Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41
  1.    #1  
    The following quote is taken from the What's With Canada thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I had a nagging suspicion sooner of later evolution would show up again... Anyway (one post, the rest in your "Evolution Thread" if you like ):

    As you said, evolution says that species develop, spread, or potentially disappear again in the course of time. You may look at this as a neutral observer and say who cares, it is just the way life on earth develops. On the other hand, we humans are one particular species and I guess most of us care a lot about not becoming extinct. The strong influence of our species on the extinction of other species (more than 750 known species extinct because of human activities, far more unknown species for sure) over a short period of time can lead to changes which are negative for the way we live, too, even if it "only" means, for instance, that there will be no more tigers (apart from zoos) in the world, or whales, dolphins, etc.
    I find nature in general "fascinating", because of how it works, looks, etc. but that's probably only me.
    I also find nature "fascinating" for the same reasons, and more.

    What I find equally fascinating, though, is that humans who recognize that they are of just one of millions of randomly generated species of beings find some higher purpose in life. I can appreciate that the desire to avoid extinction leads one to want to maintain the ecosystem in such as way as to advance that cause. What I would like to learn more about is the reason one would want to avoid extinction. Perhaps the extinction of humans would lead the greater advancement of the ecosystem.

    One key reason I want to understand this is because there are some who subscribe to this line of reasoning (from the The terry schiavo case thread):
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Sorry. I agree that we should always err on the side of life. However, we should not always err on the side of (extraordinary) treatment.

    While life is the greatest good, the life of the individual yields to that of the species, that of the species to that of all species.
    I have referenced the comments of two different members. They may not hold the same view or agree with each other in this regard. However, I perceive that the two views stem from the same root.

    Having said that, when I view the two together, I, who am also interested in avoiding extinction, have to wonder will the species get to a point where the collective decision is made that my individual elimination is advantageous to the greater good of the survival of the species.

    Understandably, I would like to defend against that outcome

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

    It is not my intent to discuss the tenets nor the merits of the theory of evolution. We already have threads for that. I am particularly interested in discussing what I perceive to be the logical end, or the implications of the theory. However, if better explaining the theory helps us to understand the implications, by all means please do so.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The following quote is taken from the What's With Canada thread:
    I also find nature "fascinating" for the same reasons, and more.

    What I find equally fascinating, though, is that humans who recognize that they are of just one of millions of randomly generated species of beings find some higher purpose in life. I can appreciate that the desire to avoid extinction leads one to want to maintain the ecosystem in such as way as to advance that cause. What I would like to learn more about is the reason one would want to avoid extinction.
    That's easy to answer... you don't want to die if you don't have to, right? Neither do most other people, so it is more than obvious that we want to avoid extinction, the death of all humans, no? Besides, do you have children? Because if you do, that answer is even more easy...
    Perhaps the extinction of humans would lead the greater advancement of the ecosystem.
    Depends on what you consider advancement. Personally, I prefer a world with humans to one without any.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's easy to answer... you don't want to die if you don't have to, right? Neither do most other people, so it is more than obvious that we want to avoid extinction, the death of all humans, no? Besides, do you have children? Because if you do, that answer is even more easy... Depends on what you consider advancement. Personally, I prefer a world with humans to one without any.
    We share that preference. I know why it is my preference. I'm not clear on why it is any concern to you.

    In short, I perceive the meaning of my life and the existence of humanity as a whole in the context of the *intent* (forethought) of my creator. I want humans to continue to exist to fully realize and manifest that intent.

    The theory of Evolution, as I've understood from previous threads, does not include such intent. As such, the "value" of a given species is at best measurable only in hindsight, i.e. we can see how its emergenece and/or disappearance contributed to the current configuration.

    Logically speaking, given that we are a species which has developed the ability to investigate our origins; and given that that investigation leads us to conclude that life is ultimately meaningless (no predetermined purpose), why should we make any extraordinary effort to prolong our duration?
  4. #4  
    I find logic/philosophy arguements/discussions about religion to be extremely tedious. Suffice to say that science is in my opine is as close to a religion as our species should get.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I find logic/philosophy arguements/discussions about religion to be extremely tedious. Suffice to say that science is in my opine is as close to a religion as our species should get.
    "Science" once claimed the earth was flat. Perhaps we should have stopped there
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    It isn't?
    I really hate that I find you attractive
  7. #7  
    I think that the nanotechnology/biotech revolution is going to bend "evolution". Scientists have already found the aging gene
    Can an intelligence create another intelligence more intelligent than itself? Are we more intelligent than the evolutionary process that created us? In turn, will the intelligence that we are creating come to exceed that of its creator?


