User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 26 of 26

  1. #21
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    I would agree that within the context of natural selection there is no "good" or "bad" only "survives" and "does not survive".

    Humanity's activities are still a natural force, species that adapt to life with humans will be "fitter" for survival while we're still around, sure they're putting the bank on humans hanging around and there is risk in that but the same goes for most symbiotic/parasitic relationships.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  2. #22
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    You said that the only criteria one must measure is: survival (Y/N).

    I countered that survival must be dependent on the how.
    How the species survives is irrelevant, as long as it does. If it starts evolving, but the changes backfire, then it no longer survives. Natural selection failed for this species. But it's still irrelevant how, what matters is that it did. Clearly how it does it effects the success rate. But like in an FPS game, it doesn't matter with what weapon I use to kill my enemy, or even if I kill him directly at all. It only matters that he dies. That is my position.




    Your point to this is: so what? why still the commentary of bad? everything changes. The salmon dying out is just one of the natural phenomena. Another will take its place.
    Sort of. And also, even if the place never gets filled again, why is that place important anyway?

    And, I'm saying that 'another will take its place' is redundant, because the 'place' we're speaking of is 'artificial'. I.e., that because of the sudden 'artificial' pressures, in mass amount, to the environment, by human activity, means that imbalance is getting added to more imbalance, and, because there's no stability (predictability) to the base/environment, whatever course natural selection for a species follows is less than optimal. It's really not naturally selecting for traits that insures 'survival of the fittest', only an illusion to it, as there's imbalance, so will collapse on itself. Hence, what we're really seeing is less than optimal in terms of what natural selection drives to do....survival of the fittest. We (being Yc - the fish industry) want the fittest to survive, but our activity is actually giving an illusion that the 'fittest' are surviving, in terms of what it means 'natural selection, because it's really the weaker that are surviving.

    * We're derailing natural selection by artificially creating 'scenarios' for species to adapt to(or not).
    What's the difference between artificial and real "places"? Where is the line drawn? I'm not seeing how human actions are artificial. We're predators too, we're animals, and we're part of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Precisely.
    Perhaps salmon is just destined to be a loser, with humans superior in the end. Perhaps there will eventually be another organism that will surpass humans and cause our extinction? Basically, so what?
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  3. #23
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    I would agree that within the context of natural selection there is no "good" or "bad" only "survives" and "does not survive".
    I agree.

    Here's where I don't (completely):

    Humanity's activities are still a natural force,
    In scientific circles, when we refer to the term 'human activity', we categorize it as different from 'natural forces'/ natural activities...we either call it: human activity and natural activity or, call the former 'artificial' vs natural (latter).

    For example, see papers such as:
    Investigations into the effects of human activities on the hydrological cycle in the Yellow River Basin

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    How the species survives is irrelevant, as long as it does. If it starts evolving, but the changes backfire, then it no longer survives. Natural selection failed for this species. But it's still irrelevant how, what matters is that it did. Clearly how it does it effects the success rate.
    We're not speaking on behalf of natural selection. Of course, it is a process that doesn't cognitively think. I.e. have an opinion

    As such:
    But like in an FPS game, it doesn't matter with what weapon I use to kill my enemy, or even if I kill him directly at all. It only matters that he dies. That is my position.
    This is also not true. It has NO position then, really, if we follow your inferred logic about natural selection (not even)thinking it (ir)relevant who lives/or dies (which as I point out above, I agree). It would then be: No position. Not even to kill.

    (btw, total over-my-head reference, dunno what FPS is, I don't play/know about video games)

    Sort of. And also, even if the place never gets filled again, why is that place important anyway?
    Because, place is [finite/bounded]. Place is earth. So, place can be/need to be considered as a variable in whatever equation we apply to living organisms and their process of evolution.

    Only thing...there still has to be *living* things for theory of evolution to be valid. Things. Needing. to. be. alive.


    What's the difference between artificial and real "places"? Where is the line drawn? I'm not seeing how human actions are artificial. We're predators too, we're animals, and we're part of nature.
    I'm sure there's some dialogue/discourse papers on Philosophy of Science discussing etymology and definitionally derived differences of scientific terms, but, as I pointed out to Quinlan earlier...'dems the terms.

