hunt as efficiently as crows have ever
hunted or who can swim as efficiently as crocodiles have ever swam.
Human beings may unravel the nature of energy and matter; they may
know the origin and the development of the universe; they may trace
the formation of the planet on which they dwell; they may explore in
miniscule detail the nature and the history of life; they may
delineate their own history; they may analyse and categorise and
classify and curate and, where necessary, control all the various
diverse forms of life on the planet and all the resources necessary
for the continuation of these various forms of life and, most
especially, for their own form of life.
They will do all these things. It may be called Humanisation: the
creation of a global society commensurate with human ability and human
needs. Indeed, need may be the motor but the result will stand
nonetheless.
But human beings do not know what to do. We are not programmed to
perform. We need to be taught. This introduces a fickle element into
our development. Who teaches the teacher? And we do not instinctively
know all that we may know (see above). Thus, we guess; we surmise; we
insist, we create perilous concepts, we listen to powerful men and
women. More fickleness. And our societies are not locked by instinct.
They alter continuously. Thus, we need new forms of control and new
institutions. And our discoveries - agriculture, say - may spawn
disasters.
Thus, human potential, the potential outlined above, may be stymied.
The needs of the moment may make any such concept unrealistic. Humans
may need to batten down the hatches for any number of reasons. The
dream, such as it is, may be put aside.
But in our age the opposite is true. Suddenly, we are within touching
disance of a global comprehension of the reality of human existence
and, also, of the perils it entails. Also, never more have we needed
the cooperation and the increased efficiency that will flow from such
global comprehension. In the absence of this cooperation we are - it
would seem - doomed to a century of chaos. Even the presence of
cooperation will promise no easy passage. The presence of an agreed
concept of human potential and the human place on the planet and,
indeed, in the universe itself would be a help. It will not occur
easily. But it will not occur at all unless it is first mooted.
Joseph Humming
Ed
So, we are to establish a place for ourselves. Of course we've done
that; we are the users, caretakers and exploiters of all of the
surface and its denizens. That seems a definite place. If we took a
different place what would it be?
Joseph Humming
particular role. We just do what we do. Such roles as we do adopt tend
to be religious or personal or, perhaps, economic or, sometimes,
national. We haven't taken on board any global vision of what role the
human being may play in the future of the planet. The Greens have gone
some of the way - but they seem more crisis oriented.
That seems a definite place. If we took a
> different place what would it be?
Our place is here. Our role, our vision of ourselves, our view of
human potential, our recognition of our unique status in the chain of
life, has still to be developed.
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed
I propose that we don't need or want a particular role; that we want
as many roles as we can fulfill. A spectrum of various roles all
taken up simultaneously; compementing each other and conflicting with
each other. I am firmly convinced that we are no way near being able
to envision a common role that is appropriate for every member of the
human race much less being ready to commit to such a common role.
> That seems a definite place. If we took a
>
> > different place what would it be?
>
> Our place is here. Our role, our vision of ourselves, our view of
> human potential, our recognition of our unique status in the chain of
> life, has still to be developed.
I totally agree. And the way it will be developed, and should be
developed, is for each person and society to try what they think is
appropriate for them. In due time a worldwide consensus may emerge
but we are far from that now.
I would oppose the imposition of any narrow point of view, like the
greens or the oil corporations, on the rest of the world.
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
~~NoMad~~
"Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:4177159a-34ef-473d...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Humans are just knowledge driven beings and we are part of the evolution of
knowledge on this planet. When better knowledge machines are developed then
humans will become extinct. Its knowledge and understanding that evolves.
NM
Immortalist
The Savanna Principle is a theory about the evolutionary roots of the
human brain. ...it asserts that the environment that molded the human
brain through natural selection is drastically different than the
world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was
designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of
societal difficulties... [this view] rejects the view of the human
mind as tabula rasa [a blank slate that anything can be written on],
and avers instead that it is content rich and biased. The human brain,
and all of its psychological mechanisms, are adapted to the EEA
(environment of evolutionary adaptedness) and are therefore biased in
favor of viewing and responding to the world as if it were still the
EEA. The psychological mechanisms we possess in our brain today are
still the same psychological mechanisms that we possessed in the EEA,
just as our hand and pancreas are still the same as they were 10 000
years ago. The human brain may have difficulty comprehending entities
and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principle
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2004.pdf
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/JCEP2006.pdf
> > They alter continuously. Thus, we need new forms of control and new
> > institutions. And our discoveries - agriculture, say - may spawn
> > disasters.
>
Sounds similar to another similar false argument;
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and
wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.
(3) The conclusion (2) does not really follow from the premise (1)
since, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies.
people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow
logically from this sort of premise.
> > Thus, human potential, the potential outlined above, may be stymied.
> > The needs of the moment may make any such concept unrealistic. Humans
> > may need to batten down the hatches for any number of reasons. The
> > dream, such as it is, may be put aside.
>
> > But in our age the opposite is true. Suddenly, we are within touching
> > disance of a global comprehension of the reality of human existence
> > and, also, of the perils it entails. Also, never more have we needed
> > the cooperation and the increased efficiency that will flow from such
> > global comprehension. In the absence of this cooperation we are - it
> > would seem - doomed to a century of chaos. Even the presence of
> > cooperation will promise no easy passage. The presence of an agreed
> > concept of human potential and the human place on the planet and,
> > indeed, in the universe itself would be a help. It will not occur
> > easily. But it will not occur at all unless it is first mooted.
>
> No, it not Life, and its not Humans its the Knowledge Stupid !!
>
> Humans are just knowledge driven beings and we are part of the evolution of
> knowledge on this planet. When better knowledge machines are developed then
> humans will become extinct. Its knowledge and understanding that evolves.
>
I don't agree with your use of "extinct" since if these knowledge
machines are actually man made machines that transcend humans, they
may keep us alive. Or if your saying better biological machines evolve
from humans, then humans will not have gone extinct, but would have
changed, as we change slightly every generation now. Accourding to
evolution the primates that became us didn't go extinct, they became
us by changing. Then there is the possibility that the "better
knowledge machines" would make us go extinct are not us then already.
> NM
tg
This would work only if there were a mechanism to limit population.
What you suggest is exactly what happens 'naturally', but we are
constrained from such liberty because our 'environment' is an
inescapable mass of other humans.
-tg
tg
>
> > > They alter continuously. Thus, we need new forms of control and new
> > > institutions. And our discoveries - agriculture, say - may spawn
> > > disasters.
>
> Sounds similar to another similar false argument;
>
> (1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
>
> (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and
> wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
> culture.
>
> (3) The conclusion (2) does not really follow from the premise (1)
> since, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
> false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies.
> people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
> differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
> case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow
> logically from this sort of premise.
>
>
First, I don't see the analogy with what came before.
Second, you are not correct in suggesting that (3) is a non sequitur.
Here you are guilty of begging the question, since your phrase
"concerns *what really is the case*" (my italics) is in fact what you
are trying to demonstrate.
I would say that 'objective truth' is commonly understood to mean
"that proposition on which (almost) all individuals would agree." So
it would indeed follow that a proposition like "homosexual acts are
immoral" demonstrates that there is no objective truth in morality.
-tg
Joseph Humming
comprehensive as to encompass the individual demands of every human
being. But we as members of particular groups or religions have made
much of particular visions that we deemed unique to these groups. So
the notion of a vision or worldview is central to our existence. I am
suggesting that we have not as yet had a worldview focused on the
human species as such.
>
> > That seems a definite place. If we took a
>
> > > different place what would it be?
>
> > Our place is here. Our role, our vision of ourselves, our view of
> > human potential, our recognition of our unique status in the chain of
> > life, has still to be developed.
>
> I totally agree. And the way it will be developed, and should be
> developed, is for each person and society to try what they think is
> appropriate for them. In due time a worldwide consensus may emerge
> but we are far from that now.
That would seem to be to be more of an individual thing - how
individuals will live in an intelligent global system. I would hope
that such a system would nurture the individual and maximise
opportunity generally.
Joseph Humming
configuration of matter that gives rise to the phenomena we associate
with mind. Yes, I sense that we will one day supersede our very
elementary combination of intelligence and emotion. I don't want that
to happen - but as gene therapy and bio-engineering advances we will
inevitably seize such opportunities as arise. Why stay with pain,
senility and death?
But that's a long way off. In the meantime it would be nice to
organise our affairs intelligently on the planet. I'm optimistic - but
fearful.
>
> NM- Hide quoted text -
Immortalist
>
> > > > They alter continuously. Thus, we need new forms of control and new
> > > > institutions. And our discoveries - agriculture, say - may spawn
> > > > disasters.
>
> > Sounds similar to another similar false argument;
>
> > (1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
>
> > (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and
> > wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
> > culture.
>
> > (3) The conclusion (2) does not really follow from the premise (1)
> > since, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
> > false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies.
> > people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
> > differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
> > case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow
> > logically from this sort of premise.
>
> First, I don't see the analogy with what came before.
>
It was of the general argument form: relativism, which is
contradictory since if true the conclusion that things are relative
may not apply to other people since they may differ, but if they
differ relativism is true, which is circular in that the argument
would go on and on with no final base or even eak foundation belief
for slowing the vicious circle down.
> Second, you are not correct in suggesting that (3) is a non sequitur.
> Here you are guilty of begging the question, since your phrase
> "concerns *what really is the case*" (my italics) is in fact what you
> are trying to demonstrate.
>
Exactly, it is like a skeptic saying that "everything in this sentence
is false" if true then it is false if false it is true, seems to verge
on non sequiter and/or contradiction.
no ethical standards can be known to be correct, because no standard
is more reasonable than all the others and consequently, none is
justifiable as the correct one.
But it looks like an if I can't you can't, since your assumption also
steal the concept of "what really is the case" so it may be
undeterminable.
> I would say that 'objective truth' is commonly understood to mean
> "that proposition on which (almost) all individuals would agree." So
> it would indeed follow that a proposition like "homosexual acts are
> immoral" demonstrates that there is no objective truth in morality.
>
I would rather call that "onjective functionality" since it would be
the fallacy of appeal to the populace to claim something was true
because most people want it to be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Thanx for noticing. I believe that the only resort is the "what works
and is necessary for survival is more justifiably moral than other
things" but this at the biological level of emotions. If these
emotions are moral guides and have taken much time to evolve, they are
indicator of what has been helpful for humans on earth.
> > > NM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ed
on the planet as equals, I think that's what you're driving at. I'm
suggesting that instead of reasoning our way to such a view, we look
at world views of smaller groups and see which of them seems best
suited to be the world view of the species as a whole. Informally, I
can't think of an existing one that seems ready for "prime time". I
greatly fear that one reached by reasoning about it will prove flawed
if implemented. All the ones tried to date seem flawed to me. We need
to experiment, as we are, indeed, doing, until a particular world view
commends itself by its success.
Surely one crucial aspect of species-wide world view is how that view
will be successfully disseminated. No group on the planet to date has
had a world view that other groups are anxious to adopt in lieu of
their current view.
Joseph Humming
Very interesting - tho I suggest that the hand can be overridden by
the tools we design. I don't know enough about the pancreas to say
anything. But I would suggest, generally, that the human brain - or at
the very least the institutions created by the human brain - are
considerably more adaptive than the pancreas. After all, the brain is
by definition a responsive organ - whereas the pancreas is solely
functional.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principlehttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2004.pdfhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/JCEP2006.pdf
>
> > > They alter continuously. Thus, we need new forms of control and new
> > > institutions. And our discoveries - agriculture, say - may spawn
> > > disasters.
>
> Sounds similar to another similar false argument;
>
> (1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
>
> (2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and
> wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
> culture.
>
> (3) The conclusion (2) does not really follow from the premise (1)
> since, even if the premise is true, the conclusion still might be
> false. The premise concerns what people believe: in some societies.
> people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
> differently. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
> case. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow
> logically from this sort of premise.
Nah. I'm not judging here. All I'm saying is that different situations
produce different responses - and the institutions eminating from
those responses constitute a body of thought and practive that halt or
hinder adaptation in subsequent generations.
Preventer of Work
The problem with is in seeing 'moral relativism' as all or nothing, that
it applies to every case. Some things really are pretty clear to most
people (such as rules against murder). Most stuff is subject to
disagreement, but of those, I suspect the relativism is occasionally
tilted in favor of one or another view, or perhaps just a few points.
Moral relativism best fits those things where the outcome is not
particularly important, or where in varying social contexts, varying
"truths" can apply. When there is a body count, relativism does not work.
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good post. Have to think about this. Will get back. Come on, Chelsea!
Come on, Munster!
Joseph Humming
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tg
> tg wrote:
> > On May 20, 1:54 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 19, 4:53 pm, "~~NoMad~~" <nomadjp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Joseph Humming" <jos...@humanisation.org> wrote in message
>
What constitutes a 'rule against murder'?
There are laws relating to individuals killing other individuals, and
the penalties vary according to the circumstance. But those laws do
not require the existence of any moral code.
-tg
ZerkonX
> Life does what life is programmed to do. ...
which leads to this..
> The presence of an agreed concept of human
> potential and the human place on the planet and, indeed, in the universe
> itself would be a help. It will not occur easily. But it will not occur
> at all unless it is first mooted.
You want some sort of finality in clarity. This is based on the idea that
'life is programed'. Since it is, there must be a way to understand the
code.
What if it is life that 'programs', the code is constantly being re-
written and the clarity you want is not possible outside of a given
moment for a given specific situation?
I do not think there is any perfect place for the human, or anything
else, other than the place occupied at any moment. The rest is a
temporary cultural or civic consideration, not an absolute one.
Joseph Humming
Fair point. I accept the notion that every location and every occasion
has its own parameters and its own demands and will generate a
particular response or responses. But...I think we represent a
particular opportunity in evolution - and, indeed, in the universe as
a whole. I think our intelligence enables us to uncover the entire
processes of the universe and of nature and, in time, will enable us
to play a significant role in the future of the latter, if not the
former. I think this capability should form the basis of our view of
our own standing in nature. Most religions have created vast value
systems based on far more tenuous suppositions. By the way, I have no
theory or notion of "perfection". I only wish that we come to terms
with our situation and that we derive the value inherent in it.
ZerkonX
> I only wish that we come to terms
> with our situation and that we derive the value inherent in it.
Why do you think this is not being done? "Coming to terms" seems a
unrealistic finality if change is perpetual.
Religion, as you say, is a type of finality. The error in religion has
always been in it's finality's. Finality, in the "we" sense, seems to be
the error, religious or not.
So going by your posts, you have derived inherent value which can be
argued against or argued for by others. Some might agree, others may not
and still others do not care at all. The demand, then, is put on others
to see things your way. You present a well reasoned position. I do not
think you can do much better other than by demonstration.
Joseph Humming
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:23:04 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:
> > I only wish that we come to terms
> > with our situation and that we derive the value inherent in it.
>
> Why do you think this is not being done? "Coming to terms" seems a
> unrealistic finality if change is perpetual.
The universe was formed in a particular manner at a particular point
of time, or non-time (!); the earth likewise; life evolved in a
particular manner; we evolved in a particular manner; we have a
particular range of capability...By "coming to terms" I simply mean
recognising all of the above and deriving a value system based on it -
instead of deriving value from some fantastical conjecture, as happens
with religion.
But even if our overal situation is fixed we still have the ongoing
drama of our day-to-day situation. Change is perpetual!