Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"  (Read 10298 times)

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #250 on: September 05, 2019, 01:14:26 PM »
"Finding actual numbers is a bit difficult, but something called the Encephalization Quotitient which is based on species specific brain size vs. body size calculations puts us at 7.8 and our nearest relative on 2.5 (chimpanzee)."

I have numbers from: John P. J. Pinel "Biophsycology" University of British Columbia. ISBN: 0-205-28992-4

He says not to compare sizes of brains to try to infear more 'intelligence'. The brain of an elephant is 5-8Kg and ours is 1-2Kg. The brain of bigger men weights more than those of small women. So yes we can try to compare it via ratios of brain mass/body mass, and that gives us a 2,3% infront of the 0,2% of the elephants, but then both would be surpass by the giant of the Animal Kingdom, the shrew with a 3,33%.

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #251 on: September 05, 2019, 01:17:20 PM »
Quote"This is typical (human) group behaviour in all agricultura societies which really just proves the point: Individuals make choices, group behaviour is controlled by underlying forces that we are unable to control.

Therefore this path of development is not something that was chosen by any individual, nor was it chosen by the group (since the group can't choose). This becomes even clearer when you consider that no individual ever took a conscious decision to start this process, there was nobody who saw what the outcome would be and there was no planning involved. It just happened."


Totally agree!

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #252 on: September 05, 2019, 01:25:48 PM »
THe EQ is not simply a measure of size or weight or ratio of weight to body size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

MyACIsDying

  • New ice
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #253 on: September 05, 2019, 01:32:14 PM »
MyACIsDying, have you actually read Julian Jaynes? I haven't but if you get your concept of prehistory from him then he is not a very good historian.

And his claim that consciousness arose in the bronze age is not really accepted nowadays, with some claiming that he confused the conceptualisation of consciousness (which may well have appeared alongside writing) with consciousness itself.

As for the whole prehistory thing, I've been known to praise Ian Morris's "Why the West Rules for Now" but I'm actually re-reading it now, and it is really very annoyingly written (a folksy style, probably intended to be palatable to the average American), and full of minor errors.

But as a general overview he is quite good, and his theory of societal complexity makes the book worth reading.

Anybody who wants to talk about prehistory and the evolution of human society has to read "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond (a bit old, a bit aged, but well written and argued) and "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari (a recent, well written and well argued and very thought provoking book). Both books are written for the general public and both should be on every bookshelf.

Thanks i'll give the two latter recommendations a try. I'm not solely basing this theory on Julian Jaynes work but I regret to say I forgot what the one was in regard to prophets and class systems evolving from granaries.
I read the 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' and as I mention do not agree with all he says. I respect his definition of consciousness as he details it in the book itself so I do not agree that he confused it with the concept. You may also consider whether the concept of consciousnesses and consciousness itself are truly different things.. Could one have consciousness without realizing the concept of it? Again.. we're talking definitions now and Julian does define what he writes about. His analysis of pre-Bronze ages written texts in this regard is very interesting.

Either way, when linked with the concept of anxiety and the rise of written religion and its large following, I see some puzzle pieces starting to fit.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #254 on: September 05, 2019, 01:42:30 PM »
I guess the quib about "concept of consciousness" was meant as a snide remark rather than a valid comment (I'm not the author!)

But I find it highly unlikely that consciousness arises tens of thousands of years after abstract thought, and I find it highly unlikely that many other animals do not have consciousness to some degree. I'd bet that he had absolutely no evidence for his claims, particluarly since the oldest known work of literature is a religious epic poem from around 2000 BCE (the Epic of Gilgamesh), and to me it seems to exhibit a very high level of consciousness.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #255 on: September 05, 2019, 01:52:51 PM »
The earliest archaeological remains of what seems to be a large organized religious cult site are currently being dug up in Çatalhöyük and date from before the rise of agriculture (and remains on site show that the inhabitants were foragers).

Similar religous activities were descovered from the same time in excavations under what is now Lake Assad in Syria, althought these were on a much smaller scale (Murebet). Specifically this religious activity seems to revolve around the systematic fashioning and burial of pillars with arms (or crosses without the top piece) (this is not described in the Wiki for Murebet, I read that in another context).

Village and city dwelling ended during the Younger Drias but immedietly afterwards we start seeing hunter-gatherers in villages, and this time apparently with a new religion based around the aurox.

So the reasoning that agriculture led to organised religion doesn't really seem to hold.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #256 on: September 05, 2019, 01:59:37 PM »
binntho wrote: "...annoyingly written ... and full of minor errors ..."

These are two of the main reasons I find it harder and harder to read anything intended for general audiences. :) :/

I picked up Jaynes' book at a used book store decades ago now and quickly concluded that it was garbage wrapped in psychobabble. As binntho points out, if you read any of the earliest writings, it is clear that consciousness is already well developed. And of course the first anthropologists to interact with any non-literate society have found them to be fully conscious. I do think that writing changes society (mostly because it tends, not surprisingly, to undermine oral traditions), but not in the ways Jaynes proposes. As I recall, Walter Ong is a better read, but I seem to remember some flaws there, too...been years since I looked at it.

ETA: I'd love to see those other sources you reference regarding Mureybet. And doesn't Göbekli Tepe (again, pre-agriculture) predate Çatalhöyük?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 02:13:03 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

MyACIsDying

  • New ice
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #257 on: September 05, 2019, 02:16:41 PM »
Honestly it's easy to classify any psychology book as psychobabble, no subject is more prone to problems of definition and context. Instead of discrediting works I suggest to read such works in terms of 'what does make sense here'. Nietzsche showed me how neuroticism leads to ego problems (his own), Freud explains how adults prefer blaming kids for their own digressions in a world of oppression. Marx thought me that when one describes how a system affects a person negatively, it will be used as a guide to systematically abuse those mechanisms.

