Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corgan Sow · 10-18-2002, 09:55 PM

Positive and negative sides of atheism?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000330" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000330</a>

Liquidrage · 10-19-2002, 03:40 PM

Seraphim,

My gift to you.

Philosoft · 10-19-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:
By Philosoft :

"Why is Darwin himself responsible for explaining this? The Neo-Darwinist theories aren't good enough for you?"

Seraphim : Because I'm familiar with Darwin's work. Maybe you could give me some link to this Neo-Darwinist theories.

These are simply the things that have been added, subtracted, or confirmed about evolution by natural selection since the advent of Darwin's original theory. Surely you can find something to read about the last 100+ years of evolutionary research?

Quote:

"Outstanding. Now what makes this particular phenomenon "beyond the normal evolution"? For that matter, what is "normal evolution"?"

Seraphim : Normal Evolution? I will try.
In animal world - normal evolution involves either for survival (against predators) or for food (if predator, ability to catch more prey).

Really?

Quote:

Cat family grow fangs, and claws and develop hunting abilities that suites their survival and this didn't change much for the last few million years, thus could be considered as Normal evolution.
In layman's term, anything an animal develops for sake of survival (whether against prey or getting food or other things) is consider to be normal evolution.

What about sexual selection? There are thousands of examples of evolved characteristics that serve only to attract the opposite sex. We could spend a whole thread talking about birds alone.

Quote:

In human evolution however, you will see some branching from this normal animal standard.

Naturally, since your standard is completely wrong.

Quote:

Human as early as 250,000 years ago begin to develop arts and argicultural. If a human is an animal and follows the normal evolution which an animal follows, WHAT is the purpose of Art?

<a href="http://char.txa.cornell.edu/art/introart.htm" target="_blank">Many popular theories.</a> I am really surprised you barge in here barking without knowing about this stuff. It's not that hard to find accurate information on the internet.

Quote:

An animal could scavenge whatever it needs from the nature, it will not clear the land and cultivate the land since no other creature did before.

Eh? Obviously, agriculture was more conducive to survival, especially for a social species.

Quote:

And development of religion as well. Atheists consider (I read somewhere) that earlier humans worship the elements because they were afraid of it - elements such as fire, wind, water and earth is considered by them as something above them. Does this is what an animal could do? fear something it couldn't see?

I really don't understand.

Quote:

An leopard in the wild now will take cover under the tree when rain comes, NOT because it is afraid of the water, because it doesn't want to get wet, thus reducing it's speed (due to wet coat) not to mention the cold.

So humans have different reasons for avoiding water than leopards?

Quote:

Seraphim : Crows as example will catch anyone surprise. But what surprised me more is that there IS still some scientists in the world who could waste time and resources in such experiments. IF a crow does this in the wild, it can be said to have some value, but in captivity? How do you know that the crow had not imitated the scientists?

Because they control for this. If the researchers were performing the task themselves in plain view of the crow, this would have been an intended part of the experiment. Are you saying the researchers were doing imitatible behavior in plain view of the crow by accident?

Quote:

Or it was using it's ONLY available options given to it? Such experiment hold no value.

It is simply not the case that this experiment holds no value and you are obviously not qualified to make that judgement for the scientific community.

Quote:

"You haven't even made a probabilistic argument for the soul, much less a necessary argument."

Seraphim : I did explain what soul is (sentient being) and we reach the part of proving it.

"Sentient being" is not a defined thing. I cannot conceptualize "sentient being" apart from physical being. The only thing you have shown are behaviors, for which no coherent case exists that they are the product of something other than the brain. You have few options: 1) produce an observable soul, or 2) make a sound argument that the behaviors you have indicated have low probabilities of being brain-generated and are better explained by supernaturalism.

Quote:

I'm not sure whether which part you do accept though. And while you at it, what type of "necessary argument" do you require?

You can try to make an argument of logical necessity. That is, you can attempt show that the result of the hypothetical state-of-affairs in which the soul does not exist leads to a logical contradiction.

Quote:

Seraphim : Don't understand. I said the Mind's role is NOT to baby-sit the Brain but to return back to it's original energy state (highest energy state it could achieve) as it was before the Big Bang occured. So which one you didn't understand?

What does the mind do that the brain cannot do?

Quote:

"And this has what to do with the mind? "

My reply : It get attached with bodily attachments, in this case, the need to be with the girl. When that happens, the Mind is clouded with desire and other more complex emotions (generated from the desire to be with the girl) thus become more and more attached to the body.

So the mind itself does not generate emotions? Isn't this removing a huge part of the essence of human thought?

Quote:

And the more and more it is attached to the body, further and further it gets from it's goal of reaching an higher state of energy which is it's original purpose.

Uh, how is it you know what is the "origial purpose" of the mind?

Quote:

"So what does the mind do sans emotions? "

My reply : What does the mind do with what emotions? What sans means?

Sorry. Sans is French for without.

Quote:

"You should really go tell someone about this breakthrough theory. There's a Nobel Prize with your name on it."

Seraphim : I believe they already did a documentary on Hitler. Not sure whether it was from, one of the documentaries run by Discovery Channel about World War 1 and 2.

Yeah, but no one else seems to know as much as you about the cause of his warped mental state.

Quote:

"The next possible thing? Jews? What the hell??"

Seraphim : In Hitler's example, it is better for him to hate the Jews rather than face his own limitation and failure.

Why the Jews in particular?

Quote:

You can see the same examples now with the Muslims (particularly Osama bin Laden) with their so-called excuses with 9-11 Incident and their blaming it on Palestine. It is better for Muslims to blame it on Palestine, Jews and Kafirs rather than to turn around and say that they have screwed up in life.

What do you mean by "better"? Better for what or whom?

Quote:

Seraphim : I thought you asked me which part of the brain which was responsible (at least according to me) for NDE and OBE. What did you ask then?

I don't remember. Skip it.

Quote:

"Very well, animals lack any semblance of religious behavior. My point is the same."

My reply : Exactly what you get from an animal with normal evolution track. I'm not surprised.

I am truly aghast at your poor grasp of evolutionary theory. You really owe it to yourself to read some Dawkins or Gould or Futuyama and stay away from the propaganda.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

10-20-2002, 11:18 PM

By Philosoft :

"These are simply the things that have been added, subtracted, or confirmed about evolution by natural selection since the advent of Darwin's original theory. Surely you can find something to read about the last 100+ years of evolutionary research?"

My reply : I do read a lot of medical research and follow whatever programmes on History, human body and etc. If anyone has any link to Neo-Darwinist, put it here.

"Really?"
My reply : I did show that Evolution of Man is somehow different than other species. Even the far-outlived species such as Dinasours don't show this much improvements (comparing to the time homo sapien came - 1.3 Million years to theirs).

"What about sexual selection? There are thousands of examples of evolved characteristics that serve only to attract the opposite sex. We could spend a whole thread talking about birds alone."

My reply : Mostly, it is not such a rare thing - Large herbivore and Carnivores mostly use tactics such as fighting for their mate as the way to impress the opposite sex, Mammals attend to do things a bit different - mating dance is most common, fighting also common.

In Bugs and Bees, now we are getting somewhere. We could see anything from colorful display of colors on the body (butterflies) to singing (frogs) and making nests (birds usually make nest and allow the females to choose).

"Naturally, since your standard is completely wrong."

My reply : Really? Then if my standard is wrong, then humanity could still be in Africa right now, sitting around a campfire and eating something raw. Better yet ... homo sapien couldn't have made it out of Africa and die in the last Ice Age over 100,000 years ago.

"Many popular theories. I am really surprised you barge in here barking without knowing about this stuff. It's not that hard to find accurate information on the internet."

My reply : I read those popular theories - Art as religious significance, way to impress this and that etc. It is still doesn't answer the basic question of them all - If Humanity is an animal (just like any other animals around), why do he need Art in the first place?

Animals do not need art - I don't see a Cheeth drawing something in the tree just because it was to please some unknown God. If humans are animals, why does it need to have a religion? All this is the BASIC question which unanswered and the best those popular theory could say is that humanity evolved.

"Eh? Obviously, agriculture was more conducive to survival, especially for a social species."

