PDA

View Full Version : The 'We are Just Animals' Perspective


LHX
07-11-2006, 09:02 AM
I know this is a favorite perspective among many folks.

Something everybody can get behind and say 'YEAH!'

But it addresses approximately 0% of any of the problems here specifically, and suggests approximately no solutions.

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1151836295/What_We_Are

Nevertheless, it is a perspective that is brought up constantly.

Let's compare and contrast this to our other Atheist threads, Evolution threads, and Knowledge of Self threads.

Post some feedback if you have time.

At the least, the movie is entertaining (under 5 minutes).

ADD ON

pneumatic
07-11-2006, 09:15 AM
God had an affair with a gorilla. Enter the human.

da kid toney
07-11-2006, 10:50 PM
yo LHX you are chief broom ain´t ya!? holla at me in a pm please if so
1

Os3y3ris
07-12-2006, 01:09 AM
But it addresses approximately 0% of any of the problems here specifically, and suggests approximately no solutions.

I think it solves a lot of problems. Destroying the ego is necessary for real progress.

whitey
07-12-2006, 07:18 AM
we wouldnt do a lot of the things we do if we werent animals.

LHX
07-12-2006, 08:56 AM
yo LHX you are chief broom ain´t ya!? holla at me in a pm please if so
1

what the hell is a chief broom?
is that from video games?

LHX
07-12-2006, 08:56 AM
I think it solves a lot of problems. Destroying the ego is necessary for real progress.

does it destroy the ego? or confuse the ego?

june181972
07-12-2006, 10:13 AM
This movie is trick-knowledgey at it's best.

We are just animals, monkeys?
The narrator destoryed his own argument with every word that came out of his mouth.
He spent the entire 3 minutes plus demonstrating the differences between humans and animals, monkeys.

Question: Why is he calling us monkeys?

Is it because human scientist have acquired the knowledge to understand that monkeys are not only physically similar to humans, but are one of the most intelliegent life forms on Earth other than humans?

The fact that he himself is separating monkeys from lions, and bats, and tuna, and gazelles, and spiders can easily lead one to the logical scientific separation of monkeys and humans.

The narrator himself said that:

"these monkeys are cursed with conciousness"
"hate separates these monkeys from other animals"
"these monkeys have so much potential if they would only apply themselves"

So obviously were are not monkeys, right?

When someone shows me a 4 minute movie that has been written, directed, produced and filmed by a monkey, then I will start to consider this bullshit.

LHX
07-12-2006, 10:26 AM
This movie is trick-knowledgey at it's best.

We are just animals, monkeys?
The narrator destoryed his own argument with every word that came out of his mouth.
He spent the entire 3 minutes plus demonstrating the differences between humans and animals, monkeys.

Question: Why is he calling us monkeys?

Is it because human scientist have acquired the knowledge to understand that monkeys are not only physically similar to humans, but are one of the most intelliegent life forms on Earth other than humans?

The fact that he himself is separating monkeys from lions, and bats, and tuna, and gazelles, and spiders can easily lead one to the logical scientific separation of monkeys and humans.

The narrator himself said that:

"these monkeys are cursed with conciousness"
"hate separates these monkeys from other animals"
"these monkeys have so much potential if they would only apply themselves"

So obviously were are not monkeys, right?

When someone shows me a 4 minute movie that has been written, directed, produced and filmed by a monkey, then I will start to consider this bullshit.

there is a difference between a person who is ignorant and a person who is consciously broadcasting trick-knowledge

other than that
i agree with pretty much everything you are saying

june181972
07-12-2006, 10:34 AM
there is a difference between a person who is ignorant and a person who is consciously broadcasting trick-knowledge

other than that
i agree with pretty much everything you are saying


The trick-knowledge comes with one's intentions.

Like you said, this movie solves 0% of our problems.
So I wonder what his real intentions were.

We can't solve anything if we dumb ourselves down by eliminating our "ego."

LHX
07-12-2006, 10:49 AM
The trick-knowledge comes with one's intentions.

Like you said, this movie solves 0% of our problems.
So I wonder what his real intentions were.

We can't solve anything if we dumb ourselves down by eliminating our "ego."