I do believe something special happened to our consciousness in relation to religion and anxiety around 1200-3000 BC based on the developments that occurred, of course we have very little insight in that time so I'll take whatever I can get.

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #258 on: September 05, 2019, 02:24:34 PM »
Quote
    Life gathers in complex systems that naturally evolve to the transition phase at the edge of chaos.
You lost me there! What do you mean by "evolving to the transition phase at the edge of chaos"?
Quote

Imagine a river flowing calmly with a big rock emerging partially in the middle of the river bed. The water flux goes round the rock and rejoin at the back of it without any visual signal there where the water joins.  If it rains upstream the flow increases and you start seen little eddies. These vortexes stay in the same place (and would attract a leaf behaving as the phases space in Lorenz's attractor)

In the next step with more water flowing the eddies are formed but they don't stay at the back of the rock, they move downstream, existing for a while till they are dissolved in the flow of water. With more water flowing the zone behind the rock where eddies form, becomes smaller and the eddies are form and broken almost immediately. The surface is rough with turbulence. At the end when the speed of water is enough all traces of order have disappeared, no eddies are formed, there's an unpredictable chaotic movement.

It is the story of going from order to caos. The interesting part is when eddies are formed, when they go downstream they break into smaller eddies that then brake into smaller ones... A chaotic exponential progression (like fractals). And  this happens before total chaos.

The analogy comes from placing ourselves in the interesting part. Looking at how it rains upstream.

(For an easy introduction too chaos theory and the origin of life:   John Griffin "Deep Simplicity: Bringing order to Chaos and Complexity")

Sorry nanning, morality is too slippery for me to join.

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #259 on: September 05, 2019, 02:29:25 PM »
This is an interesting study posted in the forum long ago.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160802104526.htm
"University of Utah anthropologists counted the number of carbon-dated artifacts at archaeological sites and concluded that a population boom and scarce food explain why people in eastern North America domesticated plants for the first time on the continent about 5,000 years ago."

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #260 on: September 05, 2019, 03:21:45 PM »
I guess I could have googled, but the first link gave me this explanation:

Quote from: https://systemsinnovation.io/edge-of-chaos-article/
The term edge of chaos is used to denote a transition space between order and disorder that is hypothesized to exist within a wide variety of systems. This transition zone between the two regimes is known as the edge of chaos, a region of bounded instability that engenders a constant dynamic interplay between order and disorder. This point or interface between the two is hypothesized to be a locus for maximum complexity and the dynamics driving evolution.

Which sounds very interesting and it so happens that I totally agree. But I do not understand your explanation Aporia_filia - I'm experiencing extreme aporia!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 886
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 217
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #261 on: September 05, 2019, 04:56:47 PM »
    Time and space are but one illusion
    Without that truth there is much confusuon .. b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

philopek

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #262 on: September 05, 2019, 05:55:36 PM »
    Time and space are but one illusion
    Without that truth there is much confusion .. b.c.

 ;)     :)

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #263 on: September 05, 2019, 06:32:50 PM »

[quote

Which sounds very interesting and it so happens that I totally agree. But I do not understand your explanation Aporia_filia - I'm experiencing extreme aporia!
[/quote]

Fila from philia, love aporia because it raises new perspectives ;)

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #264 on: September 05, 2019, 07:13:39 PM »
binntho, I have to say that I'm sorry that the original discussion is effectively derailed/disturbed (again). I observe that you divert it to other discussions about academic science and science books and other books and interpretations thereof. Why binntho? Maybe you don't see that you are repeatingly drowning out the discussions that started with one of my ideas?

You are not really open to new ideas it seems to me. For ideas outside of academia and I'm not talking about the natural sciences. You point to 'current understanding' as if it is the truth but current understanding is not good enough. It doesn't explain the whole thing because it is from deep inside the 'cultural bubble'. It makes the researchers part blind. Ask Feynman.
In my observation, you are pulling every new idea back into civilisation culture views. That is as if some 'brainforce' keeps you safe in the 'cultural bubble'.

I wish that you don't see this post as an attack on you ;)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #265 on: September 05, 2019, 10:28:42 PM »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

gandul

  • New ice
  • Posts: 86
  • de verdad
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #266 on: September 06, 2019, 01:15:12 AM »
Something I have observed over the years in this forum is the very negative perception that humans and humanity have for several posters (of which thread has many example, not just nanning). By the way I don’t feel proud of the insult I did yesterday, nanning, but the point I made is clear: if you think all these things seriously, you should refrain from using all this technology, and is not only end terminal but also wires/antennae, routers, submarine cables, servers, that an internet-hosted forum demands. Such a contradiction. You are communicating in the most extreme unnatural way, the way you understand “unnatural”.

But I am repeating myself, just because I feel such a scandalous dishonesty deserves a direct opposition, with as many responses as required.

In any case I am not going to fall into the fallacy of rhetorical dialog, no room for emptiness here. You people can go on combining words in cute sentences.

IMO, The answer to the title of the thread should be “No” from scientific point of view. As nothing humans do is unnatural. We are part of nature, and subject to the laws of natural physics, and that includes our intelligence, social organization, morale, and whatever instruments we manufacture or planet we pollute. I am not saying AGW is good because is natural for instance (it is not bad either from a nihilistic cosmological point of view) but it is a natural consequence to our physical and biochemical nature. Self-preservation should ultimately help, I guess, I’m optimistic. But in this sense I really like Neven’s comment about the edge-of-knife nature of human as we expand our ”civilization”. It has brought to us many positive things (like Nanning multi-core machine or the medical revolution) but instability and our big and small ambitions, collective and individual, do seem the greater and greater danger to human equality and sustainability on planet  earth.
No me lo trago

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #267 on: September 06, 2019, 01:52:15 AM »
Surprised to see this thread surge back to life, as its initiator I feel the need to make a quick contribution.