    Perhaps salmon is just destined to be a loser, with humans superior in the end. Perhaps there will eventually be another organism that will surpass humans and cause our extinction? Basically, so what?
    Human superiority is a special kind of superiority...one that is the burden, responsibility* and priviledge* of the human critically-thinking mind.

    * (I subjectively believe)

  4. #24
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    In scientific circles, when we refer to the term 'human activity', we categorize it as different from 'natural forces'/ natural activities...we either call it: human activity and natural activity or, call the former 'artificial' vs natural (latter).
    The distinction is made because it is useful for us to know what the consequences of our effects are. But thinking beyond those terms, it's quite clear that humans are a part of nature, and thus are a natural force.

    We're not speaking on behalf of natural selection. Of course, it is a process that doesn't cognitively think. I.e. have an opinion

    As such:


    This is also not true. It has NO position then, really, if we follow your inferred logic about natural selection (not even)thinking it (ir)relevant who lives/or dies (which as I point out above, I agree). It would then be: No position. Not even to kill.

    (btw, total over-my-head reference, dunno what FPS is, I don't play/know about video games)
    Of course technically it doesn't have a position or a purpose. But imagining it as a conscious force, it's goal would be for survival of the species that it is watching over, yes?

    FPS. First Person Shooter. Basically this. For more common example (but still a game ): it'd be like in chess. You have to checkmate the opponents king, but it doesn't matter the specific series of moves that led up to that, only that you did. Winning or losing is defined only by if the king is in checkmate or not.

    Because, place is [finite/bounded]. Place is earth. So, place can be/need to be considered as a variable in whatever equation we apply to living organisms and their process of evolution.

    Only thing...there still has to be *living* things for theory of evolution to be valid. Things. Needing. to. be. alive.
    The broader you define the "place", the harder it is to empty that place. If you define place as the entire Earth, then I doubt we'd have much of an ability to wipe out life completely on Earth. We could significantly set it back, and when it rebuilds it would be much different. But likely we couldn't wipe it completely.

    And even then, you could go from a broader perspective, and say "Why is life relevant in the first place?"

    Human superiority is a special kind of superiority...one that is the burden, responsibility* and priviledge* of the human critically-thinking mind.

    * (I subjectively believe)
    I agree. But then, are you arguing that it is bad for us and thus we should do something or not? Because I thought you said earlier you weren't...
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  5. #25
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    The distinction is made because it is useful for us to know what the consequences of our effects are. But thinking beyond those terms, it's quite clear that humans are a part of nature, and thus are a natural force.
    Not just for consequences, but, because we, as variables, affect the timescale of our external environment in ways that cannot be as simply computed as 'natural events'...say, predictability of climate change (forecasting into future generations). Humans is a huge confounder to this. If we look at it graphically, there's a huge spike in correlation with the advent of the technological era. And, there's no cleanly, clear-cut extrapolation for future predictions with the rogue piece we call, humans.

    Either way, I hope you're clear now on what I've been referring to in terms of human versus natural force. Again, we can go into an indepth philsophical and socio-scientific discussion regarding humans and their merit as definitionally being a 'natural' force....but, I shall let you engage this first, if you so desire. I had strictly set out to describe via piggy-backing on science and the scientific community....(not to challenge, at least here, their terminologies)


    Of course technically it doesn't have a position or a purpose. But imagining it as a conscious force, it's goal would be for survival of the species that it is watching over, yes?
    Not really, more so... survival of the fittest to the environment. Which merits a discussion on the W5 of the environment, and...how. See above discouse on distinction of 'types of activities'

    FPS. First Person Shooter. Basically this.
    Thanks! HAY-YA!!! Pow, pow!

    For more common example (but still a game ): it'd be like in chess. You have to checkmate the opponents king, but it doesn't matter the specific series of moves that led up to that, only that you did. Winning or losing is defined only by if the king is in checkmate or not.
    Chess has an end-goal, a motive, to checkmate the king. Natural selection, as a process, has no such end goal. It works to adapt to what is. What is is not as easily understood as a checkmate, esp. when the what is becomes imbalanced/unpredictable...such as with the rate change due to human/artificial activity.

    The broader you define the "place", the harder it is to empty that place.
    Depends on what you start off with, how condusive it is, it is becoming. More complex even due to multi-variable analysis. Hence, IMO, harder to guage exactly how, when we tip off towards the empty side of the glass, rather than half full.