Peace

LMAO

please

the real intentions of the movie was to solve problems
but you can't solve problems when you are too dumb to understand what the difference is between a 'problem' and a 'symptom of a problem'

the film maker has good intentions but is barking up the wrong tree, and the overall result is something bad because it gets broadcasted to the already confused masses

nothing more sinister than that

june181972
07-12-2006, 11:16 AM
LMAO

please

the real intentions of the movie was to solve problems
but you can't solve problems when you are too dumb to understand what the difference is between a 'problem' and a 'symptom of a problem'

the film maker has good intentions but is barking up the wrong tree, and the overall result is something bad because it gets broadcasted to the already confused masses

nothing more sinister than that

Trick-knowledge does not have to be diabolically sinister.

If you have someone basically saying that we should universally devalue our greatest gift, the power of our mind (the ability to search through the infinite knowledge) and stupid people take it to heart, then that's all the more people walking around deaf dumb and blind. All the more people unable to solve the problems at hand.

Maybe I should have used the word "results" along with my use of the word "intentions."

He was also trying to devalue people's search for "God."
Now I'm not the religious, spook God type.
But God versus monkeys? come on man

IMO: search for God=search for knowledge

Neither one of us know what his true intentions were.
But we agree that the result is ignorance for the masses to consume.

I would not put anything past anybody.

My First Timbs
07-14-2006, 04:02 PM
humans are 98.67% genetically similar to chimpanzees

we are also 84% genetically similar to mice

in contrast, we are 13% genetically similar to watermelons (but still, amazingly, this shows we are related to watermelons as well).

humans (homo sapiens) are eukaryotic.. thus we are either to be classified as plants or animalia..take ur pick.. and of course we arent plants.

there is no fundamental difference between us and any other animal on this planet, other than our conscious decision to exclude ourselves from the kingdom to which we belong.

LHX
07-14-2006, 05:23 PM
there is no fundamental difference between us and any other animal on this planet, other than our conscious decision to exclude ourselves from the kingdom to which we belong.

you mean the difference is the ability to define 'kingdoms'

and notice the similarities between ourselves and other things on this planet

and then make the observation that it seems that we have made a conscious decision to exclude ourselves from the animal kingdom which, from a certain perspective, we seem to belong to

Civilison
07-14-2006, 06:00 PM
yo light

what must have happened to you...

that you started to write in capital letters

your mind is buggin out when the angels sing

i thought that i seen you on the subway today

peace to you my brother

LHX
07-14-2006, 06:27 PM
yo light

what must have happened to you...

that you started to write in capital letters

your mind is buggin out when the angels sing

i thought that i seen you on the subway today

peace to you my brother

had to test see if i could still rock the old styles

Proper Grammar, etc.

learning not to bug out when the angels sing

1111111111111

My First Timbs
07-14-2006, 06:54 PM
you mean the difference is the ability to define 'kingdoms'

and notice the similarities between ourselves and other things on this planet

and then make the observation that it seems that we have made a conscious decision to exclude ourselves from the animal kingdom which, from a certain perspective, we seem to belong to

yes, the only difference is our abiluty to come up with categories itself!

what im saying is that we are animals

the word animal should not evoke an emotional response.. nor should the word "animal" be viewed with a negative connotation.. living things of a eukaryotic nature are either plants or animal

humans are animals

it is mainly human arrogance and ego that is the guiding force that allows us to want to distinguish or separate ourselved from the animal kingdom, meanwhile all the while it is to no avail because we are what we are..

we are eukaryotic, chordates (vertebrates) belonging to the class mammalia (mammals) and the order/subgenus primatae..

does everyone agree that there are only 2 choices "plant or animal"?

lets start there... or do those that think that humans should not be defined as animals believe that homo sapien is a class of life in and of itself (ie plant, animal, human)

Frontal Lobotomy
07-14-2006, 07:12 PM
Humans are like, bipedal, cerebral and relatively fur-free. Its this, in part that gives us the impression that we're different (and superior) to all the other animals. Even if the most important thing for us to do is maintain our bloodline. I guess being able to rationalise brings double standards along with it.