    •[ Treo 650 on Sprint ]•
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I find logic/philosophy arguements/discussions about religion to be extremely tedious. Suffice to say that science is in my opine is as close to a religion as our species should get.
    Is not the examination of why we do what we do a legitimate, and even necessary, component of science?
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by yoskater
    I think that the nanotechnology/biotech revolution is going to bend "evolution". Scientists have already found the aging gene

    You can't bend what never happened.

    Evolution was debunked as junk science, long ago.
  10. #10  
    Pardon the intrution, but:

    note to Shopharim...keep an eye on the count. Almost there!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Pardon the intrution, but:

    note to Shopharim...keep an eye on the count. Almost there!
    Now that's the type of moderator this forum needs...a count monitor.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Now that's the type of moderator this forum needs...a count monitor.
    Just looking out for you. I'd hate for you to get lost in debate, and suddenly realize, "Nooooooo, 1,003!!"
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Keep evolution in mind: I was once an ape! (And earth was flat, thank goodness ‘cuz I hate climbing mountains all the time…)
    I bet you were more like a spider monkey
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The theory of Evolution, as I've understood from previous threads, does not include such intent. As such, the "value" of a given species is at best measurable only in hindsight, i.e. we can see how its emergenece and/or disappearance contributed to the current configuration.
    Evolution shows how (due to which mechanisms) the species on our planet have evolved. It does not say anything about value or meaning. I start getting the impression that you refuse to accept evolution because for some reason, accepting it would take away the meaning of your life. I really don't know why and how this should be the case. Again, evolution shows how the species on this planet developed. It does not add or take away meaning or value. True, it does contradict e.g. Genesis 1 and 2, but if the whole Catholic Church with over one billion followers does not have a problem with that, why should you?
    Logically speaking, given that we are a species which has developed the ability to investigate our origins...
    "developed the ability"? - Watch out, "develop" is alread close to "evolve"!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    "Science" once claimed the earth was flat.
    That's not true. The people who claimed earth was flat based their idea on religious dogmas and prejudice, not on scientific data.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's not true. The people who claimed earth was flat based their idea on religious dogmas and prejudice, not on scientific data.
    All scientific data starts as speculation. Its not until it proven one way or the other that it becomes data. My point was.... Da's comments implied that we should only discuss irrefutable fact. As mentioned fact comes from speculation.
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    olution shows how (due to which mechanisms) the species on our planet have evolved. It does not say anything about value or meaning. I start getting the impression that you refuse to accept evolution because for some reason, accepting it would take away the meaning of your life. I really don't know why and how this should be the case. Again, evolution shows how the species on this planet developed. It does not add or take away meaning or value. True, it does contradict e.g. Genesis 1 and 2, but if the whole Catholic Church with over one billion followers does not have a problem with that, why should you?
    I have not accepted evolution as fact because I'm only aware of the demonstration of its feasibility/plausability, but not its actuality. Further, I don't see that it provides a solid explanation for "the beginning."

    Also, I don't see that it accounts for humanity's "self-consciousness" nor the sense of "responsibility" that we recognize.
  18. #18  
    We do "recognize" it... Don't we?
    Last edited by sxtg; 04/30/2005 at 08:53 PM.
  19. #19  
    Can an intelligence create another intelligence more intelligent than itself? Are we more intelligent than the evolutionary process that created us? In turn, will the intelligence that we are creating come to exceed that of its creator?


    •[ Treo 650 on Sprint ]•
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I have not accepted evolution as fact because I'm only aware of the demonstration of its feasibility/plausability, but not its actuality.
    You are such a doubting Thomas. The good news is thast there are still volumes of rock-solid evidence you have not gone through yet.
    Further, I don't see that it provides a solid explanation for "the beginning."
    Not that it intends to do so, just as it does not explain how a carburator works...
    Also, I don't see that it accounts for humanity's "self-consciousness" nor the sense of "responsibility" that we recognize.
    ?? Why not? Why shouldn't our brain be capable of "self-consciousness"? If chimpanzees have self-consciousness to some degree, why shouldn't we be even better at it, with our larger and better developed brain? Chimps are e.g. able to recognize their face in a mirror, something only some primate species can achieve, and also humans only after about age 1.5 or 2.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions