You know that meme, Meme?

[r.mccabe]

Do you think your self (you) is just something your cells produced as a survival mechanism. That there's no real concrete you. Are human beings just a soulless assortment of independently functioning cells? No? Is this too much to think about? Then stop with the meme word already.

Daniel Dennett introduced memes in his book Consciousness explained. Its sitting on my bookshelf as it was the text for phil of mind. I took the course last semester. First the meme thing is cliche now I think. Second I sincerely doubt 99% of the people who use the word know what the guy was going on about. Its not the simply concept people portray it as and, it says a whole lot that most would people disagree with. I never noticed how much meme was used until I took the course. I feel its being heavily misused. On quick glance the idea of a memosphere (his word) is fine. When you study what he is saying though its IMO convoluted.

Dennett's meme was his idea of what the next step in human evolution is. The book is a very heavy read and uses so much metaphor if you read it without the class your going to have a hell of a time grasping the depth of his words.

I want to really get the meme out about memes. Make what you will of it. Outside this thread I will never use the word. Firstly using it agrees with not having a soul. The idea of a soul is Dennett's punching bag beside Descartes the entire book. Even then its not that simple. If you think, well there's just another kind of soul again your still his punching bag.

Want I'm getting at is that many of the ideas people have are fuel for his unforgiving tear down of what you think about what you think. If your ok with spreading the meme of someone who by reading their book would tear your literal concept of self to shreds, have fun. Know, however, that Dennett will tell you that your know more than a bundle of nevers, there's no God, and basically you have now reason to believe in free will. Your a cog. A horrible weak and flawed cog.

Next time you type meme, Rememeber I'm a cog, I have no soul. And Rememeber, the idea of meme requires that your Self is no more than a beaver dam you made out of habbit (his analogy)

So you've read my wall o text. The product of my newly acquired pet peve about 'meme'. You may be hugly rational and follow Dennett and the self is a byproduct line of thinking. You may think, well that's not what I meant. Or any number of things. Speak up get the discussion going. All I want is people to know about the memes they use. Also how many of you knew who invented the meme 'meme'? Any philosophers care to argue ya or na?

Edit: Or should I say, any beaver dams care to reply?

[Elwell]

Daniel Dennett introduced memes in his book Consciousness explained.
Not Dennett, Dawkins (I know, I know, all those atheist bogeymen are the same).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
A meme (pronounced /miːm/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) comprises a unit or element of cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture) ideas, symbols or practices; such units or elements transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) word mimema for mimic.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#cite_note-0) Memes act as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#cite_note-1)
Richard Dawkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) coined the word "meme" as a neologism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism) in his book The Selfish Gene (1976) to describe how one might extend evolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme#cite_note-selfish-2)


Its sitting on my bookshelf as it was the text for phil of mind. I took the course last semester.
What grade did you get?

[r.mccabe]

Really? I thought it came from Dennett. I leave my fallacious post. It would have made better discussion. My grade was a B. same as my average. Course tears you a new one at times.

Edit: I agree with Dennett's insight for the most part, but he slams the door shut too hard.

Edit 2: Dennett complicates the idea far more than that wiki reference. I can't recall him crediting Dawkins. It is introduced as far as I know as an original idea and is tied into the rest of the text very heavily. Although, he never takes credit for the idea. I have not read any of Dawkins and I don't know what his idea is past the wiki reference. Dawkins book predates Dennett's so no contest. As I said My average is a b (3.0) and my school is fully acredited for Univerist degrees. I hope I don't come across as dim...honest mistake.

[chaosrocks]

well , the whole meme thing is a usefull metaphor to wrap your ideas around. It isn't gospell but it is one way things can work. and it it a usefull way of looking at things. .. especially popular culture. for instance the social dynamics of CA. when analyzed in terms of Meme flow. ......I used to work in advertising.. which ..yes yes I know whoring my WORK OUT FOR MONEY ..BLA H BLQAG BLAH.. But if concept art is about comuncation, and to understand the flow of communication.. anyway
I am rather inarticulate tonight
but I am try to express that understnanding ways in which the communication system flows can enable one to manipulate that system to communicate...