Aqueous Moon
07-14-2006, 07:26 PM
I don't think we should get carried away with this humans are animals stuff.

If humans = animals, then animals = humans.

No? Then we ain't animals.

LHX
07-14-2006, 07:30 PM
yes, the only difference is our abiluty to come up with categories itself!

what im saying is that we are animals

the word animal should not evoke an emotional response.. nor should the word "animal" be viewed with a negative connotation.. living things of a eukaryotic nature are either plants or animal

humans are animals

it is mainly human arrogance and ego that is the guiding force that allows us to want to distinguish or separate ourselved from the animal kingdom, meanwhile all the while it is to no avail because we are what we are..


LMAO - i dig it Timbs

the thing i love most about your observations is that they can be used to prove the opposing point of view

it was human arrogance and ego that made 'the animal kingdom' - and i agree - it is human arrogance and ego that separates ourselves from what we created


we are eukaryotic, chordates (vertebrates) belonging to the class mammalia (mammals) and the order/subgenus primatae..

does everyone agree that there are only 2 choices "plant or animal"?

lets start there... or do those that think that humans should not be defined as animals believe that homo sapien is a class of life in and of itself (ie plant, animal, human)

there are some who think that all definitions are inadequate, and applying anything as static as a label to these things is to misunderstand their nature







side note - where do insects and microbiology fit into your schematics?

whitey
07-14-2006, 08:02 PM
I don't think we should get carried away with this humans are animals stuff.

If humans = animals, then animals = humans.

No? Then we ain't animals.


Worst disproval ever.

Aqueous Moon
07-14-2006, 08:05 PM
lmao...I tried, but I really hate the animal/human analogy. And I didn't want to just say that, so i thought I'd get creative wit it.
It was wack. lol

LHX
07-14-2006, 09:05 PM
from a common sense approach to things, the only difference between animal and plant is the ability to roam the land, and some people could even argue that plants DO move, but they move a lot slower


as for the other part:
the difference between the human animal and non-human animal is intelligence

ego comes AFTER intelligence

Aqueous Moon
07-14-2006, 11:40 PM
Is ego a good thing? or, is it bad?

Is there 'good' ego and 'bad' ego. Or is it all the same?

LHX
07-15-2006, 08:17 AM
Is ego a good thing? or, is it bad?

Is there 'good' ego and 'bad' ego. Or is it all the same?

an ego is a tool

used in the right way - it is good
some might even say necessary


used the way we see it these days, it is bringing our civilization to an end


it is thru the ego that we are able to see equality
and you-know-who can't get to equality

JASPER
07-16-2006, 12:32 PM
Yo niggas, wus up wid all dis here trick knowledge

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 12:38 PM
I don't think we should get carried away with this humans are animals stuff.

If humans = animals, then animals = humans.

No? Then we ain't animals.

lmao

that makes no sense what so ever

if all mafia hitmen are italian = all italians are mafia hitmen

hahahahahahah

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 12:44 PM
side note - where do insects and microbiology fit into your schematics


its very simple

microbes that are eukaryotic (meaning composed of more than one cell) are lumped into the animal category... altho by in large most microbes are prokaryotic (unicellular)

all insects are in the animal category (they of course are multicellular, however are simply invertebrate)

i did neglect to mention the other category

there are plants, animals and fungi (i 4got to mention fungi are fundamentally different from plants)

so humans are obviously animal.

definition or not, from a simple classification standpoint its obvious that we are no different from all the other creatures lumped into the animal category

in order to seperate ourselves we must 1st have a justifiable reason to do so (ie an objective nomenclature based charateristic) that distinguishes us from other "animals"... asof yet there are none.

Os3y3ris
07-16-2006, 12:59 PM
from a common sense approach to things, the only difference between animal and plant is the ability to roam the land, and some people could even argue that plants DO move, but they move a lot slower

This is wrong on so many levels.

If humans = animals, then animals = humans.

Learn to think properly. Thats not a dis. Your thought process really is off.