The title of the thread is in a form of a question, and this question can be approached in two ways:

1) as an empirical (or as gandful just said, scientific) question.
2) as -- what I call -- a "logical question."

Questions of the first kind are answered by amassing evidence (but this can only be done if the terms are already defined, and in science Nature is a totalizing concept). As I have pointed out previously (and gandful has again stated in the last post), our understanding of evolution cannot justify any delineation of human beings from the rest of nature. The answer is clear; even the worst kinds of neuroses, psychoses, etc. have their basis in the natural world (i.e. the brain), EVEN IF we have reason to believe they could be avoided if we organized our societies differently.

Questions of the second kind don't require any evidence to answer. All we have to do is look at how we use the language. If human beings (and our products) are defined as 'unnatural' then, by definition, we are unnatural. We can only answer the question in the empirical sense if we already have defined it. So the confusion here is due to multiple uses of the terms, and so multiple meanings. However, answering the question as an empirical question demands that we think scientifically, and therefore presupposes a definition for us.

So we must confront the fact that -- even while knowing the answer in the empirical sense -- our standard (non scientific, but also within science) uses of the words 'natural' and 'unnatural' repeat to us again and again our tendency to want (need) to separate human beings from the rest of nature, either for our aggrandizement or for our condemnation. The second sense of the question prompts us to another kind of investigation, which I have called 'metaphysical,' in which we look at the presuppositions that our regular use of language relies upon.

I have pointed out how the same views (the same presuppositions), which either elevate or condemn human beings in relation to the rest of nature, are woven into our mythological/religious narratives. Of course there are practical needs, as the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural' (or 'cultural') can be -- and are -- used effectively all of the time.

As environmentalists, I think it is important for us to avoid these traps within our thinking, and avoid the simple answers that come with either elevating or condemning human beings.

Finally, what nanning -- not to single you out, but you are the most persistent -- and some others in this thread have done repeatedly (in spite of my efforts to point it out) is attempt to answer the question "yes," in an empirical way (i.e. by appealing to evidence), but this is only possible by changing the definition. However, no change in the definition can address the tension caused by the scientific understanding of evolution... And so we go round and round, as those who think they are answering the question are actually begging it: if we set up this new distinction ('living nature' for example), in order to establish how it is that we are separate, we can then we can see how it is that we are really 'unnatural' by looking at some evidence.

The point is not that the terms can be used in different ways, and therefore to come up with some new creative ways of using them (of course, language is flexible). The point is that within the scientific, and monistic paradigms, we cannot overcome the arbitrariness of where we draw the line between what is natural and unnatural. This point -- and more importantly the insights that can come from meditating on it -- cannot be refuted by redrawing the line!
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 02:13:47 AM by wdmn »

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #268 on: September 06, 2019, 02:15:47 AM »
On cue, the latest from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

"There are five main strategies to distract from the true dimensions of the ecological threat. First there is simple ignorance: it’s a marginal phenomenon, not worthy of our preoccupation, life goes on, nature will take care of itself.

Second, there is the belief that science and technology can save us. Third, that we should leave the solution to the market (with higher taxation of polluters, etc). Fourth, we resort to the superego pressure on personal responsibility instead of large systemic measures (each of us should do what we can – recycle, consume less, etc).

And fifth, perhaps the worst, is the advocating of a return to natural balance, to a more modest, traditional life by means of which we renounce human hubris and become again respectful children of our Mother Nature.

This whole paradigm of Mother Nature derailed by our hubris is wrong. The fact that our main sources of energy (oil, coal) are remnants of past catastrophes which occurred prior to the advent of humanity is a clear reminder that Mother Nature is cold and cruel."


[I would add: as well as benevolent and merciful. (What adjective cannot be used to describe what is essentially a synonym for "The ONE"?).]

"So, the Leninist question: what is to be done? We are in a deep mess: there is no simple “democratic” solution here. The idea that people themselves (not just governments and corporations) should decide sounds deep, but it begs an important question: even if their comprehension is not distorted by corporate interests, what qualifies them to pass judgement in such a delicate matter?

What we can do is at least set the priorities straight and admit the absurdity of our geopolitical war games when the very planet for which wars are fought is under threat.

In the Amazon, we see the ridiculous game of Europe blaming Brazil and Brazil blaming Europe. It has to stop. Ecological threats make it clear that the era of sovereign nation states is approaching its end – a strong global agency is needed with the power to coordinate the necessary measures. And does such the need for such an agency point in the direction of what we once called “communism”?"

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amazon-fires-rainforest-capitalism-bolsonaro-climate-crisis-zizek-a9091966.html?fbclid=IwAR0WvrI0_d19Fekfh9pGFRu3aP2PT_cQZPw40PT8eCVOipdzRkuJUq9iDzI&utm_source=reddit.com

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #269 on: September 06, 2019, 06:01:20 AM »
(here the latest from Frisian non-academic philosopher Nanning ;))

wdmn, it has been pointed out repeatedly in earlier discussions in this thread where you participated, that you talk of humankind as being equal to civilisation humans. Again you seem blind to the OTHER humankind. The non-civilisation humans. They are as human as we are.
It is not just you who seems blind to this, even after repeatedly being told. Many posters push that distinction away to keep the discussion inside this 'civilisation bubble'. Come on, aren't you curious? It is easy to spot.

Have you read and understood the beautiful Guardian article/letter from a chief of the indiginous people of the Amazonas that I've posted in the "wildfire" thread?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg226564.html#msg226564

Furthermore you are completely dismissing my ideas, theories and explanations. None of the basic ideas have been refuted. I think it is an important breakthrough in the understanding of humans, civilisation, living nature and the total destruction we are witnessing in its final moments. The theory still stands but you choose to ignore it.


There is a reason that I avoid reading academic philosophers. I am these days watching Chomski's "manufacture of consent" video in parts and am already bored and irritated by the glorification of one person. He has a sharp mind but I have a sharp mind too. More importantly, his 'alien perspective': I have brought it much much further away from - 'civilisation' views from within - than Chomski has been able to. My life has been very different and not academic. I practice my understanding and live 'outside' civilisation as far as 'possible'. My view is different and less clouded and I have had a special talent to see through the large systems I'm in, from a very young age on.
I have spend years of my life in isolation to research all kinds of views from outside, deconstructing the civilisation 'normals'. Please have some respect. I respect you :).


P.S. I repudiate civilisation. The violence, social hierarchy, fathers & families, abhorrent treatment of living nature and accumulation of 'stuff'.
I'm on their side (the old Frisians were also an indiginous tribe and got violently conquered like the rest)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 06:06:35 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #270 on: September 06, 2019, 07:48:32 AM »
binntho, I have to say that I'm sorry that the original discussion is effectively derailed/disturbed (again). I observe that you divert it to other discussions about academic science and science books and other books and interpretations thereof. Why binntho? Maybe you don't see that you are repeatingly drowning out the discussions that started with one of my ideas?

You are not really open to new ideas it seems to me. For ideas outside of academia and I'm not talking about the natural sciences. You point to 'current understanding' as if it is the truth but current understanding is not good enough. It doesn't explain the whole thing because it is from deep inside the 'cultural bubble'. It makes the researchers part blind. Ask Feynman.
In my observation, you are pulling every new idea back into civilisation culture views. That is as if some 'brainforce' keeps you safe in the 'cultural bubble'.

I wish that you don't see this post as an attack on you ;)
Nanning, I see this as very high praise indeed! And much of it could, ironically enough, be applied to you too. Perhaps you fail to see how you yourself keep repeating the same things over and over, and when your errors are pointed out, you retreat into your own bubble?

wdm has posted a couple of extremely well written and thoughtful posts where I agree totally. He states things as they are, and at the same time totally destroys your position.

I have, on the other hand, been trying to educate. To show where the errors are, and to point towards more learning and stricter reasoning rather than free flow fantasy and rampant anthropomorphism.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #271 on: September 06, 2019, 07:50:10 AM »
(here the latest from Frisian non-academic philosopher Nanning ;))

wdmn, it has been pointed out repeatedly in earlier discussions in this thread where you participated, that you talk of humankind as being equal to civilisation humans. Again you seem blind to the OTHER humankind. The non-civilisation humans. They are as human as we are.
It is not just you who seems blind to this, even after repeatedly being told. Many posters push that distinction away to keep the discussion inside this 'civilisation bubble'. Come on, aren't you curious? It is easy to spot.

Nanning, here you go again! There are no "non-civilisation" humans! Where do you get these ideas?
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #272 on: September 06, 2019, 07:52:21 AM »
P.S. I repudiate civilisation. The violence, social hierarchy, fathers & families, abhorrent treatment of living nature and accumulation of 'stuff'.
I'm on their side (the old Frisians were also an indiginous tribe and got violently conquered like the rest)

So you repudiate humanity, since no human can ever survive without civilisation.

And the old Frisians were just one of the unqountable violent indigionus tribes in constant warfare against their neighbours as basically all other tribes all over  the world at all times. But they were always "civlisational humans".
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #273 on: September 06, 2019, 07:57:05 AM »
The idea that there have ever been peaceful tribes is easily disproved by the fact that the leading cause of death of males in all hunter-gatherer societies is homocide. For women, homicide is behind childbirth as cause of death, but not by much.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #274 on: September 06, 2019, 08:58:47 AM »
Because this post got drowned with smelly civilisation blankets, here it is again:
(to binntho: The old Frisians were non conquering, as were most tribes. They were not civilisation, as were most tribes)

(here the latest from Frisian non-academic philosopher Nanning ;))

wdmn, it has been pointed out repeatedly in earlier discussions in this thread where you participated, that you talk of humankind as being equal to civilisation humans. Again you seem blind to the OTHER humankind. The non-civilisation humans. They are as human as we are.
It is not just you who seems blind to this, even after repeatedly being told. Many posters push that distinction away to keep the discussion inside this 'civilisation bubble'. Come on, aren't you curious? It is easy to spot.

Have you read and understood the beautiful Guardian article/letter from a chief of the indiginous people of the Amazonas that I've posted in the "wildfire" thread?
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg226564.html#msg226564

Furthermore you are completely dismissing my ideas, theories and explanations. None of the basic ideas have been refuted. I think it is an important breakthrough in the understanding of humans, civilisation, living nature and the total destruction we are witnessing in its final moments. The theory still stands but you choose to ignore it.


There is a reason that I avoid reading academic philosophers. I am these days watching Chomski's "manufacture of consent" video in parts and am already bored and irritated by the glorification of one person. He has a sharp mind but I have a sharp mind too. More importantly, his 'alien perspective': I have brought it much much further away from - 'civilisation' views from within - than Chomski has been able to. My life has been very different and not academic. I practice my understanding and live 'outside' civilisation as far as 'possible'. My view is different and less clouded and I have had a special talent to see through the large systems I'm in, from a very young age on.
I have spend years of my life in isolation to research all kinds of views from outside, deconstructing the civilisation 'normals'. Please have some respect. I respect you :).


P.S. I repudiate civilisation. The violence, social hierarchy, fathers & families, abhorrent treatment of living nature and accumulation of 'stuff'.
I'm on their side (the old Frisians were also an indiginous tribe and got violently conquered like the rest)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #275 on: September 06, 2019, 09:26:20 AM »
Nanning, you are wrong on two counts:

1) All tribes are conquering - if they can. Weaker neighbours get conquered if possible, stronger neighbours are avoided. Geography will often protect weaker tribes (extensive swamplands, thick forests, high mountains) but all tribes behave the same way. Conquer where you can, run away and hide where you can't.

2) Civilisation is a pan-human phenomena, there are no human societies without civilisation. If you keep posting the same contra-factual claims, it is because you are using "civilisation" to mean something private to you and not shared with the rest of us.

Going back to my trusty old "Webster's  new Twentieth Century Dictionary" (1983), civilisation is defined as follows:

civilization
1. the process of civilizing or becoming civilized.
2. the condition of being civilized; social organization of a high order, marked by advances in the arts, sciences etc.
3. the total culture of a people, nation, period etc.; as the civilization of the Occident differs from that of the Orient.
4. the countrires and peoples considered to have reached a high state of social and cultural development.

The word civilisation in modern usage has nothing to do with living in cities. It is mostly used to mean either 2 or 3 nowadays, and I use it in this discussion to mean nr. 3.

So the ancient Frisians had a different civilisation from the Romans, but they still had their civilisation which was most likely quite complex.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #276 on: September 06, 2019, 09:31:47 AM »
Nanning, it amazes me how you think you can own a discussion and tell others off simply for the act of posting. You did not start this conversation, and you did the same thing in the thread I started - I was swamping my own thread in your view, because I kept posting!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #277 on: September 06, 2019, 10:46:11 AM »
Again, completely agree with wdmn and binntho.
Even the "Mule" in Asimov trilogy was natural. Evolution is constantly coming out with billions of new outputs, those better adapted to their environment will have better chances of reproduction. Is not that difficult.

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #278 on: September 06, 2019, 10:57:29 AM »
Thanks to Sidd, from wildlife thread,

Nice paper on whales and song sharing. Guess they dont respect copyright ... more power to them.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190337

open access. audio in the supplementary. beautiful.

sidd

(Is this possible without abstract thoughts?, don't expect an answer, only try to imagine new ones.

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #279 on: September 06, 2019, 11:00:27 AM »
I don't 'own' any discussion or thread. I initiate discussions, yes, and expect responses in that context. Owning a thread is stupid imo. Closing down a discussion is bad behaviour I think.
That aside.

binntho, I am not telling people off. I was addressing you in particular in my earlier remark. This thread was 'dead' and I posted this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2688.msg226467.html#msg226467

So I started this discussion. Very quickly it turned to other aspects which is a shame, but I went along because it then was about morality, but that is now also GONE! Washed away for the umpteenth time!  :():
via this: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2688.msg226553.html#msg226553
to this: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2688.msg226845.html#msg226845

In that last one I posted a lot of things you ignored, and others because your posting frequency moves those posts away so it are mostly your post as the latest posts in the discussion.

<snip>
Quote
Concepts like "morality" and "code of conduct" imply that there is a choice between right and wrong or good and bad. But again, these are value judgments and as such they only belong to abstract thought and cannot be applied to other than us humans.
Exactly.
We have the 'luxury'(insanity) to not be constrained by living nature/ecosystem limits because we have technology.
An utopia is a high level organisation of humans (culture etc) you could call optimal because it respects all other life and ecosystems, optimal organisation is to abide by nature's constraints.
Because we have technology to dismiss the constraints, we have to restrain ourselves. That is high morality. It takes the whole life system into account, long term.
Behaviour that would fall under high morality in that regard can be called 'good' behaviour. And 'bad' means low morality behaviour and sliding to dystopia.
High morality takes effort and discipline but we have nurture and humans brains are neuroplastic, so this high morality can be engrained/programmed in the brains of the human group via nurture and culture.

When the fundamentals of the culture (civilisation) are in conflict with nature and high morality, it is impossible to ever get to a utopia, to an optimal human organisation. It means low morality is build-in. In the culture that programmes all young children.

A dystopia with advanced technology, which civilisation is, is always destructive and unsustainable. Without high morality there's nothing restraining humans. They even think they can techno-fix the destruction they have caused by further controlling living nature and further lowering morality. Supremacy -> insanity -> total destruction.

Quote
As a further clarification, I'd like to state that only individuals can have agency - groups cannot. So a species, or an ecosystem cannot have agency. It is therefore impossible to talk about moral species, or say that there can exist a code of conduct between species, since a species cannot have agency.
This code of conduct is not a choice as it is for us humans with advanced technology. We have choice because we are not constrained by living nature. Other species either live in the optimal zone or they perish. That is called natural selection and it means all life stays in optimal zones of behaviour. Living nature/ecosystems constraints and the natural selection system together perform the 'agency' you mean.

You ignored and drowned those points and immediately went in another direction. So I posted:
binntho, I have written some explanations and eloborations as a reaction to your post. What do you think of those? Do you understand what I mean? Do you have a response to it?
Otherwise I don't see us/this dicussion converging to an understanding of my morality theory.

To which your reply was:
<snip>
You may be quite right, I do no respond to much of what you have written but try to focus on the underlying assumptions which I think have to be sorted out first.

In a decent discussion you don't always get to set the agenda and the focuspoints. To do that here is becoming irritating to me because whatever I start as a discussion, you take it over. I really don't like that and have been patient and used nice wording to make you aware of your behaviour.