[r.mccabe]

Outside Dennett's book meme is fine as far as I know. A good way to put things. Since Dennett didn't coin it, my point is rather mutt. Maybe I'll go read Dawkins and come back with a better post. Not likely though, the courses I have are enough.

Edit: No after skimming Dawkins wiki bio he sounds like the kinna guy to agree with the self being no more than a beaver dam. Still perhaps its biasing me too much away from the idea.

Edit 2:If selling art to marketing gets you by go for it. The liability is on the individual to recognize they like your art and not the product.

[PuppyKitten]

Edit: No after skimming Dawkins wiki bio he sounds like the kinna guy to agree with the self being no more than a beaver dam. Still perhaps its biasing me too much away from the idea.

Dawkins is fascinated by, and utterly in love with, the complexity of humans (and other living things). He feels that because we slowly achieved our complexity through Darwinian forces driven by gene-centric evolution (as opposed to individual- or society-based evolution, or creationism), we are actually much more impressive and awe-inspiring than people realize.

Dawkins is a truly brilliant man, and if you don't read The Selfish Gene, you are doing yourself a disservice. Even if you walk away disagreeing with him, you should know where many (if not most) evolutionary biologists and geneticists stand on the issue. That way you can more accurately form your own conclusions.

EDIT: I've never read anything by Dennett, but I certainly will now. It sounds right up my alley, so thanks for the inadvertent recommendation of his book. :D

[Zaxser]

Edit: No after skimming Dawkins wiki bio he sounds like the kinna guy to agree with the self being no more than a beaver dam. Still perhaps its biasing me too much away from the idea.

What is our mind, exactly? The concept of the soul isn't terribly descriptive, compared to our memories and genetics operating under causality. It doesn't mean we aren't awesome if we can be explained in materialistic language.

[Aly Fell]

Not entirely relevant, and at the risk of derailing this... but there's a trailer for the BBC's upcoming documentary about Charles Darwin (as it's the bicentennial of his birth) on Richard Dawkins.net. 'Darwin and The Tree of Life' Presented by the truly inspirational David Attenborough and to be shown this coming Sunday. Should be available on the BBC's IPlayer afterward, and I imagine other places too. Very interesting interview with Attenborough as well.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=70069

[Oden]

I remember reading the Selfish Gene back in grade 10, it was a great book, but my memory has faded a bit...I should really take a look at it again. My high-school biology teacher had a copy of it along with The Blind Watchmaker in the class for students to check out. Good teacher.


Dennet seems like another interesting guy, I'm ashamed to admit I picked up Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennet a few years ago, but I haven't read it yet.

[wi2rd]

you are a cog.. but that doesnt make you any less human.
the idea 'humanity' is simply a piece of information
and you are human.
the soul is not a non existend thing.. its simply a creature of memories and ideas.. a memeplex so to speak.
you have as much free will as you believe.
even though you have none at all.
but then.. what is free will really?

[D@niel]

The documentary "The Atheism tapes," with Jonathan Miller doing the interviews, has relatively extensive interviews with both Dennet and Dawkins, quite interesting. Even though I consider myself to be an ardent atheist I find Dawkins, from what I have read and seen of him, to be a tad irritating and a little too convinced that he is absolutely and unquestionably RIGHT! Which seems to mirror the attitudes of those he is most critical of. A little Socratesian humility could do him good;)

[Peter Coene]

Hmm, well, lets see, when I had to write papers for classes my favorites were about "myth and art" for one class and a comparison of American and Japanese feature length animation examples for another. I think I liked the myth and art one more, just because it let me use sources like Joseph Campbell, explore the importance of symbolism, and develop my own theories regarding the interaction of art and the spiritual. If I ever get a masters or phd I think I'd like to delve further into the subject.

[Oden]

Hmm, well, lets see, when I had to write papers for classes my favorites were about "myth and art" for one class and a comparison of American and Japanese feature length animation examples for another. I think I liked the myth and art one more, just because it let me use sources like Joseph Campbell, explore the importance of symbolism, and develop my own theories regarding the interaction of art and the spiritual. If I ever get a masters or phd I think I'd like to delve further into the subject.

Cool dude, I just discovered Joseph Campbell a few months ago...I found The Hero's Journey digging through my dad's bookcase.

Check out Gary Snyder if you haven't already. He's a poet, but also an anthropologist and the writer or some amazing essay/prose. There are a lot that I think you'd find interesting. He deals a lot with myth/prehistory/poetics/artistic expression, etc.

this is of one of his essays, about prehistoric cave art:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Snyder_99.html

I've found it in print in the Gary Snyder Reader and Back in the Fire, but I'm not sure where it was first published.

[tsujni]

***snip*** I want to really get the meme out about memes. ***snip***

How dare you try an upload that virus into my "beaver dam"! Two can play at this, I define a NULL meme. The only purpose of the NULL meme is to overwrite the True/False variables of other memes. The effect is to render the others incapable of modifying a compulsion into a reason for or against said compulsion.

[Not Pink]

most people agree that a "meme" simply means an ongoing social phenomenon that evolves over time. it's the small bare elements of social evolution in other terms. Religions, Political sciences, revolutions, ideas, fashion, behaviors, all spread by the definitions"meme"

the thing about souls and memosphere (lawl) are all this guys doing (still he uses soul in a way that's still correct if not using the religious definition of the word). Anyone can write a book about any subject and inject their own ideas into it. I once saw a supposedly historical book about communism that said that the idea was spread by foot soldiers going into separate nations over time. Is it true? well, all other text books say other-wise and the guy shows almost no proof, we still had to learn it that way because that was the text book we had to use for the class.

take "over 9000" for example.

first it was funny, an inside joke people would say around. then some guy makes a youtube video of it, the popularity explodes. from here the meme splits into 2 things: "youtube poop" and the continuation of "over 9000". Youtube poop videos expand, and start collecting other sources (usually focusing on the already large CD-i games meme) and keeps spreading. Over 9000 spreads on to various pictures, videos, and other things, eventually leading to Oprah even saying "Over 9000 penises" on her show, which splits off to another meme of using that audio track and eventually leading to more youtube poop videos of that episode.

the expand and spilt and re-converge, all while starting new memes other than itself. they spread and evolve, a constant game of fluctuation and mitosis.

meme's have been around since species started living in groups, but the name is pretty recent in terms of human history, and the internet has totally turned it into a flustercuck of randomly generating ideas.

[r.mccabe]

Atheism is to me a write off. I have no delusions of Christianity (not to offend). Edit:I'm not agnostic either, but I'm not gonna write an essay on my beliefs until they rationally pan out (symbolic logic 220 FTW)
the soul is not a non existend thing.. its simply a creature of memories and ideas.. a memeplex so to speak.The soul as a non extended thing is thus imaginary. If you presume both a soul that has any impact on reaity (reality being comprised of extended things) and that that soul is not an extended thing you have contradicted yourself. "non extended" is very much the way Descartes puts it. Modern philosophy tends to use Descartes to show how you can go wrong as well as a forum for further discussion.

To say that it is a memeplex is not to say that its a soul rather that its a consciousness. Which is important. I think its right as well that rather than souls we have consciousness. How far our consciousness goes is still something I haven't read a proper answer to. I don't believe that the awareness we have of others has been addressed because the answers leave to many holes in too many things. Atheists can't say something to offend their own religion / non beliefs.


