Meaning of Life
ordos_ren
I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
concerned, a reasonable answer. Many who try to answer this look in the
wrong places. I looked at it from a different perspective though. I stood
back, waaaaaaay back, and examined what I saw. Looking at everything that's
on this blue planet, I finally think I got it. A few other questions need to
be answered first, and a few things realised. First question. What is the
primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
you think about it, so do we.
This of course applies to species as a whole. Some believe they have another
purpose in life and I do not dispute this at all. This is my theory however,
and some may not agree. Yet again, you might. If you have an opinion on
this, please reply as I'm interested to hear your views. Thanks.
--
"Inside of every dreamer beats the heart of a dragon"
DC2.Dy Gh L60f W- Sks,wl Cgr,bbl-,eye,wau Bfl/"poison" A- Nm M++ O++ H+ $
Fo/J R++ Ac+ J++ S U! I- V--- Q Tc+++ Df+
Mate to Larthan
Wingsibs to Kestenan, Dark Bahamut, Ninereeds, Skywise, Jacel Starwanderer,
and Tamerca
Follower of Coffeeism - Priest in charge of distributing the beans
Gilded Dawn Jenwyn
> **note. being written from typists point of view**
>
> I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
> concerned, a reasonable answer.
> primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
> different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
> second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
> forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
> but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
> chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
> breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
> belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
> you think about it, so do we.
I see the point, and I agree about evolution and gene spreading, but
you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
standards. When you can check the will to spread genes, it may no
longer be your purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm evolution and natural
selection all the way, but you can't rule it out...
Her silhouette shines in the clouds, and she rises with the sun, to
create another
~ Gilded Dawn~
WingSister to SeaKing (where are you?)
DC2.Dw Gf L++ W T Pfltw Skk Cau Bfl A F++ Nn M O H- $ Ft Fc R++ Ac+
J++ S+ U I# V+++ Q Tc+ E++#
Ben
ordos_ren wrote:
> **note. being written from typists point of view**
>
> I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
> concerned, a reasonable answer. Many who try to answer this look in the
> wrong places. I looked at it from a different perspective though. I stood
> back, waaaaaaay back, and examined what I saw. Looking at everything that's
> on this blue planet, I finally think I got it. A few other questions need to
> be answered first, and a few things realised. First question. What is the
> primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
> different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
> second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
> forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
> but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
> chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
> breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
> belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
> you think about it, so do we.
>
> This of course applies to species as a whole. Some believe they have another
> purpose in life and I do not dispute this at all. This is my theory however,
> and some may not agree. Yet again, you might. If you have an opinion on
> this, please reply as I'm interested to hear your views. Thanks.
It also is limited to genetic evolution. Humans, and I think this can be
generalized to all sentient species, even dragons, I use the term "people".
People, being sentient strive for more than "reproductive maturity", they also
strive for happiness. A psychological state.
Memetic and genetic evolution appear to have different goals. While genetic
evolution appears to be geared for, or select for, physical reproduction,
memetic evolution, appears to select for happiness, a particular mental state or
condition. Which seems to go along with a continuation of existence, beyond
reproductive maturity. Whether the dead are happy or not, is undeterminable at
this time. So staying alive at least provides a known means for happiness.
The purpose of life, is life. Happiness actually improves and aids the
continuation of that life. Depressed people tend to kill themselves off more
than happy folks. Some folks even give up on reproduction to make themselves
happy.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Ben
Gilded Dawn Jenwyn wrote:
> "ordos_ren" <ordo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2abP7.3254$J42.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
> > **note. being written from typists point of view**
> >
> > I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
> > concerned, a reasonable answer.
> First question. What is the
> > primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
> > different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
> > second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
> > forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
> > but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
> > chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
> > breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
> > belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
> > you think about it, so do we.
>
> I see the point, and I agree about evolution and gene spreading, but
> you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
> just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
> developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
> can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
> standards. When you can check the will to spread genes, it may no
> longer be your purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm evolution and natural
> selection all the way, but you can't rule it out...
Grin, I hate it when people say things better than I do. Well, not really.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Wyrm
"Gilded Dawn Jenwyn" <gilde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9049d3e4.01120...@posting.google.com...
> you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
> just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
> developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
> can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
Unfortunately, as Ordos hinted at, humans are arrogant and believe that
their possession of 'intelligence' is unique in the animal kingdom and makes
them special from all other animals. This, as Ordos pointed out, is not the
case. Dolphins, Elephants, and Chimpanzees are also intelligent (to name but
three) and as far as we know they may well think about why they are 'here'
as well. As for checking the will to spread genes, many animals do this too.
Sorry, but humans are no more weird than any other living thing (animal,
plant, fungus ...).
--
Wyrm: http://www.wyrm.org.uk/
DC2.DGmA+++!L700fW--T-PhlltCre'SksBflF~+++!R+++!Ac++NfS
J+++Fr+++!U+++!I++H++$M+"Arabella"O/V+++!Q---Tc++E
Dragon's, coming, out of the sea.
Shimmering silver head of wisdom looking at me.
Peter Gabriel - Genesis
Rwrylsin
Have you read any of Richard Dawkins' books?
If not, you might find "The Selfish Gene" an interesting read.
Crudely condensed; we're just a complicated way for our self-
replicating molecules to ensure they continue to have the opportunity
to self-replicate;)
Cya,
Rwrylsin.
--
DC2.D Gf L T~ Pfkltvw Sks Cbk Bfl A Nm M++ H+++ $ F+o R+++ Ac-- J S+ U*
I+ V- Q++ Tc+++ E--
Ben
Rwrylsin wrote:
> Have you read any of Richard Dawkins' books?
> If not, you might find "The Selfish Gene" an interesting read.
> Crudely condensed; we're just a complicated way for our self-
> replicating molecules to ensure they continue to have the opportunity
> to self-replicate;)
>
> Cya,
> Rwrylsin.
This is were the whole idea of memetic evolution comes from, although while
Dawkins coined the term, it is evident in earlier literature, such as that of
Popper as one example. And while "healthy" ideas improve one existence and
therefore the number of minds "infected" with that idea, it appears to be going
somewhere else rather than simply reproductive maturity. Fascinating subject.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
David Gorman
>
> I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
> concerned, a reasonable answer. Many who try to answer this look in the
> wrong places. I looked at it from a different perspective though. I stood
> back, waaaaaaay back, and examined what I saw. Looking at everything that's
> on this blue planet, I finally think I got it. A few other questions need to
> be answered first, and a few things realised. First question. What is the
> primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
> different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
> second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
> forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
> but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
> chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
> breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
> belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
> you think about it, so do we.
>
I thought about this a while ago and it seems to me that the reason
"What Is The Meaning Of Life?" is such a tricky bugger is that the
answer is hiding in a very unlikely place, the question.
Seems to me the meaning of life is to live, all those things that make
up life, taking your dog for a walk, watching t.v, trying to make the
world a little better, just being happy are the meaning of life. And i
reckon it's a pretty good meaning.
Gilded Dawn Jenwyn
> Greetings.
>
> "Gilded Dawn Jenwyn" <gilde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9049d3e4.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
> > just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
> > developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
> > can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
>
> Unfortunately, as Ordos hinted at, humans are arrogant and believe that
> their possession of 'intelligence' is unique in the animal kingdom and makes
> them special from all other animals. This, as Ordos pointed out, is not the
> case. Dolphins, Elephants, and Chimpanzees are also intelligent (to name but
> three) and as far as we know they may well think about why they are 'here'
> as well. As for checking the will to spread genes, many animals do this too.
> Sorry, but humans are no more weird than any other living thing (animal,
> plant, fungus ...).
> --
I understand that other species are intelligent as well as humans, but
I don't think that they realisticly have the same level of
intelligence as we do. They have forms of communication, they very
apparently have emotions and do things that indicate intelligence, but
they don't display behaviors that indicate the level of intelligence
that humans have. An excellent example is the gut fear reaction. Once
again, they can't check it where we can. And I don't see that they do
check the will to spread genes. Surely no other species on earth ahs
created a method of birth control that is a choice for each
individual.(And that choice is another point - yes, animals makes
choices, but they cannot choose to do things the way we can - to alter
their migration patterns, their eating habits, their way of life, on
an individual level.) I don't mean that thus makes them inferior to
us, just different, I suppose. I mean, all this intelligence has been
a pretty big downer for us and the world. We keep killing each other,
and lots of other stuff. (And perhaps weird was the wrong word -
unique may be a better choice. Everything else is unique, too, but one
of the characteristics that defines our uniqueness is our level of
intelligence.)
R...@reply-to.address
>**note. being written from typists point of view**
>
>I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far
>as I'm concerned, a reasonable answer.
Okay. I can understand your view that we're all here basically to
procreate, but while I'm not convinced of the existence of any guiding
force in the Universe, I don't like to be /that/ nihilistic. :=8)
My personal philosophy is an eclectic mix, but at the heart of it is
existentialism -- the idea that, while we indeed lack any external
'higher purpose', we can create one for ourselves. Procreating might
be my main goal, but if I were to eschew that and pursue a different
goal (as indeed I have), I have a different purpose.
IOW, there is no single "Meaning of Life" -- each and every one of us
creates his or her own. If we don't really choose any direction for
our allotted span, if we drift along aimlessly, we're wasting the most
important gift we've received from any deity that /may/ be out there
-- the ability to shape our own destiny.
See, I've never been a fan of predestination -- Fate -- as a concept.
If our actions are already mapped out, from the moment we're born till
the point we die, what's the point of doing anything? If I sit on the
kerb and starve to death, I'm already fated to do so. Why bother
getting up and trying to do anything different?
No, we are definitely in charge of ourselves, IMHO, and give our own
lives what meaning we choose.
I'm not sure how much sense that made, but there we go. :=8) Oh, and
on a pedantic note, humans aren't actually descended from chimps.
It's very likely we have a common ancestor, true, but the two species
diverged some time before homo sapiens became homo sapiens.
--
_________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) ~~ Rai ~~ O .---. . F
| \ \ o / O> \/| i
\ `^--^ DC2.De Gm L W-- T Phflt Sks Cbk,sbk o \_. /\| s
\ \ \ Bwi A Fr++ M R Ac J++ I-- V Q++ Tc+ `---' ` h
ksj ^--^ _________________________________________________________
Ztikks
or even life at all, are exactly what they appear to be, a rather
unlikely blip, a one in a million chemical reaction that just kept on
getting more complex as it went along?
Looked at in one light, this is very depressing, that we only exist
because of a few chance chemical reactions, or that our ancestors
figured out how to pick up the rock first. That there is no purpose to
life, it's just happening, and we have no real aim and in fact, we
realy aren't necessary at all.
Or it could be thought that, this is the most fantastic thing
imaginable; that despite all the odds against it, we have managed to
get to where we are today (for better or worse), we had no help along
the way, owe nobody anything and are entirely free to determine our
own purpose in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I realy haven't thought about it that much, I have matters
far closer to home to keep me amused ;=8).
Just some thoughts.....
--
Ztikks,
DragonCode:DC2.? Gm L W T+ Sks B- A- Fr- Nt M O H $- Fo R+ Ac+ J+++
S-- U- I-- V Q Tc++ E+
R...@reply-to.address
[munch]
>Seems to me the meaning of life is to live, all those things that make
>up life, taking your dog for a walk, watching t.v, trying to make the
>world a little better, just being happy are the meaning of life. And i
>reckon it's a pretty good meaning.
The Monty Python boys would agree -- that's pretty much what they said
in, AFAIK, the only movie dedicated to the subject. :=8)
Ben
Gilded Dawn Jenwyn wrote:
This is valid. With the exception of possibly cats, no other species has developed the technical or social
organization that humans have. Dolphins live in the water and have no hands, so they have some excuse. But to my
knowledge, neither dolphins nor elephants nor chimps have humans working for them, performing in their circuses,
nor experimenting on humans. We have fire, they don't. We have digital watches, cars, atom bombs, democracy, the
Internet, medical technology, and a host of other things that mark humans as intelligent, that no other species
does.
Except cats. Cats have kind of piggy backed onto human civilization, but unlike other animals, do not work for
humans. They get medical treatment unavailable to them in the wild, 3 hots and a cot, and at most, maybe, they have
to catch mice. Dogs are put to work throughout, whether it is flushing quail for a hunter, pulling a dog sled, or
sentry duty on the family homestead. Cats might have food that they can play with. Other than that, have you ever
tried to teach a cat to fetch?
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Ben
R...@reply-to.address wrote:
Pretty good, but I think David and Monty Python had it right. While we all
may find our own way to pursue our own happiness, goals and make our own
fate, it serves (hopefully) our lives, our continued existence.
Some people's choices do not work, some pursuits of happiness do not
result in happiness, in fact result in nothing but misery. But the fact
those choices do not result in the desired result is in fact proof that
those choice, or rather the ideas forming the basis for those choices were
wrong. Do not agree with reality. That in a nutshell is how evolution
works.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Ben
Ztikks wrote:
Actually, the idea that there might not be a divinely imposed purpose to
all this I do not see as depressing in the slightest. That means I can try
my own hand at coming up with a purpose to my life. Instead of having it
dictated by any other.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
Wyrm
"Gilded Dawn Jenwyn" <gilde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9049d3e4.01120...@posting.google.com...
> individual.(And that choice is another point - yes, animals makes
> choices, but they cannot choose to do things the way we can - to alter
> their migration patterns, their eating habits, their way of life, on
> an individual level.)
Many animals change their diets (or eating habits) depending on what is
available. Many animals choose when they go hunting depending on all sorts
of factors. Many animals 'farm' other animals and plants for food. Many
animals choose when and whether to migrate depending on the weather (and
other constraints). Many animals decide not to reproduce for all sorts of
reasons (many females choose who they mate with for example, and some
species have developed a natural method of delaying actual conception after
the act of mating). I'm sorry, but humans are not unique in these respects.
> I don't mean that thus makes them inferior to
> us, just different, I suppose. I mean, all this intelligence has been
> a pretty big downer for us and the world. We keep killing each other,
> and lots of other stuff. (And perhaps weird was the wrong word -
> unique may be a better choice. Everything else is unique, too, but one
> of the characteristics that defines our uniqueness is our level of
> intelligence.)
If it makes humans different, then I would suggest that all animals are
different from each other - which makes humans the same as all other animals
in that respect. :8)
As for killing each other - animals would do that too (and some do) if it
means that they pass on their own genes at the expense of others.
The danger here is that by focussing on intelligence as a desirable (or
unique) evolutionary trait you demean every other lifeform.
Wyrm
"Ztikks" <zti...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41551a2e.01120...@posting.google.com...
> Have any of you ever thought that the occurence of sentient thought,
> or even life at all, are exactly what they appear to be, a rather
> unlikely blip, a one in a million chemical reaction that just kept on
> getting more complex as it went along?
Plus, a geological blip which has kept the climate relatively stable for the
last 10,000 years or so (but which is apparently coming to a natural end, or
so it is predicted).
Tempest PF
"ordos_ren" <ordo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2abP7.3254$J42.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
got it. A few other questions need to <snip>First question. What is the
> primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
whatever species you belong to. All living things on this planet strive only
to do so, and when you think about it, so do we.
> This of course applies to species as a whole. Some believe they have
another purpose in life and I do not dispute this at all.
I have more of a basis for what I am about to say but here is the gist. I
believe someone from B5 summed it up best when he said "We are but the
universe trying to understand itself" Mix that with somewhat of a personl
reality that is interwoven with everyones reality and you have an idea . We
are here to be here and define as much of this world as we can comprehend.
Having offspring is only one aspect of that life. We can only follow one
vain of definition and never will that be 100% complete, hopefully our
children can pick up where we left off and continue far after we are gone.
Tempest PF
Furry Watcher of crumb crunching mutchkins that dwell in the institute of
chaos and learning
Order of the Professional PZ Pie Presenters
DC2.~D/Mcf/H Gm L Phwalt Sks,hu,wl C~>?--!,ebl-- Beg|/ph#/fl A++ Fr-- Nu M-
F~/Ht~ R* Ac~ J+ S~ Itc-[crashing, overloading] E---!
Deranged Dragon
Jenwyn) wrote:
>"ordos_ren" <ordo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<2abP7.3254$J42.7...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>...
>> **note. being written from typists point of view**
>>
>> I've pondered this for some time now and have come up with, as far as I'm
>> concerned, a reasonable answer.
>First question. What is the
>> primary concern of every other creature on this planet? Second. Are we any
>> different from them? I will answer the first inna min. The answer to the
>> second, is no. We're still mammals. I highly evolved form of chimp. Many
>> forget this and think that we're different. That we're not the same as them,
>> but when it comes down to it, we're no better. Ultimately, we're all
>> chimpanzees. So, to answer the first question, and also the big question. To
>> breed. To spread your genes to the next generation of whatever species you
>> belong to. All living things on this planet strive only to do so, and when
>> you think about it, so do we.
>
>
>I see the point, and I agree about evolution and gene spreading, but
>you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
>just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
>developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
>can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
>standards. When you can check the will to spread genes, it may no
>longer be your purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm evolution and natural
>selection all the way, but you can't rule it out...
That may ne well and good for most 'humans', but I feel that the
question has no answer. Or not one which anyone can really
undrestand, much less articulate.
The question, in my opinion, would bring forth the answer - To evolve,
be it by natural selection, or scientific endeavor.
Since the explosion of humankind on the surface of this blue-green
world [3rd planet of this star system], (An event which hearalded the
end of any previous form of dominance, excepting possibly that od the
dolphin), the idea that natrual selection was the norm, held sway,
until science finally developed enough headway, to show that
manipulation, by external forces, could give evolution a "kick in the
britches".
Therefore, to give forth an answer to the question, I would have to
say - "To evolve. As well as populate the Milky Way Galaxy."
Wyrm
"Deranged Dragon" <deranged...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3c0f7ab1...@news-server.kscable.com...
> dolphin), the idea that natrual selection was the norm, held sway,
> until science finally developed enough headway, to show that
> manipulation, by external forces, could give evolution a "kick in the
> britches".
External forces? That's the arrogance of humankind coming to the fore again.
Humans are natural (a product of nature), thus whatever they do is also
natural. So anything they develop using science is also natural. So humans
are still bound by the tenets of 'Natural Selection' no matter what they do
or invent.
ordos_ren
on that too, but I'll disclose that once I feel this thread has come to an
end ;8)
ordos_ren
>I believe someone from B5 summed it up best when he said "We are but the
>universe trying to understand itself"
Although I didn't watch it, my brother told me of a programme that was on
BBC Knowledge that quoted that too. This is another thing that we can also
talk about at some other time. Although I can't remember exact figures, the
universe as we know it is far larger than any one of us can comprehend. We
are but a fleck of dust floating about in our Solar system in comparison.
Utterly insignificant of the greater goings on. I know this has nothing to
do with this thread as such, but like I said, we might want to explore it
further at a later date.
R...@reply-to.address
>Gilded Dawn Jenwyn wrote:
[munch]
>> Everything else is unique, too, but one of the characteristics that
>> defines our uniqueness is our level of intelligence.)
>
>This is valid.
I'm inclined to agree.
>With the exception of possibly cats, no other species has developed
>the technical or social organization that humans have.
I don't follow you at all, here, though. How on earth can you say
that cats have the same level of social organisation as humans?
Domestic cats, and many big cats, are largely solitary creatures.
[munch]
>Except cats. Cats have kind of piggy backed onto human civilization,
>but unlike other animals, do not work for humans.
Many farm cats still keep rodents out of the grain, and for a good
period of history, most domestic cats filled this role.
>They get medical treatment unavailable to them in the wild, 3 hots
>and a cot, and at most, maybe, they have to catch mice. Dogs are
>put to work throughout, whether it is flushing quail for a hunter,
>pulling a dog sled, or sentry duty on the family homestead.
I can think of a fair number of lap-dogs that do none of these things.
Therefore (assuming we're being serious, and I'm not missing obvious
irony because I need some sleep *grin*), the distinction isn't a valid
one.
>Cats might have food that they can play with. Other than that, have
>you ever tried to teach a cat to fetch?
Cats /can/ be trained to do some things (like use litter trays and cat
flaps) but as the CIA fortunately found out, they're not reliable
enough to perform consistently.
I refer those who are unaware of it to Eddie Izzard's "Pavlov's Cat"
routine. It's hilarious. :=8)
R...@reply-to.address
>Tempest PF said:
>>I believe someone from B5 summed it up best when he said "We are but
>>the universe trying to understand itself"
With some personal stuff thrown in, too, as you pointed out. It's not
/that/ neat a solution, really. <:=8)
>Although I didn't watch it, my brother told me of a programme that was
>on BBC Knowledge that quoted that too. This is another thing that we
>can also talk about at some other time. Although I can't remember exact
>figures, the universe as we know it is far larger than any one of us
>can comprehend.
It's very difficult to lever a real grasp of infinity into a finite
brain, I suspect. Even if the universe is closed, and so itself
finite, it's still very, very big at the moment...
>We are but a fleck of dust floating about in our Solar system in
>comparison. Utterly insignificant of the greater goings on.
Total Perspective Vortex, anyone? :=8)
>I know this has nothing to do with this thread as such, but like I
>said, we might want to explore it further at a later date.
Whenever you're ready. This sort of discussion is the reason I like
Usenet so much.
R...@reply-to.address
>*grins* Dun believe in fate, eh?
I presume that was directed at me. Nope, not a bit of it.
>Heh heh. Well, I have an interesting theory on that too, but
>I'll disclose that once I feel this thread has come to an end ;8)
I'll happily debunk or take on board any theory that doesn't match my
own ideas. Once again, bring it on. :=8)
Inferno
> Total Perspective Vortex, anyone? :=8)
Ah!! Another Person who has read some of the best books ever!
More Randomness.
¯-¯-¯-¯-¯-¯-¯-¯-¯
¡!¡!¡ Inferno !¡!¡!