You are with your behaviour discouraging me to initiate new discussions with new ideas or views. Is that your goal?

(edit: remove previous final sentence)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 11:21:25 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

MyACIsDying

  • New ice
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #280 on: September 06, 2019, 11:43:15 AM »
On cue, the latest from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

..

And fifth, perhaps the worst, is the advocating of a return to natural balance, to a more modest, traditional life by means of which we renounce human hubris and become again respectful children of our Mother Nature.

This whole paradigm of Mother Nature derailed by our hubris is wrong. The fact that our main sources of energy (oil, coal) are remnants of past catastrophes which occurred prior to the advent of humanity is a clear reminder that Mother Nature is cold and cruel."


[I would add: as well as benevolent and merciful. (What adjective cannot be used to describe what is essentially a synonym for "The ONE"?).]

..
I don't understand what he's saying here. Why should we not try to find a balance  with nature, including ourselves? 
What does he mean with mother nature derailed by our Hubris is wrong thinking? AGW denial?
Gas/Oil are not the result of catastrophes.. they're the result of billions of years of natural processes.. us extracting and transforming them so rapidly is the catastrophe..

Zizek advocates to keep thinking! So why would he marginalize thinking efforts of individuals regarding finding natural balances, limiting waste and consumption? At the end it sounds like all he wants is an externally applied switch to communism but he should know that's not how it works. It requires the majority will of the people, so marginalizing the few who do try in a system set up against them is not very helpful..

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #281 on: September 06, 2019, 06:36:36 PM »
It also depends on which level of meaning you look at it.

If you want to use the philosophical level you run into the problem that everything is related.

We humans also think about those terms in a different practical way.

The civilized city vs the wild.
Europe vs the continents full of uncivilized people.

Or we think of ourselves as masters over nature.

Practical terms.

The original problem was a species of animal endangered by change in land use over time.
So that was us natural humans acting naturally reducing the amount of nature.

Philosophically the council was right in stating that is was natural if they were talking about our human nature but town councils are not about human nature but about making decisions about local lands use and such practical stuff.

So basically a big piece of nature was lost over time due to being changed to a more non-nature use.

This threatens the animal but whether you pay money to save it depends on the costs and the will to do so.

Our natural nature makes us do things but now we know our collective choices lead to really bad consequences so we should change that behaviour ASAP.

I also use the more practical term of free will. You can cheer the king or moon him. What you do depends on what you think of him and what the consequences of the action is.

The whole problem is that not enough people realize the gravity and urgency of the current situation or the consequences of in-action but that is a lack of information problem.

I think these levels of word use mingle here.

To me personally only the practical level is relevant now although i loved thinking about the former or how it came to be that thoughts came from stuff (Matter and Consciousness).

Much of the discussions on the practical level basically focus on our penchant for over-exploitation.

Discussion of the philosophic level is not really relevant.
We decide what we do with Earth on another basis any way.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #282 on: September 08, 2019, 02:29:05 AM »
On cue, the latest from Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

..

And fifth, perhaps the worst, is the advocating of a return to natural balance, to a more modest, traditional life by means of which we renounce human hubris and become again respectful children of our Mother Nature.

This whole paradigm of Mother Nature derailed by our hubris is wrong. The fact that our main sources of energy (oil, coal) are remnants of past catastrophes which occurred prior to the advent of humanity is a clear reminder that Mother Nature is cold and cruel."


[I would add: as well as benevolent and merciful. (What adjective cannot be used to describe what is essentially a synonym for "The ONE"?).]

..
I don't understand what he's saying here. Why should we not try to find a balance  with nature, including ourselves? 
What does he mean with mother nature derailed by our Hubris is wrong thinking? AGW denial?
Gas/Oil are not the result of catastrophes.. they're the result of billions of years of natural processes.. us extracting and transforming them so rapidly is the catastrophe..

Zizek advocates to keep thinking! So why would he marginalize thinking efforts of individuals regarding finding natural balances, limiting waste and consumption? At the end it sounds like all he wants is an externally applied switch to communism but he should know that's not how it works. It requires the majority will of the people, so marginalizing the few who do try in a system set up against them is not very helpful..

I think Zizek is using "natural balance" to mean what he follows it by saying; i.e. a return "to a more modest, traditional life by means of which we renounce human hubris and become again respectful children of our Mother Nature."

He's rejecting the ideological structure that views "Mother Nature" as a benevolent parent who will take care of us if only we behave correctly. His point is no. We have never been safe from catastrophe on this earth, and never will be, and moreover (it is number 5 on the list of such approaches), we simply will not be able to solve our problems through this approach.

"Gas/Oil are not the result of catastrophes.. they're the result of billions of years of natural processes"

Actually, several deposits can be traced directly to the end Permian mass extinction event. Catastrophe IS a natural process. There have been (at least) 5 mass extinction events prior to the advent of human beings. The "balance" people don't realize that evolution occurs in and through these periods of great upheaval. The climate DOES always change, if you look at long enough time scales. So the solution for longevity of human civilization is not to deny this and pretend that it is only our hubris that could lead to such an event. If it wasn't for changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 due to early agriculture, it is quite possible we would already have descended into a glacial period beginning several hundred years ago, which would have been a catastrophe for human beings and human civ.

This is a short article. He talks much more in depth on all of these topics, and has for decades now. Zizek is talking to intellectuals. So he's not attempting to marginalize your thinking, but to challenge it. Maybe there's already more at work than you realize is happening (in regards to international coordination)... Of course he is also trying to provoke.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #283 on: September 08, 2019, 03:42:52 AM »
"He's rejecting the ideological structure that views "Mother Nature" as a benevolent parent..."

But swallowing whole, apparently, the much more toxic and dominant 'ideological structure' that sees 'Mother Nature' (here, apparently openly embracing some kind of mythology) as simply 'red in tooth and claw.'

Yes, evolution has been punctuated every few tens of millions of years or more by a few large mass extinctions (and a number of smaller ones). But in any given set of millennia, what is most likely to happen is a gradual increase in the number and variety of species and so the robustness of life.

Humans life on this kind of time scale tens of millennia, not tens of millions of years. So in the relevant scale, 'Mother Nature' if we must use such terminology, is indeed likely to be in some kind of balance...at least it/she was until, this time, we (and specifically modern industrial consumerist civilization) came along to overturn the whole apple cart.

Zizek is a smart guy, but some seem to take his every word as some kind of gospel, which I find rather dangerous. Everyone has blind spots, and this pretty clearly and glaringly is one of his.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #284 on: September 08, 2019, 05:41:44 AM »
I don't think that he's clinging to an ideological structure that sees Mother Nature as 'red in tooth and claw.' I think he's being deliberately provocative (as well as funny): he's talking to environmentally minded people where he knows that the predominant tendency is in the other (Good Mother Nature) direction. He wants to be funny and irreverent, because the 'Mother Nature as blessed one' ideology depends on a reverence that blinds people. As he says up article, while describing the new "religion" that he sees developing, "The lesson hammered into us is... we are borrowing from the future, so one should treat our Earth with respect, as something ultimately sacred, something that should not be unveiled totally, that should and will forever remain a mystery, a power we should trust, not dominate. "

I would agree that there are risks to speaking in this way (i.e. using the language of 'Mother Nature').

As for your empirical claim about the earth's balance, well, I mean here we are. We've been wiping out megafauna for thousands of years... and part of the current (now past) climatological balance is to move between glacial and interglacial periods. The science is quite clear that we would be headed into a glacial period now (if not hundreds of years ago) if we had not modified CO2 in the atmosphere.

As for the religion of Zizek, well, yes it is equally undesirable. However, I find that several of the criticisms in this thread have overlooked the depth of what he is saying.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #285 on: September 08, 2019, 04:41:19 PM »
"The lesson hammered into us is... we are borrowing from the future, so one should treat our Earth with respect, as something ultimately sacred..."

Again, clearly a lie.

No one treats the Earth as sacred, outside of some indigenous peoples perhaps.

And if he or anyone else thinks that some kind of extreme reverence for the community of life is the greatest (or even a great) threat to the world, they are deeply cracked (at least on this point), in my humble estimation.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 05:01:22 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

MyACIsDying

  • New ice
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #286 on: September 08, 2019, 05:58:17 PM »
he's talking to environmentally minded people where he knows that the predominant tendency is in the other (Good Mother Nature) direction

Who are these people? Every Earth respecting person I know does so precisely because they understand its potential for disruption. I cannot recall a single person who expects paradise because they recycle properly.

Quote
This whole paradigm of Mother Nature derailed by our hubris is wrong.
So he's throwing the entire concept of AGW, in no uncertain terms, under the bus, to make fun of non-existent people. Not very funny or provoking imho, then again i'm not very funny myself so not the best judge I guess.

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #287 on: September 08, 2019, 06:27:11 PM »
"The lesson hammered into us is... we are borrowing from the future, so one should treat our Earth with respect, as something ultimately sacred..."

Again, clearly a lie.

No one treats the Earth as sacred, outside of some indigenous peoples perhaps.

And if he or anyone else thinks that some kind of extreme reverence for the community of life is the greatest (or even a great) threat to the world, they are deeply cracked (at least on this point), in my humble estimation.

Oof, look, if you're interested in Zizek's arguments I suggest you read or watch more (or at the very least, read this article carefully). He has spent his whole career talking about how ideology functions. He's precisely interested in the gap between the professed aim of our beliefs/actions and their actual function. For example, paying more for ethically sourced coffee at some coffee shop because the company ostensibly wants to make a difference, when the actual function is to alleviate the consumer's guilt so that business can carry on as usual.

Another example he gives is of the "priest" of nature who has the privileged relationship to it and so asks the spirits of the mountain for permission to mine it, thereby clearing the development. I've seen this one at work amongst indigenous communities in North America.

The point being, saying that you believe the earth is sacred, which many people would say if asked, does not mean that you actually change your behaviour in the required ways, or that society will be able to confront the problems it faces. Remember what he's (attempting to do)ing with this article: "However, if we want to confront seriously threats to our environment, what we should avoid are precisely such quick extrapolations which fascinate our imagination." In other words, the wrong ideological response will not solve the problem.

Zizek is not denying AGW, clearly. He explicitly states that we are facing catastrophe. I don't care if you find him offensive or dislike him. But there is a good practice when you're reading a philosopher (remember, this is a short article in a newspaper); give him/her the benefit of the doubt that they are not stupid. After all, they've spent years and years thinking through very complex things at levels that most people never do. That is not an appeal to authority. It means be curious to understand more. He's got tons and tons of free videos on the internet. He also has lots of books. If you're not interested fine, just be aware that you're probably missing his point.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 07:19:36 PM by wdmn »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2589
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 301
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #288 on: September 08, 2019, 08:32:14 PM »
Riiiight.

So, as you say, he is having some humor making fun of indigenous peoples and their cultures as well as environmentalists...yeah, those folks who are getting killed in droves by oppressive regimes worldwide for trying to defend ecosystems that pretty much everyone else acts as if they don't give a sh!t about. Talk about punching down!

Folks like Bolsonaro must get a lot of comfort and chuckles out of this kind of thing.

I think I'll take a pass on reading further from someone with such a disgusting sense of humor. Thanks. :)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wdmn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #289 on: September 08, 2019, 10:02:35 PM »
???

It's not good to be offended so easily if you want to be a thinker. If you think that it's taboo to think critically about the available responses to a problem that confronts you, then you're not going to get very far. Thought is thought, and once people start giving reasons, nothing is free from question.

Making fun of? No. Certainly not making fun of those who are actually making a stand. Claiming to speak for the spirits of the mountain so that you can approve business as usual... yes that is worth ridiculing. If you think not because of the race of the person doing it then you are no friend of mine.

You're also speaking in generalizations. There are indigenous peoples who are fighting to protect lands. There are also many that are eager to develop theirs. Zizek is not criticizing genuine attempts to confront the problem. He has had close ties with people in the Bolivian government, for example. He's warning of how ideological positions get used to disarm genuine efforts to escape the capitalist paradigm. And also how we can back ourselves into corners (on the left, or as environmentalists) by thinking in certain ways.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 10:13:50 PM by wdmn »

Human Habitat Index

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #290 on: September 09, 2019, 09:48:26 AM »
Black gold, Texas tea

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #291 on: September 09, 2019, 01:04:37 PM »
In this message just want to share my personal experience (won't work with everyone). I did accept that as an individual I won't change our evolutionary path, which is taking us to an end. And paradoxically, that gives you more strength to be less energy dependent and let you keep enjoying life.
This article is close to this experience:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #292 on: September 09, 2019, 06:43:23 PM »
Thanks Human Habitat Index, I really liked that. Especially the music :)

Thanks for sharing Aporia. I want to ask you if you maybe could clarify this evolution thing:
I did accept that as an individual I won't change our evolutionary path
<snip>

Considering "our evolutionary path", I have my eye on the indiginous people, humans, of the Amazone for example. What do you mean by evolutionary path?



edit: changed " I want to point out this discrepancy:" to "I want to ask you if you maybe could clarify this evolution thing:"
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 07:51:11 PM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #293 on: September 10, 2019, 11:29:29 AM »
Well, nanning, as I have no child, and won't have any, evolution stopped on me. But as evolution depends on a changing environment, something we're very good at, and my living stile tries not to disturb it, I think I'm out from evolutionary paths.
In the example about the river and the eddies, I see Nature as a big eddie from which other eddies are form. Each brain is an independent eddie. Each one produces it's own world. As far as we know now, no brain can yet spin without the help of the bigger eddie (nature). But looks like the tendency of these brain worlds is spinning independently from nature (already creating life in labs and ...). Now we are looking at AI as if we are creating a new spin off. Brains still need Nature, AI will need brains for quite a while (like Hall)
The tribes in the Amazon are playing their own evolutionary path (till now), because evolution is based in a changing environment and our environments have been pretty different for a while. But now we all are going to face a drastic change in our environments. And this change can be too fast for too many spicies to be able to adapt.

nanning

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 5848
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #294 on: September 10, 2019, 11:51:13 AM »
Thanks for the clarification Aporia. I thought you perhaps meant the human evolutionary path. We are the same as the Amazonians; Homo Sapiens.

Quote
Each one produces it's own world.

Exactly. This is the functional representation of reality (the outside of the black box) that all life has (incl. bacteria). It is necessarily minimal implemented and therefore very limited. Be aware of the limitations and you'll see more ;).
I don't 'have' children either btw. Freedom! Seeing their future and how they're treated, I really really feel for them. And for all other life.
I haven't even owned a pet animal in my life.


edit: added pet animal
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 06:40:03 PM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4937
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #295 on: September 13, 2019, 07:40:09 AM »

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4937
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #296 on: September 13, 2019, 07:40:38 AM »

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #297 on: September 13, 2019, 01:22:42 PM »
Thank you Sidd. Some other news:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test-20181212/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190605171400.htm
We know bees get the concept of zero and can do basic math. Now researchers have discovered they may also be capable of connecting symbols to numbers. It's a finding that sheds new light on how ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181221123718.htm
Bees can solve seemingly clever counting tasks with very small numbers of nerve cells in their brains, according to researchers. In order to understand how bees count, the researchers simulated a ...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180607141031.htm
Scientists have discovered honeybees can understand the concept of zero, putting them in an elite club of clever animals that can grasp the abstract mathematical notion of nothing.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703131208.htm
University of Alberta neuroscientists have identified the neural circuit that may underlay intelligence in birds, according to a new study. The discovery is an example of convergent evolution between the brains of birds and primates, with the potential to provide insight into the neural basis of human intelligence.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/29/birdbrainy-new-caledonian-crows-make-tools-using-mental-images
Study finds birds have design templates in their minds and may pass them on to future generations

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37450952
Horses have joined a select group of animals that can communicate by pointing at symbols

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201605/insect-brain-capable-conscious-subjective-experiences
Just when you think we know it all, researchers propose that insect brains support "a capacity for subjective experience."


Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #298 on: September 16, 2019, 10:42:27 AM »
Thanks to great Vox-mundi

*Psychologists Define the 'Dark Core of Personality'*
> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-psychologists-dark-core-personality.html

> *Egoism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism, spitefulness
 and others are among the traits of the malevolent side of human
> personality. As results from a recently published German-Danish research
> project show, these traits share a common "dark core." People with one of
> these tendencies are also likely to have one or more of the others.*
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 10:59:25 AM by Aporia_filia »

Aporia_filia

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« Reply #299 on: September 16, 2019, 10:44:46 AM »
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/15/cia-fort-detrick-stephen-kinzer-228109

The Secret History of Fort Detrick, the CIA’s Base for Mind Control Experiments
Today, it’s a cutting-edge lab. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the center of the U.S. government’s darkest experiments