How dare you try an upload that virus into my "beaver dam"! Two can play at this, I define a NULL meme. The only purpose of the NULL meme is to overwrite the True/False variables of other memes. The effect is to render the others incapable of modifying a compulsion into a reason for or against said compulsion.But I need my ability to reason. Otherwise....wait what was I reasoning?
NULLLLLLL.

[PuppyKitten]

I find Dawkins, from what I have read and seen of him, to be a tad irritating

Serious? From what I've read and seen of him, he is intensely sexy.

He can contribute his "genetic material" to my "beaver dam" any day.

(see what I did there?)

-

[Peter Coene]

Atheism is to me a write off. I have no delusions of Christianity (not to offend). Edit:I'm not agnostic either, but I'm not gonna write an essay on my beliefs until they rationally pan out (symbolic logic 220 FTW)
I'm actually interested to see what your beliefs are. Don't worry too much about not rationally panning out just yet, I think what matters is that you are thinking it over. Feel free to PM me if you don't feel like posting it for all to see.

[CGMonkey]

Perception is reality.

[wi2rd]

what is conciousness though..

in the end we are one.
a result of the universe.. or multiverse whatnot.. i think we are simply a infinitly large part of another infinity.. a happening.

part of an infinite web of interconnecting energies.
everything has effect on everything..
what i write here will effect what you will write next. how big or small the effect might be..

the difference is only in the configuration of information.

we are only human because we decided we are.
we are no more then rocks and no less..

conciousness is simply the result of being a human being.
its like hotness is the result of fire.
its like a sound.

you are only as much in control as you believe to be.

but you are falling down a never ending pit of infinity following the flows the universe puts there for you.
no reason.. its simply the most simple path.. like water carving rivers as it comes down a mountain...

soul is just a word.. we give it meaning in our own ways..
many of us are 'trapped' in humanity.. thinking of things that make 'sense' to us.. the things that evolution taught us.. the patterns we are most easily brought into..

love is our feeling of being one with something else.. of being connected..
there is only evolutionary reasons for this.

good.. bad.. sense.. reality.. everything is simply an idea.. bits of information that we move around in our brains..

you are part of the universe as the cells are part of your body
you are the universe as the cells are your body.
all is one.. and that one.. reality.. is the only 'god' i can ever believe in.
its not a thing.. or a being.. or some so called intelligent being...
its just reality.. that which is and is not..

man i think i took too much acid :D

[r.mccabe]

My beliefs. . .For one science studies the facts, so as far as creation goes physics / big bang holds for me. However, I find there is a huge hole in evolution. Random chance survival takes us so far in the existence of life, but random creation of a will to live, pain avoidance, and 'self' (even for the sole purpose of survival) is too abstract to claim as pure natural selection. Further, physics has shown the instability of matter. Your partials are only probably where the are right now and not out in Andromeda. Brian Greene wrote "Fabric of the Cosmos" as an overview of modern physics which is where this info is loosely from. That said it makes sense to me that the universe includes with its oddly program like structure a quantum level connection of all things. In this connection I think there is a higher power (not old man god or any agent) just a mediator and medium for existence. Humans then with higher levels of consciousness are the strongest manifestation of the universe or higher power. This allows for a spirit and modern physics to agree as far as I can tell. That is, a spirit in the sense that we are more than our bodies according to outdated science. Also I find that many people are very attuned to things around them and without precision are aware of what Newtonian physics would not allow for. Many would deny all sixth senses as complete fiction but how many can really deny some form of universal connection. To me this connection is plain as day. So I believe in a non agent higher power, spirit, and rational ways to come to the conclusion.

The sum of my beliefs sans morals and ethics.

Edit: I also meditate and focus my chi. . .(with readings done on proper practices from eastern sources as well as some western)

[wi2rd]

hey mccabe..

in my eyes i can understand your point but it seems you are simply missing things..

some things..
the will to live is prob here because without it you would be dead..
pain avoidance is simply because the creatures that felt pain but liked it or did not care would die very fast in a predator world.
self is prob there because without sense of self you'd have no reason to move/act because you are one with existence so to speak..
and on and on

we are all connected in many ways
i dont mean there is a secret web of strings that hold it all together... but in a sense i do

think of gravity for example.. it affects everything in space
if you move you gravitational pull will affect everything around you.. which in turn will move and affect everything around it.. like ripples in a pond..

this is the same with memes..
the spread like a virus..


about the sixth sense..
there are a bazillion senses that we have no words for yet i think..
and us humans in this society are very prone to think that thought is made of words.. we talk to ourselves in our head allot simply because society trains us to use words..
but there is so much more

we call those feelings mostly..
but its not just pain and love etc.. there are so many 'unexplainable' feelings.. which really means that which we cannot put into a language network..
in a sense our language/communication have greatly limited that what you are you could say..
although i don't believe in limitation.. cause that as well is a human idea..
its real.. but its just an idea..
a floating thing.. just like you
just like planets
just like atoms etc etc.
just stuff.. interacting in that thing we call reality..

[r.mccabe]

hey mccabe..

in my eyes i can understand your point but it seems you are simply missing things..

some things..
the will to live is prob here because without it you would be dead..
pain avoidance is simply because the creatures that felt pain but liked it or did not care would die very fast in a predator world.
self is prob there because without sense of self you'd have no reason to move/act because you are one with existence so to speak..
and on and on


That's the retrospect. When these things came to be there was no such thing as pain or like or dislike. They just decided they had a self to protect before they had a self or could decide anything.

we are all connected in many ways
i dont mean there is a secret web of strings that hold it all together... but in a sense i do

The thing is that I was getting at was the way in which matter doesn't have definitive shape or position. I'm not talking web. I'm talking about being not here nor there in a quantum sense. This whole belief though is based on physics which I'm not fully literate in so I can't explain much better than I have.

Anyway these are my beliefs like I have said. There not just haphazard thoughts. I'm going to stop the point counter point here because its not going anywhere. Anyone should feel free to put there thoughts on what I put still though.

[squidmonk3j]

playing with metaphors is a healthy exercise. "love", "spirit", "god", "atom" etc are all obvious metaphors..."sky", "is", "blue" are perhaps less obvious, but metaphors nonetheless. the important thing to remember is that the map is not the territory.

"chi" or "holism", "god" or "evolution"...it doesn't matter. our maps of life are drawn with different tools and with different purposes in mind.

[Jason Rainville]

That's the retrospect. When these things came to be there was no such thing as pain or like or dislike. They just decided they had a self to protect before they had a self or could decide anything.

Reproduction was here long before life was. It's not that things "want" or "need" to reproduce, it's just that the molecules that did reproduce... did. The ones that were better adapted to reproduce reproduced more. The lipids that formed a layer around a strand of dna/rna caused that strand to be better adapted to survive and reproduce....

It's just the nature of reproducing systems, has nothing to do with a consciousness or a want to live (though through evolutionary processes the 'will' to live has become a part of us)

I think that's where the conversation was headed. It's all getting pretty abstract..

[r.mccabe]

I understand the evolutionary reasoning that explains everything. Its not that I think consciousness brought life or will to live brought life. Rather, that life represents a manifestation of the universe. That there was something more than random chance to survive. And as we progress as organisms we begin to become closer manifestations of aspects of the universe specifically, the aspects of the universe which caused a coherent existence (non living) to begin.

Edit: if my manner of putting things changes some meanings its only because I'm learning things as we continue to discus.

[wi2rd]

myeh.. i dont know much about this quantum stuff
but as i understand it it tells us that everything is everywhere at the same time.
this is where i see infinity..

i think its kindof a web of inifities or so..
we are a spec in infinity..
there is way more then this.. infinitly more.
but we are here.. and a result of this web

but id like to know the so called source of everything.
like the 1 and 0 of a computer
but it must be something unstable for it to move
so there must be something like unstabilty as well
;)
its very very weird for sure..

[Kman.]

Perception is reality.

That would imply that things that you cant perceive aren't real, and that seeing someone from far away means that in reality they really are that small.

[Psypomp]

My bf and I were talking about this quite recently, actually. I loved reading what all of you think of this..

Me, I am aware that everything we do is probably based on chemical reactions, just as it is in the most basic of animals. But just the fact that we can create something like God or reject his/her/its existence is amazing and a testament of the power of the human mind.

[tsujni]

***SNIP***
But I need my ability to reason. Otherwise....wait what was I reasoning?
NULLLLLLL.

Perhaps my point is to say that true, false, real, myth, etc, are simply tools of manipulation. For example, if I trust my sense, materialism ( implied atheism ) makes the most sense. This said, I see no reason why I should trust my senses.
Now more importantly, what does "resurrect as a feeling on my window", mean?
And I see no reason why I should make any sense at all, through the looking glass if you will. At this point, I just appreciate what is, and what is needs no explanation. Think the movie "Pi", where the protagonist can just appreciate the tree and not seek to understand the "math" of the tree. Maybe I'm meme resistant, I don't know, a letter once composed, seven years long. She stood beside me once again, I knew her face. Perception is myth!

[PuppyKitten]

Think the movie "Pi", where the protagonist can just appreciate the tree and not seek to understand the "math" of the tree.

Some people find the intricate "math" of the tree to be just as beautiful as the tree itself. We're not being unappreciative just because we want to know more.

You're choosing to appreciate the phenotypic expression of a certain combination of genes instead of the underlying genetics (which is totally fine).

A parallel would be an observer who can only appreciate the culmination of all the brushstrokes while looking at art (the finished painting in other words). But some of us, no matter how beautiful the painting is, get more excited by learning how it was created. :)

-

[tsujni]

Some people find the intricate "math" of the tree to be just as beautiful as the tree itself. We're not being unappreciative just because we want to know more.

You're choosing to appreciate the phenotypic expression of a certain combination of genes instead of the underlying genetics (which is totally fine).

A parallel would be an observer who can only appreciate the culmination of all the brushstrokes while looking at art (the finished painting in other words). But some of us, no matter how beautiful the painting is, get more excited by learning how it was created. :)

-

And this does typify me, I care not about the process, however, the end result of atomic collisions excites me. Whats funny is that the yellow cross-over cable is so brilliant when I'm drunk!

[r.mccabe]

Here is a video from dawkins. Its now also in the "liberal facism" thread. It's worth watching I think. Enjoy.

VxGMqKCcN6A

Also look up the related vids from TED some brilliant speakers like Hawking and some inspirational speakers. 376 speakers in total. Wonderful thing to find.

[tsujni]

Some people find the intricate "math" of the tree to be just as beautiful as the tree itself. We're not being unappreciative just because we want to know more.

You're choosing to appreciate the phenotypic expression of a certain combination of genes instead of the underlying genetics (which is totally fine).

A parallel would be an observer who can only appreciate the culmination of all the brushstrokes while looking at art (the finished painting in other words). But some of us, no matter how beautiful the painting is, get more excited by learning how it was created. :)

-

Puppy! I thank you greatly, you exposed a hidden node in me. My hatred of analysis, the problem I've identified with adulthood. Hmmm, it sometimes spills into others. Everything I have done to destroy Logic and Reason and Faith and God, has been to access a pure sensation. "Now I make as much sense as a nursery rhyme."

[Spirit]

My personal views are that we as a species question things too much, and must know an answer to every one of those questions we ask. Some questions just aren't meant to be answered. Instead of asking questions, just embrace life. Don't ask why you see colour for example, just enjoy the vibrancy of the world around us, make the most of everything you see, and observe every small detail which most people would just overlook. Instead of questioning why we have consciousness or what it is, treasure it and use it, don't waste it, and be thankful you have such a gift. Just make the most of what we have and not to question why we have it or why it's there.

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask questions. Asking questions is something everbody does and is healthy to do so, even I ask questions, but sometimes I think we question things too much, and focus so much on finding answers to them, we forget to enjoy what it was we were questioning in the first place. I think that everybody has a different view on what reality is, and what each person sees to be reality differs from the person next to them. We will never be able to see through that persons eyes, but we can get a small idea of what they see through their art - which is also why I think art is such an important part of being human.

Sorry for a 'rant', I just wanted to say my views. Feel free to disagree with me, as everyone has their own opinions, but that is just how you see reality; and judging by the array of opinions here so far, everyones is slightly different :)

[tsujni]

My personal views are that we as a species question things too much, and must know an answer to every one of those questions we ask. Some questions just aren't meant to be answered. Instead of asking questions, just embrace life. Don't ask why you see colour for example, just enjoy the vibrancy of the world around us, make the most of everything you see, and observe every small detail which most people would just overlook. Instead of questioning why we have consciousness or what it is, treasure it and use it, don't waste it, and be thankful you have such a gift. Just make the most of what we have and not to question why we have it or why it's there.

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask questions. Asking questions is something everbody does and is healthy to do so, even I ask questions, but sometimes I think we question things too much, and focus so much on finding answers to them, we forget to enjoy what it was we were questioning in the first place. I think that everybody has a different view on what reality is, and what each person sees to be reality differs from the person next to them. We will never be able to see through that persons eyes, but we can get a small idea of what they see through their art - which is also why I think art is such an important part of being human.

Sorry for a 'rant', I just wanted to say my views. Feel free to disagree with me, as everyone has their own opinions, but that is just how you see reality; and judging by the array of opinions here so far, everyones is slightly different :)

We are kindred structures, my darling. Drift with me into the unintelligible. Kisses.

[Spirit]

Yes why question how the eye works at all? Let those who go blind enjoy blindness for the wonderful mystery it is - who are we to rob them of it? Doesn't an elegent explanation of our evolved vision cheapen it? Why question our place in the universe at all? Surely our breezy nonchalance will carry us all through?

With all due respect and while I fully agree with the appreciation of life; an ever questioning mind is a great thing and widespread ignorance is the daily impoverishment of us all.

I apologise if I offended you, but I think you misunderstood slightly what I was trying to get across, I think it was the way I worded things and the examples I chose, so I'm sorry for that too. I agree with you completely that questioning is a good thing, and it's ignorance which is somebodies downfall. I was using the vision of colour as an example of what I was trying to say, I wasn't trying to agree with ignorance in any shape or form. However, I just think that asking too many things, these questions which we may never be able to answer in the present, is wasted energy.

Yes, we have answered so many questions which were thought impossible to answer in the past, and these have helped us all, but we can never be sure exactly how long those questions will be asked until an answer can be found. Maybe a few years, or centuries, who knows? Again, I have nothing against asking questions, as I often do myself, as how would we get answers? I just try not to waste enegry on questions which cannot be answered in the present, they could be in the future, but fornow I just focus on the things which can be answered, or can be done. You may ask 'If you don;t question, how will you know there isn't an answer?', well I can almost guarantee somebody will have asked the same question as you, and if there isn't an answer, I would just leave it and ask at a later date, as there might be an answer for it then. I respect everybody elses opinions, and the many theories which have been put forward to make an attempt to answer some of those questions we just cannot know for definate what the answer is at the present time, and I respect them for the work many of those people put into their theories. I am sorry if I come across as ignorant or narrow-minded, I am in fact a very open minded person, however I often struggle to convey my thoughts into words, so I am sorry in advance for any other misunderstandings which may become apparant once reading this.

[tsujni]

Yes why question how the eye works at all? Let those who go blind enjoy blindness for the wonderful mystery it is - who are we to rob them of it? Doesn't an elegent explanation of our evolved vision cheapen it? Why question our place in the universe at all? Surely our breezy nonchalance will carry us all through?

With all due respect and while I fully agree with the appreciation of life; an ever questioning mind is a great thing and widespread ignorance is the daily impoverishment of us all.

Regarding blindness,
To the person who died yesterday from AIDS, does it matter that a cure is a few years away? To some, is not the mighty Science as impotent as the empty God? I have a treatable degenerative ocular disease and I don't receive the treatment because it doesn't interest me to do so.

Regarding breezy nonchalance getting us through,
Why do we need to get through?

Regarding my hostility,
It is this that provokes me, "...widespread ignorance is the daily impoverishment of us all." So I cheapen us? I wish not for you to mis-appoint my position, I am not exposing a religious position in place of a scientific one. Quite simply I see religion and science as rooted in the same desire to provide an explanation. Hmmm, If I want to to theology, why do I need to assume divine origin of the message? And if I want to do science, why should I assume validity of my senses? I know, I know, logic. Why should I assume logic?

[tsujni]

Spirit: please don’t apologise I have taken no offense and intended none. I regret that my language was confrontational.

tsujni: I was not referring specifically to your statements.

To me rhetorical questions regarding the dead are irrelevant. I have no direct experience of the plight of living AIDS sufferers; but I make the informed assumption that any alleviation of their disease provided by medical science would be welcomed eagerly by most. I do not dispute that modern science has not provided the means to assist a great many individuals in their multitudinous struggles. I would say however, that lack of reason has repeatedly contributed to scientific knowledge being poorly utilized. In my mind the ability of a society to act in an effective and rational manner is related to its individual’s willingness to question. I would agree that science and religion may serve to answer questions but I am sure you can guess which one I consider to be more effective in this.

In truth all I intended to suggest with my remarks were an objection to the notion that there are questions which should not be at least contemplated and a rejection of the idea that knowing nothing of a subject (like vision) is somehow advantageous to anyone. Indeed my limited knowledge of vision, how my eyes may have evolved, brings me great pleasure and augments my pure sensory experience with understanding.


My apologies, I am not against questioning in any way, I'm against the deferment of thinking to authorities whether they be Cleric or Scientist.
Think about how many people "believe" in evolution, not due to evidence they have seen, but due to "great thinkers" telling them that it is true.
Peace.

[CGMonkey]

That would imply that things that you cant perceive aren't real, and that seeing someone from far away means that in reality they really are that small.

You don't PERCIEVE someone small just because they are far away.

[Kman.]

what?

[Prometheus|ANJ]

Reminds me of a story that I heard about a tribe/jungle man. I think I've told it before, several times. I don't remember the details, but afaik. it's true and it goes something like this:

An explorer finds a tribe living in a dense jungle. He brings a guy out on the Savannah in his jeep and they see a large animal near the horizon. The tribe guy thinks it's a bug, because he has never seen anything at a distance before. As they drive closer, he notes that the animal is growing.

Yeah, well, that's it. If anyone has heard the story before and know where, a link would be cool. If the story is true, I think it's a good indicator to how the human mind adapts to the environment.

I saw a BSG episode recently were this Cylon dude complains about having to perceive the wonders of the world through a pair of gelatinous orbs. I think our brains would actually adapt pretty well to cybernetic sensory organs, and even extra limbs. I don't think it's hardwired to this particular humanoid setup.

Vaguely related read (http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

[0kelvin]

I know Jared Diamond told that story about the tribesman in either Guns, Germs and Steel or The Third Chimpanzee. All my books are packed up in boxes so I can't check which it was, but I remember it talking quite a bit about the particular tribesman and going into detail about his whole story, so I'm pretty sure it was true and not just an urban legend. I think there was an even a photo of him in the book, if I recall.



Eric