My reply : Yes and you are missing the point again. Again, humanity (homo sapien) involved in some activity which is uncommon among animals - cultivating the land. They used fire to clear a large patch of land and selected edible plants to plant and harvest it. This is NOT something an animal could do. Matter a fact, I do not remember hearing other Homo species other than Homo Sapien did anything except gather food, hunt and fish. Someone could show me if I'm wrong here.

"I really don't understand. "

My reply : Now I remember where I heard it. I watch it from a Tamil movie a few year back where the character was explaining to bunch of people that the reason why man started worship Gods was because he was afraid of the elements around him - fire from lightning, wind, water and earth and considered by worship it, "they" (the elements) could not abuse them further.

"So humans have different reasons for avoiding water than leopards? "

My reply : Never mind, supposed to be extension of above.

"Because they control for this. If the researchers were performing the task themselves in plain view of the crow, this would have been an intended part of the experiment. Are you saying the researchers were doing imitatible behavior in plain view of the crow by accident?"

My reply : I cannot claim as such since I'm not there and at same time, I cannot avoid taking such probability to be counted for. The best bet is if the crow does the same thing in the wild (like chimp using sticks to catch ants in the wild), then it is something worth considering.

"It is simply not the case that this experiment holds no value and you are obviously not qualified to make that judgement for the scientific community."

My reply : I'm the general public, and if scientific community do not want to be criticized by a person in the general public, he or she should have come out with better presentation. A picture of a crow and claim that it used a tool like a chimp is not sufficient.

""Sentient being" is not a defined thing. I cannot conceptualize "sentient being" apart from physical being. The only thing you have shown are behaviors, for which no coherent case exists that they are the product of something other than the brain. You have few options: 1) produce an observable soul, or 2) make a sound argument that the behaviors you have indicated have low probabilities of being brain-generated and are better explained by supernaturalism."

My reply : Option no.1 - reasonable since it can be produce by using Ketamine to promote artificial NDE and OBE. Option no. 2 - I'm doing that above by stating the facts - developments of Art, argiculture etc due to involvement of the Mind and Brain.

"You can try to make an argument of logical necessity. That is, you can attempt show that the result of the hypothetical state-of-affairs in which the soul does not exist leads to a logical contradiction."

My reply : Don't understand.

"What does the mind do that the brain cannot do?"

My reply : Same question for the 3rd time. Time for a recap :

3 components :
1. Body - Nothing special here.
2. Brain - governed by basic emotions and "Fight or Flight" Mechanicsm.
Combination of Body and Brain does nothing that other humans couldn't do - thus Humanity at this point cannot consider to be anything more than an animal.
3. Mind - Sentient Being - existed since creation of the Universe, sole reason for existing - returning back to it's energy form as it was before.

Combination of Body + Brain + Mind = species which can feel emotions (Brain) and reason (Mind). Thus the purpose of Mind here changed from returning back to it's energy form to do reasoning for the Brain.

"So the mind itself does not generate emotions? Isn't this removing a huge part of the essence of human thought?"

My rely : Mind doesn't have emotions nor attachment. And What is the essence of human thought, may I ask?

"Uh, how is it you know what is the "origial purpose" of the mind? "

My rely : I have a Mind, thus I know what I want. I take this need and compare with others. Most of them do not want to suffer in the world and most of their suffering is cause by their own attachments and emotion, thus I conclude that a person suffers because of the emotion and attachment.

Now, I question myself - If I suffer because of my attachments, then why do I feel it in the first place? The question most likely be because my body was designed that way, which generated a further question.

Why is my body this way? Why did nature design a body which is weak against attachments and emotion just to suffer? The most logical answer will be - it is evolved that way.

But this is insufficient answer - no species could have evolved to suffer - animal species don't. Thus I can say that I'm not an animal thus I suffer. But my body is part of evolution which created the other animals, I have even have some of it basic mechanism at work (sex, organs etc). Thus I will come to the conclusion that it is not the body which suffers, it is something within that is attached to this body.

Why can't it be the brain that causing this attachments and suffering? Common answer will be that no organism will cause it's own downfall. If a body sensed that some action is causing harm, it will stop, thus whatever is attached to this body must be individual entity which exist in symbiotic relationship with the mind and body.

If I have something in my body that is not part of my body, then what is it and what is it doing there in the first place? To get this answer, I have to go and find it. How? Mediation is one way where a person removes the mental obstacles and find path to his entity within.