LHX
07-16-2006, 01:03 PM
This is wrong on so many levels.
go ahead

im listening

LHX
07-16-2006, 01:05 PM
in order to seperate ourselves we must 1st have a justifiable reason to do so (ie an objective nomenclature based charateristic) that distinguishes us from other "animals"... asof yet there are none.

what about this discussion? is that an 'objective nomenclature based characteristic'? or are porcupines currently discussing the same dilemma on msn messenger?

june181972
07-16-2006, 01:47 PM
seperating monkeys from animals because of conciosness or whatever doesnt make a monkey not an animal.
just because human folk may have better or sharper thought processers than other aminals doesnt make us any less a aminal.
its all ooooww

I never said humans are not animals
I never said monkeys are not animals
I just refuse to reduce myself to a monkey

The point was, if we are monkeys, how come we are not elephants?
Elephants are intelligent, they do not have to carry non-food objects around in their mouths.
My post really says that the movies ruins its own argument before it even begins.

I understand the scientific classification of the biological kingdoms.
So I understand animal is not intended to mean savage uncivilized beast that does not use toilet paper.

We are animals, but we are the "greatest" of animals.
Anyone that disputes that is unintelligent because what makes us the greatest animals is are superior mental capacity.

Aqueous Moon
07-16-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
lmao

that makes no sense what so ever

if all mafia hitmen are italian = all italians are mafia hitmen

hahahahahahah

Originally Posted by Os3y3ris
Learn to think properly. Thats not a dis. Your thought process really is off.


Geez guys....I already said it was wack. See below. But, go ahead run it to the ground, I know you can't resist....lol


Originally Posted by Aqueous Moon
lmao...I tried, but I really hate the animal/human analogy. And I didn't want to just say that, so i thought I'd get creative wit it.
It was wack. lol


Now.....there is some truth to my crude analogy.

Originally Posted by Aqueous Moon
I don't think we should get carried away with this humans are animals stuff.

If humans = animals, then animals = humans.

No? Then we ain't animals.


That being this: The fundamental differences being humans and animals allows us to distinguish ourselves as superior beings.

It's an outdated and incomplete statement, that humans are animals. Because, no we really are not animals.

Humans should only be equated with animals when they behave savage like animals. Otherwise, something big gets lost in the translation.

Some would call that the ego....but, isn't it really just human nature?

Os3y3ris
07-16-2006, 03:55 PM
go ahead

im listening

I suck at bio, so I simply grabbed a dictionary: Any of various photosynthetic, eukaryotic, multicellular organisms of the kingdom Plantae characteristically producing embryos, containing chloroplasts, having cellulose cell walls, and lacking the power of locomotion.

LHX
07-16-2006, 04:18 PM
I suck at bio, so I simply grabbed a dictionary: Any of various photosynthetic, eukaryotic, multicellular organisms of the kingdom Plantae characteristically producing embryos, containing chloroplasts, having cellulose cell walls, and lacking the power of locomotion.
come on, O

from an (un)common sense perspective

humans do all the same things, but use a different technique

life is life

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 05:17 PM
I never said humans are not animals
I never said monkeys are not animals
I just refuse to reduce myself to a monkey

The point was, if we are monkeys, how come we are not elephants?
Elephants are intelligent, they do not have to carry non-food objects around in their mouths.
My post really says that the movies ruins its own argument before it even begins.

I understand the scientific classification of the biological kingdoms.
So I understand animal is not intended to mean savage uncivilized beast that does not use toilet paper.

We are animals, but we are the "greatest" of animals.
Anyone that disputes that is unintelligent because what makes us the greatest animals is are superior mental capacity.

humans are not merely monkeys.. no scientific classification has ever stated that.. we are simply related to monkeys.. we are NOT monkeys.

humans are not elephants because elephants altho mammal do not fit the classification. they dont have increased brain size coupled with binocular vision coupled with opposable thumbs coupled with an adequate vertical pelvis among many other things...

intelligence is the last factor on the list because ultimately intelligence is pseudo subjective and is based on a more important factor (ie a suitable central nervous system that can allow it)

dont get hung up on "intelligence" .

in addition, how does one objectively determine that humans are the "greatest" of animals? thats a subjective assertion immediately biased from human ego

Os3y3ris
07-16-2006, 05:43 PM
humans do all the same things, but use a different technique

As plants? No.

