[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Micah]

Gene,

I know of it, it's called the subconscious. If I didn't know of it, we
wouldn't be having a discussion on it.

I did just state it. What assumptions have I made? All ideas are human - are
there any other kind. Humans think, and we may think that animals "think",
but they do not. Humans think. Animals are. The universe is, we
anthropomorphize. We apply structure to chaos, because chaos is not
comprehendible to humans. We need structure to make sense, and we need to
make sense of chaos to live or we would be animals. We are the only species
that does this.

We have fancier terms than animals? You actually said that? What animals
have terms? What animals understand mental concepts? You need to deconstruct
your premise that animals think - there is no evidence of animals thinking,
independent of humans. Or at least explain these non-fancy animal terms.

To prove animals don't make decisions would first require the assumption
that they do make decisions - I don't make that assumption - you do.

I'm not an expert on when humans first became "intelligent, but I don't deny
the fact that we are, and I also know the chances of evolution occurring the
way it has in the case of our existence is 100%. There is no luck, just what
is.

Further, I don't need your agreement nor do I want it and anyways, you are
not prepared to give it because you are too busy hugging your "view point"
to think logically.

You say dolphins have proper names for each other - you mean like, Ralph or
Bill?

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Gene M
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:46 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters


> Subconscious is an odd term, it is below our consciousness and yet since
we
> have named it and have an understanding of it, it is therefore not
> subconscious but conscious. I mean, how can we know about something - we
> can't know about? There is only one consciousness or reality, shared
> objective reality.

The subconscious is there, you can be Aware of it, and glean insight
from it, but ot actually know it? I doubt many are capable of that.
Being conscious of my unsconscious is a lifelong journey.

> Humans have intelligence, and only humans, because it is a human mental
> concept. Applying intelligence, or any term for that matter, to non-humans
> is anthropomorphizing. Man is the measure of all things.

I'm sorry dude, but you can't just state things like that. It may be
obvious to you, but that's probably because you start off with a Whole
Bunch of assumptions I don't share with you. It's not obvious to me at
All. Sure, the Idea of intelligence is a human mental concept( a.k.a
static intellectual pattern of value), but that doesn't mean it the
concept it refers to cannot encompass other species. When other
mammals learn how to ue tools, and then pass on that information to
their offspring and peers, thus creating a social pattern of value, is
this not thinking? What is it, if it is not?

> Animals don't "work" that is what humans do. Animals are. Animals don't
have
> "free will", humans do.  Animals don't "behave", humans do. Animals don't
> make "decisions", that is a human mental concept. You are
> anthropomorphizing.

Maybe humans don't work, or have free will, or behave. We Are
Animals!! Maybe we just Are as much as they, we just happen to come up
with much fanicer terms for it than them. The existence of fancy terms
hardly seems a basis for seperation from our Incredibly close genetic
cousins.

Where is your Proof that animals do Not make decisions? It seems
extremely more likely that they do than not. Are all other species' in
the world's actions predetermined by some master genetic plan except
for us?

> I am fascinated by those that think man is not the measure of all things,
> when we clearly are and that alone separates us.
>
> I am not religious and my position is rational, you're the one denying the
> obvious.

Once again, only obvious to you. Some of us do not share this view.
That doesn't make us stupid, or you far more insightful, it just means
we don't share a common view about something. It happens. It's not
clear. Dolphins have proper names for each other, chimps have been
taught to use simple money, gorrillas can learn and convey hundreds of
concepts in sign language. Why aren't they thinking?

> I am not presuming (human mental concept) human qualities on animals, you
> are. I have no premise - you do. It is irrational to presume human
qualities
> on animals without evidence.  Can you cite even one instance of animals
> displaying human qualities, independent of humans?

In the wild, some sea birds have learnt to pick up shellfish, fly
above a rock and drop them onto it to smash the shell and expose the
sweet fleshey goodness within. Chimps have been known to use sticks as
tools to collect food, such as ants, from inconvenient locations.
Dolphins even have proper names for each other!! Series of sounds
which represent a single individual in their group.

I'm simply not a fan of the Hubris involved in assuming we're somehow
Seperate from animals. This whole thing strikes me as horribly
"divine". We're not special, we were never special. We're probably
just shit lucky.

Here's a question:

Were the austrolopithecai "intelligent"? Were they seperate from all
other species? At what point in our species' evolution did we become
utterly seperate from the other  animals? When did We suddenly become
so much superior to animals?

-Gene
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/