By comparing my finding with other religious people who follow the same path as I did, I can compare what is the same and what is not. Thus, that will answer my riddle of this entity within me.

"Sorry. Sans is French for without. "

My reply : Mind has no use of emotions and attachments. It exist as energy and it will return to it true form as energy after it's release of life.

"Yeah, but no one else seems to know as much as you about the cause of his warped mental state. "

My reply : Nope, what I wrote is from what I learn from vidoe tape of documentaries and books, nothing special. I definately no reincarnation of Hitler ... I'm sure he never touched a sword before.

"Why the Jews in particular?"

My reply : Why Hitler hated Jews in particular? Not sure, one guess is that Jews were doing much better than people of Germany in those time in terms of business and wealth. I heard that the opportunity he supposed to get (he was trying to get into a Painting school) was given to a Jew.

"What do you mean by "better"? Better for what or whom?"

My reply : Better for Muslim to blame everything to others rather than face their own failures. They failed to compete with other races and they couldn't accept that, my opinion anyway.

"I don't remember. Skip it."

My reply : OK.

"I am truly aghast at your poor grasp of evolutionary theory. You really owe it to yourself to read some Dawkins or Gould or Futuyama and stay away from the propaganda."

My reply : Got Links?

kctan · 10-21-2002, 06:47 AM

Homo-sapiens as a species is much different from the others is that we are a species which specialise in the usage of the brain.

By utilising the brain, we came up with the concept of using tools & with the aid of tools, the way to get food is of course greatly eased & due to the diversity of tools, the way to get food also diversifies.

Agriculture is dependant upon the usage of tools with the main components being something to make a hole in the ground so that one could plant a seed & something to harvest the ripen product. Agriculture is just a way to get food.

Art is a by product of utilising the brain as its simply producing symbols, pictures, forms etc... which are pleasing to the beholder. How does a person determine what is 'artistic' & what is not is so subjective that by pointing at the picture of The Mona Lisa, we can have as many answers as there are viewers.

There are certain species of birds out there which have an interest in gathering shiny objects although they serve no purpose whatsoever. Is it because these shiny thingies are 'artistic' to them ?

Philosoft · 10-21-2002, 12:30 PM

Seraphim,

I feel our discussion has fractured to the point of irreperability, so I will try to unify my objections: What empirical and/or logical evidence do you have that the faculties we commonly call uniquely human are not the products of the physical being, but are instead products of some non-physical spirit? We've already covered NDEs so you can go from there.

10-21-2002, 04:35 PM

By kctan :
"There are certain species of birds out there which have an interest in gathering shiny objects although they serve no purpose whatsoever. Is it because these shiny thingies are 'artistic' to them ? "

One reason why birds gather shiny things is because they want to make "attractive" nest to lure the females in. Nothing artistic about that.

As for the rest of the statement, it didn't answer my basic question - "If human's are animals, WHY do animals need Art?"

As for human are creature using the brain, so does a lot of other creatures - Dolphin and whales for example said to be as intelligent as man and produce sound to communicate, I don't see any of them painting anything yet.

By Philosoft :
"What empirical and/or logical evidence do you have that the faculties we commonly call uniquely human are not the products of the physical being, but are instead products of some non-physical spirit? "

My reply : What evidence do you need? I showed why I don't think human's are not in normal evolution, everyone become quiet.

I told as logical as possible what Soul is by using everyday example on sufferings, everyone become quiet.

I said how Quantum physics is applied in Soul in their leaving and entering the body through circle of life, death and rebirth - you asked for formula to justify it - which could be produce in a few years through NDE experiments using Ketamine.

I don't want to touch sightings of Ghosts and all because it is illogical approach to prove something in logical way.

Sounds like to me that only way to convince any of you is by having you die and experience it on your own. That could be the only way I could see.

Corgan Sow · 10-22-2002, 01:35 AM

As for the rest of the statement, it didn't answer my basic question - "If human's are animals, WHY do animals need Art?"

As for human are creature using the brain, so does a lot of other creatures - Dolphin and whales for example said to be as intelligent as man and produce sound to communicate, I don't see any of them painting anything yet.

There are species which have characteristics that cannot be imitated by other species. How come only spiders can cast webs? How come only parrots can imitate human speech and not other animals? Why apparently only lemmings commit suicide for no apparent reason? You made judgement of homo sapiens superiority yet you claimed also we yet do not understand fully the working minds of other animals. Animals like dolphins probably have their own aesthetic qualities, and we may never find out totally what it is.

Homo sapiens cannot appreciate other animals aesthetic qualities. Can you expect monkey to groove to Bach? No? Can a fly stare at painting of Mona Lisa for even a few minutes? No. What is "cheap" to you about aesthetic qualities of animals like beaver dams are actually meaningful to beaver themselves. You only assume, that is not fact.

kctan · 10-22-2002, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Seraphim:

Quote:

One reason why birds gather shiny things is because they want to make "attractive" nest to lure the females in. Nothing artistic about that.

By trying to "lure" the females in, what does it imply ? To the female of the species, its a truly master piece which caught their eye. Is it not ? Didn't artistic pieces acts the same way to you ?

Quote:

As for the rest of the statement, it didn't answer my basic question - "If human's are animals, WHY do animals need Art?"

As I've said before, its just for idle musing. We have alot of spare time now due to the progress we made by specialising in the cranium matter. Do you know that animals kept in the zoo are noted to behave differently then when they are in the wild ? Why is that so ? Does it have something to do with the fact that they now have more time to relax ?

Quote:

As for human are creature using the brain, so does a lot of other creatures - Dolphin and whales for example said to be as intelligent as man and produce sound to communicate, I don't see any of them painting anything yet.

Why should they consider painting to be aesthetic ? Have you ever try painting in the ocean ? Do you know that whales don't just product sounds to communicate ? They have their "songs" which they made for purposes that until now no human can deduce the use for. Mayhaps these are what they consider as aesthetic ?

Quote:

I told as logical as possible what Soul is by using everyday example on sufferings, everyone become quiet.

Every day sufferings ? To the eye of the beholder, its either sufferings or bliss. Sufferings are sufferings only to the ones thinking they are sufferings. The Buddha teaches about sufferings. To be able to perceive these sufferings one must think like the Buddha & when that happens, one finds that these so call sufferings are actually nothing but illusions.

10-22-2002, 04:26 PM

"There are species which have characteristics that cannot be imitated by other species. How come only spiders can cast webs? How come only parrots can imitate human speech and not other animals? Why apparently only lemmings commit suicide for no apparent reason? You made judgement of homo sapiens superiority yet you claimed also we yet do not understand fully the working minds of other animals. Animals like dolphins probably have their own aesthetic qualities, and we may never find out totally what it is."

My reply :

That is one of the LAMEST excuse I ever heard. You are applying that the reason why animals don't behave like humans is because they don't have physical similarities such as humans?
In everything an animal does, there is a purpose to it, which usually either to survive, find food or sexual advantage over other creature of it's own species. Take a dog for example, you can teach it to do tricks and it will do it as long as you give it something to eat. To a dog, doing tricks is a way of obtaining food. There is nothing special about it. As for humans, Why do they create Art if they don't get anything except maybe satisfaction (some, not ALL) from looking at it?

"Homo sapiens cannot appreciate other animals aesthetic qualities. Can you expect monkey to groove to Bach? No? Can a fly stare at painting of Mona Lisa for even a few minutes? No. What is "cheap" to you about aesthetic qualities of animals like beaver dams are actually meaningful to beaver themselves. You only assume, that is not fact. "

My reply : Monkey don't groove over Bach (his music at least) simply because the monkey don't get anything out of it, but studies did indicate that monkeys do attend to listen to music.
Fly don't fly over Mona lisa because Mona Lisa not edible.
Beavers don't know the word or meaning of "cheap" because they don't have anything that has value to keep and refer.

Come back with an argument next time. Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-18-2002, 09:55 PM	#71
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	Positive and negative sides of atheism? <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000330" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000330</a>

10-19-2002, 03:40 PM	#72
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Seraphim, My gift to you.