    If you define place as the entire Earth, then I doubt we'd have much of an ability to wipe out life completely on Earth. We could significantly set it back, and when it rebuilds it would be much different. But likely we couldn't wipe it completely.
    Can you guarantee that with such confidence, given the unpredictability and potential for capacity in those animals we call humans and their inventions/toys [and inkling to try the toys out in their playground called: earth]?

    And even then, you could go from a broader perspective, and say "Why is life relevant in the first place?"

    Well, to put it simply, if we're talking stictly of the theory of evolution and natural selection....as I pointed out before. We kinda need living things. That was an assumed premise of our discussion. No?

    I agree. But then, are you arguing that it is bad for us and thus we should do something or not? Because I thought you said earlier you weren't...
    I was responding to this thought of yours, from the previous post of yours, V, which I think is a non-sequitur, hence respond in kind (i.e., subjectively describe what it means in terms of us humans commenting on human roles...so what indeed, what makes us special, what affords us even the notion to think of such a term as 'superiority'?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Perhaps salmon is just destined to be a loser, with humans superior in the end. Perhaps there will eventually be another organism that will surpass humans and cause our extinction? Basically, so what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Human superiority is a special kind of superiority...one that is the burden, responsibility* and priviledge* of the human critically-thinking mind.

    * (I subjectively believe)
    As soon as you introduce the word superiority, there's a heirarchy you prescribe to humans (and humanity). It is again a commentary afforded by our critically thinking mind. The unique feature in humans - the mind-blowing (pardon the pun) capacity of the human mind.

    Which affords us thoughts like: Us being on the top of the food chain. Do you thinks lions realize where on the food chain they fall? That there is even a food chain? All they know is deer. Kill. Eat. Not, I am a lion, I hold greater power over deer, in the grander scheme of this thing called the animal kingdom, hence, can kill.

    So, you brought in human superiority, and I commented on it subsequently, not as part of the larger discussion b/w us at hand (hence my aside that, I'm commenting subjectively now)

  6. #26
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Not just for consequences, but, because we, as variables, affect the timescale of our external environment in ways that cannot be as simply computed as 'natural events'...say, predictability of climate change (forecasting into future generations). Humans is a huge confounder to this. If we look at it graphically, there's a huge spike in correlation with the advent of the technological era. And, there's no cleanly, clear-cut extrapolation for future predictions with the rogue piece we call, humans.
    Isn't what you're saying here basically that humans are a very powerful and unpredictable natural force?

    Either way, I hope you're clear now on what I've been referring to in terms of human versus natural force. Again, we can go into an indepth philsophical and socio-scientific discussion regarding humans and their merit as definitionally being a 'natural' force....but, I shall let you engage this first, if you so desire. I had strictly set out to describe via piggy-backing on science and the scientific community....(not to challenge, at least here, their terminologies)
    I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied science but surely within the context of natural selection the activities of humans are a natural force just as the activities of any other animal are considered a natural part of selection?


    Chess has an end-goal, a motive, to checkmate the king. Natural selection, as a process, has no such end goal. It works to adapt to what is. What is is not as easily understood as a checkmate, esp. when the what is becomes imbalanced/unpredictable...such as with the rate change due to human/artificial activity.
    I agree there is no end goal, how I see it is more like a checker board, with one player "life" playing against another "natural forces". Life's strategy is simply keep trying new tactics with each piece, whatever tactics work those pieces will move forward "survive", and the tactics that don't work will be removed "extinction". The game never ends, just individual pieces using random tactics, some move forward and some get removed. Now consciousness is a very risky tactic for life, it has immense potential as a survival advantage but also has the same potential to knock all the other pieces and itself out of the game, given this it is still no less a valid and therefore natural than any other tactic. Hope that makes some sort of sense.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

Similar Threads

  1. Has there ever been an INTP President?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 08:59 AM
  2. [ENFP] To ENFPs, what has your experience been dating an ENTJ?
    By purpleloosestrife in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2011, 09:04 PM
  3. Ecstasy and Natural Selection
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 02:56 AM
  4. Has MBTI/Typology been a big factor in your life?
    By Fluffywolf in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 09:26 AM
  5. Reuters: Has power grid been hacked? U.S. won't say
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 11:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO