stuff evolution i am human not a monkey!

[Amorphos]

stuff evolution i am human not a monkey! [just balme dawkins for all these threads lols].

we are monkeys? genes are genes and nature is nature, yet as soon as you add language to a species then the animal world and evolution is no longer fundamental. humanity builds a holistic network of meaning and artificial environments ~ and possesses imagination! it is not therefore completely driven by evolution. perhaps we can say;

the day the word exists is the day evolution ends.

sure we still evolve but it is by our own means as well as by nature. the more we understand about evolution and genes, the more we can escape their clutches.

i cannot think of anything which could make us more different to the rest of the animal kingdom. so are we apes or are we whatever we freekin want ourselves to be!

when science goes on about survivalism and the selfish gene [in its correct context], they speak as if we are still driven by them, that all of our emotions and responses [etc] arise from that. yet even though this is true, it is base. we have a layer on top of that and the ability to understand it and change it as we see fit. we have increasingly artificialised [for want of a better term right now] our condition and environment, much of which is a result of the holistic human entity we have become.

what are we slave or master?

[Copperknickers II]

stuff evolution i am human not a monkey! [just balme dawkins for all these threads lols].

we are monkeys? genes are genes and nature is nature, yet as soon as you add language to a species then the animal world and evolution is no longer fundamental. humanity builds a holistic network of meaning and artificial environments ~ and possesses imagination! it is not therefore completely driven by evolution. perhaps we can say;

the day the word exists is the day evolution ends.

sure we still evolve but it is by our own means as well as by nature. the more we understand about evolution and genes, the more we can escape their clutches.

i cannot think of anything which could make us more different to the rest of the animal kingdom. so are we apes or are we whatever we freekin want ourselves to be!

when science goes on about survivalism and the selfish gene [in its correct context], they speak as if we are still driven by them, that all of our emotions and responses [etc] arise from that. yet even though this is true, it is base. we have a layer on top of that and the ability to understand it and change it as we see fit. we have increasingly artificialised [for want of a better term right now] our condition and environment, much of which is a result of the holistic human entity we have become.

what are we slave or master?

"when science goes on about survivalism and the selfish gene [in its correct context], they speak as if we are still driven by them, that all of our emotions and responses [etc] arise from that. yet even though this is true, it is base. we have a layer on top of that and the ability to understand it and change it as we see fit. we have increasingly artificialised [for want of a better term right now] our condition and environment, much of which is a result of the holistic human entity we have become."

We are still driven by them, unless we have, by developing civilisation and learning a bit about ourselves, managed to supplant the entire system of nature itself. It is just wishful thinking to think that we have any control over ourselves beyond what we have evolved to do.

[Amorphos]

We are still driven by them, unless we have, by developing civilisation and learning a bit about ourselves, managed to supplant the entire system of nature itself.

not supplant it no...

It is just wishful thinking to think that we have any control over ourselves beyond what we have evolved to do.

we can do what we want though irrespective of our genes, they are simply the mechanism we use to our own ends.
if we made a robot and programmed it to act like an animal then it would and could only do that. if we made one that is intelligent and could override its program, then it would be as like what we are to nature.

the more we know the greater our ability to control ourselves over and beyond what we have evolved to do.

[dwringer]

Yeah the differences between humans and other species are not as easy to pin down as you seem to be suggesting... but evolution does not disagree that you are a human and not a monkey. Actually this is something like how you are related to monkeys:

[gambit]

what are we slave or master?

We are the rebellious slave, vying for freedom.

I always imagined the difference between man and all other animals is we were the first to simply sit down, look at what we were doing and think "Why?"

Upon that simple question we built everything. Instead of continuing the balance of nature, we challenged the status quo and said "We'll do what we want, screw nature."

Despite that we are still driven by primal instinct. You can bend the rules, you can push the limits but you cannot break nature. If we do, absolute chaos would ensue, whether it's in context of human nature or nature in general. Despite our desire for independency from anything that can bind us, nature is balance. It keeps life in order. When one form of life gains too much power, you get what is happening with mankind. Sucking up the worlds resources, we are delving into more and more powerful weapons that will one day probably be able to blast the Earth back into a lifeless rock. Since humanity hasn't shown any plans of stopping it's constant drive towards escaping from our genetic/natural vices, one day we will break that order.

Thats how I see it.

[AqD]

We are the rebellious slave, vying for freedom.

I always imagined the difference between man and all other animals is we were the first to simply sit down, look at what we were doing and think "Why?"

Upon that simple question we built everything. Instead of continuing the balance of nature, we challenged the status quo and said "We'll do what we want, screw nature."

I agree. But if this is human, most of us would not be worthy humans!
________
Roll a joint

[Amorphos]

yaga shu ra, hi

An idea is only an idea if we can communicate it to ourselves and others using a variety of “instruments” like language, visuals, etc. The range of instruments at our disposal is limited by our physical capacities.

agreed. the question then for me is; how much do we need to know before we gain infinite variability? once the mind has that quality/ability then it has moved above that which produced it. i think we only need a limited thought dialect - if you will, to gain infinite variance. think of plato’s ‘forms’, they are an imagined perfection, yet actually they represent ideas in the mind which are more universal that there real world counterpart. the mind builds archetypes from the transient environment, it can place these ‘forms’ together to make further forms. in simple terms if you have the plasticine forms of a sphere and a cube in the mind then with the qualities thereof one can mould them to form all shapes [e.g. + curve, corner, surface, edge, volume, density etc]. so from two very simple things we gain a universality, simply by being able to think in terms of archetypes and the variance between two things.

Can you comprehend something you cannot describe? Or only approach it, the rest fleeting?

i would ask; can there be anything we cannot describe? sure there are hidden things but if we found them we would work out what they are.

thought is not just subjective [if at all] it is a physical thing that has all the laws and principles which act upon anything, acting upon it. hence there is probability in our thoughts, which takes the realm of thought out of the constrained vision of it. in short there are many reasons why we are not entirely subject to our composition. [...even if that fact is itself part of our composition].

saglam

your a god damn monkey, thats what the scientists say.

if monkeys could talk and rewrite their genes then i would agree.

---------------------------------

to all. i am not disagreeing with evolution at all! i am saying that it has taken us to a point where we are beyond it! a simple truth really.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

i would ask; can there be anything we cannot describe? sure there are hidden things but if we found them we would work out what they are.

If something is hidden, there is the possibility for a discovery. But when out of reach, it's unnatainable.
What we cannot touch, does not touch us. It's effects will never be felt, and therefor can be discounted. Without the unnatainable, the result will be less than everything but appear to us as extending to everything none the less. So can we describe everything? yes. But can we describe everything? no!

I do like the idea you proposed for infinite variability. But it seems only valid for the hidden. Infinity within bounds... extending in an endless direction but not crossing over into the unnatainable. (e.g. two parallel lines)

thought is not just subjective [if at all] it is a physical thing that has all the laws and principles which act upon anything, acting upon it. hence there is probability in our thoughts, which takes the realm of thought out of the constrained vision of it. in short there are many reasons why we are not entirely subject to our composition. [...even if that fact is itself part of our composition].

Agreed, but does that not just push the constraint a litte further from ourselves, our physical makeup/composition, and into our limited (but not percieved as limited) "everything"?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

stuff evolution i am human not a monkey! [just balme dawkins for all these threads lols].

we are monkeys? genes are genes and nature is nature, yet as soon as you add language to a species then the animal world and evolution is no longer fundamental. humanity builds a holistic network of meaning and artificial environments ~ and possesses imagination! it is not therefore completely driven by evolution. perhaps we can say;

the day the word exists is the day evolution ends.

sure we still evolve but it is by our own means as well as by nature. the more we understand about evolution and genes, the more we can escape their clutches.

i cannot think of anything which could make us more different to the rest of the animal kingdom. so are we apes or are we whatever we freekin want ourselves to be!

when science goes on about survivalism and the selfish gene [in its correct context], they speak as if we are still driven by them, that all of our emotions and responses [etc] arise from that. yet even though this is true, it is base. we have a layer on top of that and the ability to understand it and change it as we see fit. we have increasingly artificialised [for want of a better term right now] our condition and environment, much of which is a result of the holistic human entity we have become.

what are we slave or master?

We are slave. I'm sure you know my views on humans and evolution, but the gist of it is, everything you think is human construct is just human instinct in a different form. Human emotion, what separates humans and animals, links us more than ever.

[Amorphos]

the gist of it is, everything you think is human construct is just human instinct in a different form.

you are describing the tools, i am describing the work of art we build with them! the human holistic network is a living beast itself - so to say.

edit; i agree with most of what you say gambit, but we can break nature in some ways although not fundamentally.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Put an animal on a pedastal and you'll end up looking up at an animal.

[Da Skinna]

And the word was God right?


I always said what makes us human is our ability to distinguish, discern and decide between our own notions of morality.

That includes language. Notice the alliteration.

[Copperknickers II]

"We can do what we want though irrespective of our genes, they are simply the mechanism we use to our own ends.
If we made a robot and programmed it to act like an animal then it would and could only do that. if we made one that is intelligent and could override its program, then it would be as like what we are to nature.

the more we know the greater our ability to control ourselves over and beyond what we have evolved to do."

They are not a mechanism we use to our own ends, they are the blueprints of all life, and that includes anything that humans do or think. The only way we could do anything about that is if we completely abandoned all of its principles, which we are nowhere near achieving. Understanding is one thing, doing soemthing based on that understanding is quite another. "If we made a robot that is intelligent and could override its program, then it would be as like what we are to nature."? What? Please explain why you think humans are able to be compared to that analogy? All we can possibly do is add things to our genetic make up, and turn things on or off. That is nowhere even within the range of thinking about altering and overriding it.

[Chaigidel]

we are programmed to reproduce and feed-- though some among us can willfully deny the genes

you are the master of all your programs, not the programs.

[Holger Danske]

we are programmed to reproduce and feed-- though some among us can willfully deny the genes

you are the master of all your programs, not the programs.

Lol... Matrix talk!

[Amorphos]

It varies, the simple fact though is no one has the capacity to fully understand everything, and they never will.

no individual for sure, but humanity as a whole ~ can you imagine what we will know in a million years time! it seams there is not that much left to know now let alone after countless aeons.

(unless somehow we find a way to both immortality and an ever expanding supply of brain cells)

may be possible by transferring the mind into a robot [gasp] or by making us into androids; add some bits to the brain let the brain get used to them, get rid of small parts of the brain, rinse and repeat until there is no biological brain left but you still exist in a new permanent [longer lasting and replaceable parts] body.

[Dr. Croccer]

Dolphins have a language.
Termites have architecture.
Birds have songs.
Bonobo's, ants and many others have social structure.
Nearly all animals can think.


Yes, we are totally different from animals.

[Chaigidel]

acting against your purpose more truthfully proves your consciousness

[Ummon]

Keyword is: complexity. It's quite easy, because complexity is always the keyword.

[Bovril]

Part of the OP's argument seems to stand and fall on the premise that the human race is no longer evolving, and has not been since the advent of language. This premise is simply false, and the OP goes on to say so. Evolutionary change in human populations has taken place within documented history. The most common and obvious example being increased resistance to disease within a population due to natural selection. A great example of this is resistance to plague in Europe. The first outbreak of plague in Europe killed about a third of Europeans. There were many more outbreaks, but none of them caused anything like as many deaths since resistance to plague had been selected for in earlier generations. Another good, related example, that largely comes from pre-history is the spread of cicle cell anemea from its point of origin in sub-saharan Africa to large areas of the tropical and sub-tropical world. This is a great example of a positive (at least in part) mutation increasing the reproductive capacity of its cariers as a group and therefore spreading. That's textbook evolution right there.

Yes, the OP might respond, but humans have agency in deciding how we evolve. Well, yes and no. Yes we have a good deal of understanding, and are great at manipulating our environment, but all this things sepperate us from other organisms only as a matter of degree. There is no definitive split. As Ummon pointed out, it's all about degrees of complexity. And lets face it, many human societies are far less complex than, for example, many ant societies, even if the individual interaction between humans are always more complex. And perhaps the most important point of all, as with all other organisms, our special traits are the result of or part of our evolutionary strategy. So even the most 'unnatural' seeming actions on the part of humans as regards evolution, such as euthenasia, are actually just humans using the strategies and capabilities they have aquired from evolution.

But perhaps the point of the OP was not so much that he didn't like the idea that evolution applies to homo sapiens in the same way as it does to every other organism. Perhaps he just wanted to be able to feel that as a human, he's special. And that's fine. I think we all need that sometimes. Pointing out the differences between humans and other organisms is fine (although trying to be too black and white is problematic, most of the differences are a question of degree, e.g. language, empathy, self awareness). Evolution doesn't belittle or emphasise such differences, it just tells you how they came about. So no, don't 'stuff' evolution, instead remember that it is the very reason you are 'not a monkey'.

Edit: On reflection I think the problem here is a simplistic view of genetics of the variety; I have the gene for X, but if I want to I can stop doing X. I am the master of my genes! That's not really what genes are. Genes don't code for behaviour, or thinking styles or any of the things newspaper articles tell you they do. Genes code for the creation of RNA, usually in order to synthesise protiens. If you were the master of you genes you could stop you genes producing the RNA they code for, and get them to produce a different one. That might be a bit more complicated.