10-20-2002, 11:18 PM	#74
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By Philosoft : "These are simply the things that have been added, subtracted, or confirmed about evolution by natural selection since the advent of Darwin's original theory. Surely you can find something to read about the last 100+ years of evolutionary research?" My reply : I do read a lot of medical research and follow whatever programmes on History, human body and etc. If anyone has any link to Neo-Darwinist, put it here. "Really?" My reply : I did show that Evolution of Man is somehow different than other species. Even the far-outlived species such as Dinasours don't show this much improvements (comparing to the time homo sapien came - 1.3 Million years to theirs). "What about sexual selection? There are thousands of examples of evolved characteristics that serve only to attract the opposite sex. We could spend a whole thread talking about birds alone." My reply : Mostly, it is not such a rare thing - Large herbivore and Carnivores mostly use tactics such as fighting for their mate as the way to impress the opposite sex, Mammals attend to do things a bit different - mating dance is most common, fighting also common. In Bugs and Bees, now we are getting somewhere. We could see anything from colorful display of colors on the body (butterflies) to singing (frogs) and making nests (birds usually make nest and allow the females to choose). "Naturally, since your standard is completely wrong." My reply : Really? Then if my standard is wrong, then humanity could still be in Africa right now, sitting around a campfire and eating something raw. Better yet ... homo sapien couldn't have made it out of Africa and die in the last Ice Age over 100,000 years ago. "Many popular theories. I am really surprised you barge in here barking without knowing about this stuff. It's not that hard to find accurate information on the internet." My reply : I read those popular theories - Art as religious significance, way to impress this and that etc. It is still doesn't answer the basic question of them all - If Humanity is an animal (just like any other animals around), why do he need Art in the first place? Animals do not need art - I don't see a Cheeth drawing something in the tree just because it was to please some unknown God. If humans are animals, why does it need to have a religion? All this is the BASIC question which unanswered and the best those popular theory could say is that humanity evolved. "Eh? Obviously, agriculture was more conducive to survival, especially for a social species." My reply : Yes and you are missing the point again. Again, humanity (homo sapien) involved in some activity which is uncommon among animals - cultivating the land. They used fire to clear a large patch of land and selected edible plants to plant and harvest it. This is NOT something an animal could do. Matter a fact, I do not remember hearing other Homo species other than Homo Sapien did anything except gather food, hunt and fish. Someone could show me if I'm wrong here. "I really don't understand. " My reply : Now I remember where I heard it. I watch it from a Tamil movie a few year back where the character was explaining to bunch of people that the reason why man started worship Gods was because he was afraid of the elements around him - fire from lightning, wind, water and earth and considered by worship it, "they" (the elements) could not abuse them further. "So humans have different reasons for avoiding water than leopards? " My reply : Never mind, supposed to be extension of above. "Because they control for this. If the researchers were performing the task themselves in plain view of the crow, this would have been an intended part of the experiment. Are you saying the researchers were doing imitatible behavior in plain view of the crow by accident?" My reply : I cannot claim as such since I'm not there and at same time, I cannot avoid taking such probability to be counted for. The best bet is if the crow does the same thing in the wild (like chimp using sticks to catch ants in the wild), then it is something worth considering. "It is simply not the case that this experiment holds no value and you are obviously not qualified to make that judgement for the scientific community." My reply : I'm the general public, and if scientific community do not want to be criticized by a person in the general public, he or she should have come out with better presentation. A picture of a crow and claim that it used a tool like a chimp is not sufficient. ""Sentient being" is not a defined thing. I cannot conceptualize "sentient being" apart from physical being. The only thing you have shown are behaviors, for which no coherent case exists that they are the product of something other than the brain. You have few options: 1) produce an observable soul, or 2) make a sound argument that the behaviors you have indicated have low probabilities of being brain-generated and are better explained by supernaturalism." My reply : Option no.1 - reasonable since it can be produce by using Ketamine to promote artificial NDE and OBE. Option no. 2 - I'm doing that above by stating the facts - developments of Art, argiculture etc due to involvement of the Mind and Brain. "You can try to make an argument of logical necessity. That is, you can attempt show that the result of the hypothetical state-of-affairs in which the soul does not exist leads to a logical contradiction." My reply : Don't understand. "What does the mind do that the brain cannot do?" My reply : Same question for the 3rd time. Time for a recap : 3 components : 1. Body - Nothing special here. 2. Brain - governed by basic emotions and "Fight or Flight" Mechanicsm. Combination of Body and Brain does nothing that other humans couldn't do - thus Humanity at this point cannot consider to be anything more than an animal. 3. Mind - Sentient Being - existed since creation of the Universe, sole reason for existing - returning back to it's energy form as it was before. Combination of Body + Brain + Mind = species which can feel emotions (Brain) and reason (Mind). Thus the purpose of Mind here changed from returning back to it's energy form to do reasoning for the Brain. "So the mind itself does not generate emotions? Isn't this removing a huge part of the essence of human thought?" My rely : Mind doesn't have emotions nor attachment. And What is the essence of human thought, may I ask? "Uh, how is it you know what is the "origial purpose" of the mind? " My rely : I have a Mind, thus I know what I want. I take this need and compare with others. Most of them do not want to suffer in the world and most of their suffering is cause by their own attachments and emotion, thus I conclude that a person suffers because of the emotion and attachment. Now, I question myself - If I suffer because of my attachments, then why do I feel it in the first place? The question most likely be because my body was designed that way, which generated a further question. Why is my body this way? Why did nature design a body which is weak against attachments and emotion just to suffer? The most logical answer will be - it is evolved that way. But this is insufficient answer - no species could have evolved to suffer - animal species don't. Thus I can say that I'm not an animal thus I suffer. But my body is part of evolution which created the other animals, I have even have some of it basic mechanism at work (sex, organs etc). Thus I will come to the conclusion that it is not the body which suffers, it is something within that is attached to this body. Why can't it be the brain that causing this attachments and suffering? Common answer will be that no organism will cause it's own downfall. If a body sensed that some action is causing harm, it will stop, thus whatever is attached to this body must be individual entity which exist in symbiotic relationship with the mind and body. If I have something in my body that is not part of my body, then what is it and what is it doing there in the first place? To get this answer, I have to go and find it. How? Mediation is one way where a person removes the mental obstacles and find path to his entity within. By comparing my finding with other religious people who follow the same path as I did, I can compare what is the same and what is not. Thus, that will answer my riddle of this entity within me. "Sorry. Sans is French for without. " My reply : Mind has no use of emotions and attachments. It exist as energy and it will return to it true form as energy after it's release of life. "Yeah, but no one else seems to know as much as you about the cause of his warped mental state. " My reply : Nope, what I wrote is from what I learn from vidoe tape of documentaries and books, nothing special. I definately no reincarnation of Hitler ... I'm sure he never touched a sword before. "Why the Jews in particular?" My reply : Why Hitler hated Jews in particular? Not sure, one guess is that Jews were doing much better than people of Germany in those time in terms of business and wealth. I heard that the opportunity he supposed to get (he was trying to get into a Painting school) was given to a Jew. "What do you mean by "better"? Better for what or whom?" My reply : Better for Muslim to blame everything to others rather than face their own failures. They failed to compete with other races and they couldn't accept that, my opinion anyway. "I don't remember. Skip it." My reply : OK. "I am truly aghast at your poor grasp of evolutionary theory. You really owe it to yourself to read some Dawkins or Gould or Futuyama and stay away from the propaganda." My reply : Got Links?

10-21-2002, 06:47 AM	#75
kctan Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Heaven, just assasinated god Posts: 578	Homo-sapiens as a species is much different from the others is that we are a species which specialise in the usage of the brain. By utilising the brain, we came up with the concept of using tools & with the aid of tools, the way to get food is of course greatly eased & due to the diversity of tools, the way to get food also diversifies. Agriculture is dependant upon the usage of tools with the main components being something to make a hole in the ground so that one could plant a seed & something to harvest the ripen product. Agriculture is just a way to get food. Art is a by product of utilising the brain as its simply producing symbols, pictures, forms etc... which are pleasing to the beholder. How does a person determine what is 'artistic' & what is not is so subjective that by pointing at the picture of The Mona Lisa, we can have as many answers as there are viewers. There are certain species of birds out there which have an interest in gathering shiny objects although they serve no purpose whatsoever. Is it because these shiny thingies are 'artistic' to them ?

10-21-2002, 12:30 PM	#76
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Seraphim, I feel our discussion has fractured to the point of irreperability, so I will try to unify my objections: What empirical and/or logical evidence do you have that the faculties we commonly call uniquely human are not the products of the physical being, but are instead products of some non-physical spirit? We've already covered NDEs so you can go from there.

10-21-2002, 04:35 PM	#77
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	By kctan : "There are certain species of birds out there which have an interest in gathering shiny objects although they serve no purpose whatsoever. Is it because these shiny thingies are 'artistic' to them ? " One reason why birds gather shiny things is because they want to make "attractive" nest to lure the females in. Nothing artistic about that. As for the rest of the statement, it didn't answer my basic question - "If human's are animals, WHY do animals need Art?" As for human are creature using the brain, so does a lot of other creatures - Dolphin and whales for example said to be as intelligent as man and produce sound to communicate, I don't see any of them painting anything yet. By Philosoft : "What empirical and/or logical evidence do you have that the faculties we commonly call uniquely human are not the products of the physical being, but are instead products of some non-physical spirit? " My reply : What evidence do you need? I showed why I don't think human's are not in normal evolution, everyone become quiet. I told as logical as possible what Soul is by using everyday example on sufferings, everyone become quiet. I said how Quantum physics is applied in Soul in their leaving and entering the body through circle of life, death and rebirth - you asked for formula to justify it - which could be produce in a few years through NDE experiments using Ketamine. I don't want to touch sightings of Ghosts and all because it is illogical approach to prove something in logical way. Sounds like to me that only way to convince any of you is by having you die and experience it on your own. That could be the only way I could see.

10-22-2002, 01:35 AM	#78
Corgan Sow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 1,537	As for the rest of the statement, it didn't answer my basic question - "If human's are animals, WHY do animals need Art?" As for human are creature using the brain, so does a lot of other creatures - Dolphin and whales for example said to be as intelligent as man and produce sound to communicate, I don't see any of them painting anything yet. There are species which have characteristics that cannot be imitated by other species. How come only spiders can cast webs? How come only parrots can imitate human speech and not other animals? Why apparently only lemmings commit suicide for no apparent reason? You made judgement of homo sapiens superiority yet you claimed also we yet do not understand fully the working minds of other animals. Animals like dolphins probably have their own aesthetic qualities, and we may never find out totally what it is. Homo sapiens cannot appreciate other animals aesthetic qualities. Can you expect monkey to groove to Bach? No? Can a fly stare at painting of Mona Lisa for even a few minutes? No. What is "cheap" to you about aesthetic qualities of animals like beaver dams are actually meaningful to beaver themselves. You only assume, that is not fact.

10-22-2002, 04:26 PM	#80
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"There are species which have characteristics that cannot be imitated by other species. How come only spiders can cast webs? How come only parrots can imitate human speech and not other animals? Why apparently only lemmings commit suicide for no apparent reason? You made judgement of homo sapiens superiority yet you claimed also we yet do not understand fully the working minds of other animals. Animals like dolphins probably have their own aesthetic qualities, and we may never find out totally what it is." My reply : That is one of the LAMEST excuse I ever heard. You are applying that the reason why animals don't behave like humans is because they don't have physical similarities such as humans? In everything an animal does, there is a purpose to it, which usually either to survive, find food or sexual advantage over other creature of it's own species. Take a dog for example, you can teach it to do tricks and it will do it as long as you give it something to eat. To a dog, doing tricks is a way of obtaining food. There is nothing special about it. As for humans, Why do they create Art if they don't get anything except maybe satisfaction (some, not ALL) from looking at it? "Homo sapiens cannot appreciate other animals aesthetic qualities. Can you expect monkey to groove to Bach? No? Can a fly stare at painting of Mona Lisa for even a few minutes? No. What is "cheap" to you about aesthetic qualities of animals like beaver dams are actually meaningful to beaver themselves. You only assume, that is not fact. " My reply : Monkey don't groove over Bach (his music at least) simply because the monkey don't get anything out of it, but studies did indicate that monkeys do attend to listen to music. Fly don't fly over Mona lisa because Mona Lisa not edible. Beavers don't know the word or meaning of "cheap" because they don't have anything that has value to keep and refer. Come back with an argument next time. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.