DC2.Dv Gm L W T Pahltw Sks Cre^ B~ A+ Fr-- Nf M++ O H+++! $+++ Fo R+++ Ac+
J++ S U I# V+++ Q++ Tc++ E- Df+++
Xz
<1007655729.11495....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Greetings.
>
>"Deranged Dragon" <deranged...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:3c0f7ab1...@news-server.kscable.com...
>> dolphin), the idea that natrual selection was the norm, held sway,
>> until science finally developed enough headway, to show that
>> manipulation, by external forces, could give evolution a "kick in the
>> britches".
>
>External forces? That's the arrogance of humankind coming to the fore
again.
>Humans are natural (a product of nature), thus whatever they do is also
>natural. So anything they develop using science is also natural. So humans
>are still bound by the tenets of 'Natural Selection' no matter what they do
>or invent.
Maybe, but if the current scientific trends continue, genes may play a less
important role than other factors in determining which life forms succeed
and which ones don't. I think by "natural," what Deranged Dragon meant was
"beyond control." That's the thing y'see; I can't imagine many humans
willingly passing up the opportunity for more control over their reality.
Come to think of that, I can't imagine many dragons passing it up either..
--
Xz
Xz
Ben wrote in message <3C0DE83C...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>...
>The purpose of life, is life.
Crikey, I couldn't have said it better meself..
--
Xz
Deranged Dragon
Jenwyn) wrote:
>"Wyrm" <af...@wyrm.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1007544871.12301....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> Greetings.
>>
>> "Gilded Dawn Jenwyn" <gilde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9049d3e4.01120...@posting.google.com...
>> > you have to look at humans a little differently. We're weird, and not
>> > just a little. We have this strange extra dimension to us, this highly
>> > developed intelligence that almost breaks the rules. The fact that we
>> > can think about why we're here makes us uncontrollable by normal
>>
>> Unfortunately, as Ordos hinted at, humans are arrogant and believe that
>> their possession of 'intelligence' is unique in the animal kingdom and makes
>> them special from all other animals. This, as Ordos pointed out, is not the
>> case. Dolphins, Elephants, and Chimpanzees are also intelligent (to name but
>> three) and as far as we know they may well think about why they are 'here'
>> as well. As for checking the will to spread genes, many animals do this too.
>> Sorry, but humans are no more weird than any other living thing (animal,
>> plant, fungus ...).
>> --
>
>I understand that other species are intelligent as well as humans, but
>I don't think that they realisticly have the same level of
>intelligence as we do. They have forms of communication, they very
>apparently have emotions and do things that indicate intelligence, but
>they don't display behaviors that indicate the level of intelligence
>that humans have.
Try to not judge the intelligience level of animals using a human
reference frame. Each form of life on this planet, has a level of
intelligience. But since humans have not gotten to the point of
communicating with these different lifeforms, any observation offered,
is strictly that, an observation, (read this as opinion), taken from a
human standpoint.
Deranged Dragon
wrote:
interesting concept, and imminently logical
Does this mean you wont be sharing any of my greenberry ppies?
Or are you asking for some chocolate stars?
Gilded Dawn Jenwyn
> Greetings.
>
> Many animals change their diets (or eating habits) depending on what is
> available. Many animals choose when they go hunting depending on all sorts
> of factors. Many animals 'farm' other animals and plants for food. Many
> animals choose when and whether to migrate depending on the weather (and
> other constraints). Many animals decide not to reproduce for all sorts of
> reasons (many females choose who they mate with for example, and some
> species have developed a natural method of delaying actual conception after
> the act of mating). I'm sorry, but humans are not unique in these respects.
> If it makes humans different, then I would suggest that all animals are
> different from each other - which makes humans the same as all other animals
> in that respect. :8)
> As for killing each other - animals would do that too (and some do) if it
> means that they pass on their own genes at the expense of others.
> The danger here is that by focussing on intelligence as a desirable (or
> unique) evolutionary trait you demean every other lifeform
(Sorry it's taken so long to get back, I've been busy.) I still think
that those behaviors you describe above are due in many ways simply to
genes, and not any real choice. Surely, there is some of that genetic
dictation in the choices of humankind as well, but I think it is less
than in animals. I must say that I do not agree with your statement in
an earlier post that animals may think about the reasons for their
existence. I think that humans have reached a level of comfort in many
aspects of their lives that allows them to think about things other
than sustenance and survival, and animals just haven't. If I'm
demeaning anything, it's ceratinly unintended. You don't think that
intelligence is a desirable evolutionary trait? I'm afraid that I do.
I think there is a reason that human beings adapt to and dominate many
environments in the world, and it is intelligence. If only we were
intelligent enough not to destroy at the same time...
Post-Script: No offense intended, but do stop saying I'm sorry.
There's nothing to apologize for, my good drake, it's only an exchange
of ideas. :=8)
R...@reply-to.address
[munch]
>You don't think that intelligence is a desirable evolutionary trait?
>I'm afraid that I do. I think there is a reason that human beings
>adapt to and dominate many environments in the world, and it is
>intelligence. If only we were intelligent enough not to destroy at
>the same time...
Yet we cannot seriously take on creatures like rats or ants, with all
our technology and intelligent adaption to the environment, because in
the former case they are even more adaptive, without (AFAWK) being as
intelligent, and in the latter case because they are supremely adapted
for the niche they fill.
It's all about intelligence vs. specialisation. As a species, humans
aren't particularly strong, fast, don't have good senses, can't breath
water, aren't resistant to noxious environments... the list goes on.
There are a good many creatures that are far more accomplished in
those specific fields, and in certain circumstances, can seriously
out-compete us. The cockroach springs to mind...
Point is, intelligence is useful, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.
Evolution can go in other directions, too, as Arthur C Clarke points
out in (IIRC) the Lost Worlds of 2001.
>Post-Script: No offense intended, but do stop saying I'm sorry.
>There's nothing to apologize for, my good drake, it's only an exchange
>of ideas. :=8)
It's a British mannerism, not as a rule an actual apology. :=8)
Ben
R...@reply-to.address wrote:
> Quoth Ben <dra...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>:
> >Gilded Dawn Jenwyn wrote:
> [munch]
> >> Everything else is unique, too, but one of the characteristics that
> >> defines our uniqueness is our level of intelligence.)
> >
> >This is valid.
>
> I'm inclined to agree.
>
> >With the exception of possibly cats, no other species has developed
> >the technical or social organization that humans have.
>
> I don't follow you at all, here, though. How on earth can you say
> that cats have the same level of social organisation as humans?
> Domestic cats, and many big cats, are largely solitary creatures.
Who said anything about social organization? I was talking intelligence
here (And before I go further, this is mostly tongue firmly planted in
cheek)
Can you name any other animal that has as much access to technical
progress, for so little effort?
> [munch]
> >Except cats. Cats have kind of piggy backed onto human civilization,
> >but unlike other animals, do not work for humans.
>
> Many farm cats still keep rodents out of the grain, and for a good
> period of history, most domestic cats filled this role.
True enough, but many people still hunt deer, even though the need for
venison, due to hunger, has long since disappeared. So they still hunt,
the point is that they don't have to. Because humans will gladly feed
them. We think they are cute. But for all we know this is nothing more
than a clever plan on their part.
> >They get medical treatment unavailable to them in the wild, 3 hots
> >and a cot, and at most, maybe, they have to catch mice. Dogs are
> >put to work throughout, whether it is flushing quail for a hunter,
> >pulling a dog sled, or sentry duty on the family homestead.
>
> I can think of a fair number of lap-dogs that do none of these things.
> Therefore (assuming we're being serious, and I'm not missing obvious
> irony because I need some sleep *grin*), the distinction isn't a valid
> one.
Ah, but historically, and even in most parts of the world today, dogs are
still serving a useful function for their masters. They earn their keep,
unlike the majority of cats.
> >Cats might have food that they can play with. Other than that, have
> >you ever tried to teach a cat to fetch?
>
> Cats /can/ be trained to do some things (like use litter trays and cat
> flaps) but as the CIA fortunately found out, they're not reliable
> enough to perform consistently.
>
> I refer those who are unaware of it to Eddie Izzard's "Pavlov's Cat"
> routine. It's hilarious. :=8)
The CIA found this out huh? The question is, are cats unreliable because
they are not smart enough, or simply because they don't want to play?
Either way, they get fed. :)
Haven't heard it, would love to sometime. The guy is hilarious, even in
French, a language I do not understand.
Ben
aka Drakon@work
R...@reply-to.address
>R...@reply-to.address wrote:
[munch]
>> No, we are definitely in charge of ourselves, IMHO, and give our own
>> lives what meaning we choose.
>Pretty good,
Thanks. I like to think I have a fairly consistent world view. I
didn't go into ethics and morality in my ramblings, but they're really
a separate subject -- I don't think, in and of themselves, they have
anything to do with the general "meaning of life" question.
>but I think David and Monty Python had it right. While we all
>may find our own way to pursue our own happiness, goals and make our own
>fate, it serves (hopefully) our lives, our continued existence.
Not necessarily. Some people might define their specific goal in life
as taking their own existence. That still gives meaning to their
life, even if it's one others might find repugnant.
>Some people's choices do not work, some pursuits of happiness do not
>result in happiness, in fact result in nothing but misery. But the
>fact those choices do not result in the desired result is in fact
>proof that those choice, or rather the ideas forming the basis for
>those choices were wrong.
Again, I think that's a generalisation. There could certainly be
instances where the choices were right, but the circumstances wrong.
>Do not agree with reality. That in a nutshell is how evolution works.
Reality is always there. It's how we react to it that can make the
difference -- though, as I noted above, not always. <:=8)
Ben
R...@reply-to.address wrote:
> Quoth Ben <dra...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>:
> >R...@reply-to.address wrote:
> [munch]
> >> No, we are definitely in charge of ourselves, IMHO, and give our own
> >> lives what meaning we choose.
> [munch]
> >Pretty good,
>
> Thanks. I like to think I have a fairly consistent world view. I
> didn't go into ethics and morality in my ramblings, but they're really
> a separate subject -- I don't think, in and of themselves, they have
> anything to do with the general "meaning of life" question.
Grin, well we might differ here. You see the way I see it, life isn't
possible if you have free will and no guidelines or rules in which to direct
that freedom. Without morality and with free will, we end up killing
ourselves off, and whatever meaning our lives have gets lost because we ain't
got any.
> >but I think David and Monty Python had it right. While we all
> >may find our own way to pursue our own happiness, goals and make our own
> >fate, it serves (hopefully) our lives, our continued existence.
>
> Not necessarily. Some people might define their specific goal in life
> as taking their own existence. That still gives meaning to their
> life, even if it's one others might find repugnant.
I see what you are saying here. But if you seek death, you find it and get
killed off. If the meaning of your life is death, well, you die. And no
longer have a life to mean anything in the first place.
> >Some people's choices do not work, some pursuits of happiness do not
> >result in happiness, in fact result in nothing but misery. But the
> >fact those choices do not result in the desired result is in fact
> >proof that those choice, or rather the ideas forming the basis for
> >those choices were wrong.
>
> Again, I think that's a generalisation. There could certainly be
> instances where the choices were right, but the circumstances wrong.
Are you saying that effects of actions are contextual? Again, I am not sure
how this can be wrong. If what you choose to do does not result in what you
want or expected, well, you chose wrong. Whether it is the fault of not
taking into account the difference in context or whatever, it still is a
wrong choice, you still did not get what you expected.
> >Do not agree with reality. That in a nutshell is how evolution works.
>
> Reality is always there. It's how we react to it that can make the
> difference -- though, as I noted above, not always. <:=8)
Right. :)
Ben
aka Drakon@work
R...@reply-to.address
Quoth Ben <dra...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>:
>R...@reply-to.address wrote:
>> >With the exception of possibly cats, no other species has developed
>> >the technical or social organization that humans have.
^^^^^^^^
>> I don't follow you at all, here, though. How on earth can you say
>> that cats have the same level of social organisation as humans?
>> Domestic cats, and many big cats, are largely solitary creatures.
>
>Who said anything about social organization?
You did, exactly where I've marked. Christmas rush affecting the
memory? ;=8)
>I was talking intelligence here (And before I go further, this is
>mostly tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Fair enough -- I can't actually remember what in tone the debate was
being held now, so that'll do!
>Can you name any other animal that has as much access to technical
>progress, for so little effort?
Hamsters. They have those cool water bottles and wheels and things,
which cats don't have. And they don't even have to feign affection
for their keepers to get fed, as cats do. *grin*
[munch]
>> Many farm cats still keep rodents out of the grain, and for a good
>> period of history, most domestic cats filled this role.
>
>True enough, but many people still hunt deer, even though the need
>for venison, due to hunger, has long since disappeared. So they
>still hunt, the point is that they don't have to.
There are still quite a few humans around who /do/ need to hunt for
food, though.
>Because humans will gladly feed them. We think they are cute. But
>for all we know this is nothing more than a clever plan on their part.
Many have suggested that cats might be planning to take over the
world. I agree with you -- why should they bother, when they can get
everything they need from those who current run things. :=8)
Even then, though, they serve some purpose. Doctors often prescribe
cats as a stress-busting therapy for people, so by simply taking
advantage of their cute nature, we're getting value from them.
[munch]
>> >Dogs are put to work throughout, whether it is flushing quail for a
>> >hunter, pulling a dog sled, or sentry duty on the family homestead.
>>
>> I can think of a fair number of lap-dogs that do none of these things.
>> Therefore (assuming we're being serious, and I'm not missing obvious
>> irony because I need some sleep *grin*), the distinction isn't a valid
>> one.
>
>Ah, but historically, and even in most parts of the world today, dogs are
>still serving a useful function for their masters. They earn their keep,
>unlike the majority of cats.
In the parts of the world where most dogs still work, domestic cats
are a rarity, I'd suggest. Therefore, the comparison isn't really a
good one. >:=8)
[munch]
>> Cats /can/ be trained to do some things (like use litter trays and
>> cat flaps) but as the CIA fortunately found out, they're not
>> reliable enough to perform consistently.
>>
>> I refer those who are unaware of it to Eddie Izzard's "Pavlov's Cat"
>> routine. It's hilarious. :=8)
>
>The CIA found this out huh? The question is, are cats unreliable
>because they are not smart enough, or simply because they don't
>want to play? Either way, they get fed. :)
I don't think they'd have felt food was worth what the CIA tried to do
to the test subjects. Pretty horrible, really.
>Haven't heard it, would love to sometime. The guy is hilarious, even in
>French, a language I do not understand.
*nod* Absolutely. I still think he's perhaps the finest stand-up
performer around at the moment. I've seen him live, and he's funny
even when he's performing supposedly "old" material.
Dæmon
>
> > Total Perspective Vortex, anyone? :=8)
>
> Ah!! Another Person who has read some of the best books
ever!
42!
--
Dæmon the Firelizard:
DC2.Dd Gm L--- W- T-- Pfhltw Skk
Cbz%,e~(gr/bl=hpy,ye=alrm,
re=angry) Bfl A---! Fr-- Nr M--- O H---! $-- Fc/m R+ J+++!
U!
I---! V++['port] Q++[tp] Tc+ E++
Dæmon in Real Life:
DC2.H Gm L- W- T- Cfs++,ebl\gy,f"blond"++ A- N"suburb"
M-- O H+ $ Fj-- Ac+++ J+++ S-- U--- I-- V Q-- Tc++ E
"I am become death... the destroyer of worlds."
-Robert J. Oppenheimer
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the
process he
does not become a monster... when you look long into an
abyss,
the abyss also looks into you"
-Nietzche
Stars' Pyre
how well they seem to be able to fulfill the goals we've set for
ourselves. If we want to get more and the latest computers, we might
tend to think that those people who seem to be able to get computers
are more intelligent. Hence, often people think lifeforms that spend
more time playing, or having sex, spend less time feeding, exert more
dominance over other their situation and fellow people, are smarter.
We think that the female praying mantises are smarter than the males
because they eat the males.
One fundamental question that most people don't often dare assume,
because it's so culturally taboo, is whether or not it's even wiser to
survive at all costs, or to survive at all, for that matter. Death
tends to be one of those things that people seem to know the least
about. Is it even possible to die? You probably haven't died if
you're reading this, so how could you know? Because you've seen others
die? Whether or not you have, we've certainly heard the expression,
"they've gone to a better place" right? Cultural convention holds,
very strongly, in almost all of us, it seems, that wanting to die, or
to kill oneself, is very wrong. Christianity, Protestantism,
specifically, is a fundamental part of the USA's culture, interwoven
so intimately with thought and patterns of behavior that it's hard to
notice it's there, and it seems to hold that such acts rate eternal
torment, which doesn't sound very good, does it?
I'm not yet all that coherent on this idea, myself, and I continue to
try to think about it with an open mind, thinking often I really
don't know anything about death. I might advance one thought exercise
you've probably contemplated before, what with the Matrix and dragons
in our culture and such. We could have been having some other life,
when for whatever reason we were submerged in this world, and only get
to leave and return to the original reality when we die in this
reality? One could be a dragon in such a reality.
I'll just advance one side, a pro side, because I like people are
likely to go Bad Stars' Pyre! No biscuit! for 'advocating' suicide,
what with all the people in our community who take turns talking each
other out of suicide now and again. Of course, that happens with
probably the same frequency in the larger community of people in the
world, too, but I still expect to be sternly reprimanded = P I might
be disappointed if I don't get one = P
Ah, the fun thing about rambling is you don't know when to stop. Much
more fun to post rambles than ramble then distill, I think. Oh, I
gotta go draw something . . .
Xz
(Stars' Pyre) wrote:
>One of the things people assume about intelligence about some being is
>how well they seem to be able to fulfill the goals we've set for
>ourselves. If we want to get more and the latest computers, we might
>tend to think that those people who seem to be able to get computers
>are more intelligent. Hence, often people think lifeforms that spend
>more time playing, or having sex, spend less time feeding, exert more
>dominance over other their situation and fellow people, are smarter.
>We think that the female praying mantises are smarter than the males
>because they eat the males.
Well, you've every opportunity to prove the theory wrong..
>
>One fundamental question that most people don't often dare assume,
>because it's so culturally taboo, is whether or not it's even wiser to
>survive at all costs, or to survive at all, for that matter.
"Wise" is a word that is usually applied to those who have been around
long enough to know a thing or two. Death is not conducive to learning
a thing or two.
> Death
>tends to be one of those things that people seem to know the least
>about.
Actually, it's one of those things that people know all too much
about. That's why enemies get killed; they aren't a problem then,
because they don't exist.
> Is it even possible to die?
Please hand me your gun, and I will demonstrate.
> You probably haven't died if
>you're reading this, so how could you know?
Call it "masculine intuition." :P
> Because you've seen others
>die?
Well that's a start...
> Whether or not you have, we've certainly heard the expression,
>"they've gone to a better place" right?
Hard to believe, but I was born to a very Christian family. I am all
too familiar with the term that I think was invented as a way to deal
with the fact that life ultimately ends.
> Cultural convention holds,
>very strongly, in almost all of us, it seems, that wanting to die, or
>to kill oneself, is very wrong.
Probably because most of the people you know would rather you were
alive than dead. Any enemy who really feels like being your enemy
would have no trouble with you popping your clogs, and might even
help.
> Christianity, Protestantism,
>specifically, is a fundamental part of the USA's culture,
And the rest of the western world's culture. Also, it's
Judeo-Christianity, to be more precise.
Go further east and you might find that it is Islam, Buddhism, or some
other orthodox religion that has pride of place in the public
consciousness. Whether you believe the dogma or not, the underlying
philisophy seems to remain, and is crystallised by various laws and
taboos that keep the memes alive and spreading.
> interwoven
>so intimately with thought and patterns of behavior that it's hard to
>notice it's there,
I swear to the Almighty God to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth... um,
that's pretty noticable. Perhaps you just don't look that hard?
> and it seems to hold that such acts rate eternal
>torment, which doesn't sound very good, does it?
<semicontroversialopinion>"Eternal torment": a means by which someone
who can convince you of this can alter and control your
behaviour.</semicontroversialopinion> To quote Gorillaz:
"Lifeless, for those who's definition for what life is. Priceless, to
you because I put you on the hype shift. Ya like it? Gut-smokin
righteous but one talkin' psychic amongst knows possess you with one
though!"
>
>I'm not yet all that coherent on this idea, myself, and I continue to
>try to think about it with an open mind, thinking often I really
>don't know anything about death. I might advance one thought exercise
>you've probably contemplated before, what with the Matrix and dragons
>in our culture and such. We could have been having some other life,
>when for whatever reason we were submerged in this world, and only get
>to leave and return to the original reality when we die in this
>reality? One could be a dragon in such a reality.
Personally, it's not something that I will forgoe pleasure in this
life to hold out for. Here's a thought: What if, no matter what you
think, no matter how good or bad it is, you are wrong? Will you waste
this life wishing for a next life that in my little opinion doesn't
even exist? Even if there is a next life, at least I get proved wrong
in a nice way!
>
>I'll just advance one side, a pro side, because I like people are
>likely to go Bad Stars' Pyre! No biscuit! for 'advocating' suicide,
>what with all the people in our community who take turns talking each
>other out of suicide now and again.
"All the people"? Now I know this group is sometimes known as
alt.fan.depression, but it isn't quite a mass suicide cult is it? :P
> Of course, that happens with
>probably the same frequency in the larger community of people in the
>world, too, but I still expect to be sternly reprimanded = P I might
>be disappointed if I don't get one = P
Naughty boy! *handslap*
>
>Ah, the fun thing about rambling is you don't know when to stop. Much
>more fun to post rambles than ramble then distill, I think. Oh, I
>gotta go draw something . . .
A daisy?
--
Xz
Dæmon
suicide/death is bad is because all the people who think
suicide/death is not bad are dead. It's basically natural
selection. Natural selection picks those who tend to live
and pass on ideas.
PS - I'm neither for or against suicide/death. There is
absolutely nothing we know about it and therefore we cannot
make an informed decision.
David Daarkmoon
beleive that our souls are carried on in the aftereffects of our deaths, we
become the things that are caused by our death.
I'm not sure that made sense.