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 06:41 PM
even tho plants accomplish it differently, humans (as do other vertebrate lifeforms) all have a comparable equivalent processes to accomplish energy acquisition and waste disposal and regulation of growth and reproduction

we use basically membrane bound organelles such as mitochondria, while plants use carbon fixation and a kreb cycle

but ultimately all life is amazingly similar.. that sbecause we all stem from an ancient relative

LHX
07-16-2006, 08:04 PM
even tho plants accomplish it differently, humans (as do other vertebrate lifeforms) all have a comparable equivalent processes to accomplish energy acquisition and waste disposal and regulation of growth and reproduction

we use basically membrane bound organelles such as mitochondria, while plants use carbon fixation and a kreb cycle

but ultimately all life is amazingly similar.. that sbecause we all stem from an ancient relative

thats what im saying

humans have the bodies of animals, and animals carry out the same functions as plants

but animals do not have this intelligence that speaks phonetic words and creates advertising campaigns and puts the fork on the left side of the plate

june181972
07-16-2006, 09:01 PM
humans are not merely monkeys.. no scientific classification has ever stated that.. we are simply related to monkeys.. we are NOT monkeys.

humans are not elephants because elephants altho mammal do not fit the classification. they dont have increased brain size coupled with binocular vision coupled with opposable thumbs coupled with an adequate vertical pelvis among many other things...

intelligence is the last factor on the list because ultimately intelligence is pseudo subjective and is based on a more important factor (ie a suitable central nervous system that can allow it)

dont get hung up on "intelligence" .

in addition, how does one objectively determine that humans are the "greatest" of animals? thats a subjective assertion immediately biased from human ego

I thought it was obvious from the post that I am stating that though related, humans are NOT monkeys.

How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?

What does psuedo subjective mean?
Doesn't that imply some level of objectivity?

Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?

If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to another animal's ego.

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

Os3y3ris
07-16-2006, 09:05 PM
even tho plants accomplish it differently, humans (as do other vertebrate lifeforms) all have a comparable equivalent processes to accomplish energy acquisition and waste disposal and regulation of growth and reproduction

Come on man. If you make it that vauge, yeh, we're the same. However, its impossible for me to clone myself. I have defined shape. I need to kill to eat. I THINK.

LHX
07-16-2006, 09:10 PM
yeh, we're the same

all you have to say, bro

LHX
07-16-2006, 09:11 PM
I thought it was obvious from the post that I am stating that though related, humans are NOT monkeys.

How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?

What does psuedo subjective mean?
Doesn't that imply some level of objectivity?

Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?

If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to an another animal's ego.

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

we use words

-end of story-

Aqueous Moon
07-16-2006, 09:36 PM
I rather we compare humans to some cool animal like the Lion, King of the Jungle.

Or...what about Owls? Aren't they supposed to be wise and dignified?

Some humans are snakes, dogs, pigs, tho.

This can go on...

LHX
07-16-2006, 09:41 PM
metaphors are fun to use

Aqueous Moon
07-16-2006, 09:58 PM
lol...metaphorical language is my joy

hectis
07-16-2006, 10:03 PM
Humans And Animals Are Not The Same Thing Sure We Do A Lot Of The Same Things But We Are Not The Same

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 10:13 PM
but animals do not have this intelligence that speaks phonetic words and creates advertising campaigns and puts the fork on the left side of the plate

thats a subjective assertion.. what we define as intelligence is biased from the get go if u base us as a standard

phonetic speech is one form of a myriad of animal communication.. it could be argued that it is hardly the most advanced form of animal communication.

My First Timbs
07-16-2006, 10:32 PM
How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?

What does psuedo subjective mean?
Doesn't that imply some level of objectivity?

Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?

If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to another animal's ego.

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

great questions..

here is where i think we are getting hung up


How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?


increased brain size is not the same thing as intellgence.. when i spoke of increased brain size, im talking about the relative organ (brain weight) to nominal body weight ratio!...

i was merely pointing out how one could in no way rationalize elephants and humans belonging to the same suborder...


Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?


here is the crux of the issue.. we have to agree on a defintion of intelligence.. by intelligence im referring to a nervous system that allows for conscious thought and ability to retrieve sensory input, process it and then make a decision based on current input or prior input that was processed in a similar situation. the human nervous system allows for this.. as does the central nervous system of many other animals.


If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to another animal's ego.


an assertion that humans are the greatest of all animals is biased from human ego because it implies that there exists a heirarchy where certain characteristics are placed above other characteristics.. (with human abilities of course appearing at the apex).. how does one determine which abilities are better than other animal abilities? is it purely based on survival value to the species? or is it qualified on a trait by trait basis?

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

thats a hard question.. because ultimately it would require a test to demonstrate the conscious animal psyche... but what can be stated about this area are results obtained from studies involving many different animals and their ability to recognize the concept of "self" vs "others", and symbolic thinking and altrusim. many animals do indeed have the ability 2 recognize the concept of self and symbolic thought. from this and what we know about our own abilities and CNS is that with that mechanism in place, u have all the necessary components to allow for inner thought processes (ie an "ego") or cognitive ability to perceive ones self and one's goals.

on another level, it must be understood that the basic fundamental point of any and all egos are purely for self preservation and reproduction (when i talk about self preservation, im talking not about the actual individual, but the survival value of the species itself)

june181972
07-16-2006, 10:49 PM
Timbs,

Don't humans have the highest brain mass to body mass ratio?

Are not humans the ones most capable of using ALL five senses to process information?
(I know some animals might have one or two superior to humans, but as a whole working together effectively)

Ultimately, when it comes to survival, animals will never displace humans because they decided to move in to the neighborhood.
(I have deers and rabbits in my back yard because they built houses where animals used to roam and live)

I understand the basic ego and self-preservation premise
But are not humans the only animals to truly decide between fight and flight when put in a hostile, one-on-one situation?

Do animals ever search for or even debate the existence of a higher power?
All they are motivated by is procreation, appetite, and protecting their territory and family.

Our motivation goes beyond basic creature comforts and survival.
If not, we would not even have scientists.

LHX
07-16-2006, 10:56 PM
thats a subjective assertion.. what we define as intelligence is biased from the get go if u base us as a standard
what if you dont base us as a standard, but rather an example of something that possibly could be called 'The Standard™'?


phonetic speech is one form of a myriad of animal communication.. it could be argued that it is hardly the most advanced form of animal communication.
negative

phonetic language has nothing to do with speech

it has everything to do with the use of symbols

this is as abstract as it gets

LHX
07-16-2006, 11:05 PM
here is the crux of the issue.. we have to agree on a defintion of intelligence..
no
we dont

it would be useful for this discussion to be able to have a definition of intelligence, but it is the nature of the beast that we run into that age old flaw - when something tries to define itself


by intelligence im referring to a nervous system that allows for conscious thought and ability to retrieve sensory input, process it and then make a decision based on current input or prior input that was processed in a similar situation. the human nervous system allows for this..
yes - these bodies are capable of holding intelligence


as does the central nervous system of many other animals.

clearly, not the same way


an assertion that humans are the greatest of all animals is biased from human ego because it implies that there exists a heirarchy where certain characteristics are placed above other characteristics..
what if it has nothing to do wiff 'greatest'
but just different?

Os3y3ris
07-16-2006, 11:26 PM
Are not humans the ones most capable of using ALL five senses to process information?
(I know some animals might have one or two superior to humans, but as a whole working together effectively)

I don't think so. Humans tend to suck in regards to the senses.

I understand the basic ego and self-preservation premise
But are not humans the only animals to truly decide between fight and flight when put in a hostile, one-on-one situation?

I disagree here. I think animals do make a choice. Consider a dog or a cat. They often come into conflict with humans and then need to decide what level of force to use.

All they are motivated by is procreation, appetite, and protecting their territory and family.

As well as self preservation.

Our motivation goes beyond basic creature comforts and survival.

Not really. Even religion tends to offer comfor or survival.

If not, we would not even have scientists.

Curiosity is a survival instinct.

On a related note, has anyone read Nietzche? If so, what do you think of his argument as relates to this subject? His seperation of man and animal is one of a will to survive vs a will to power. Will to power, borrowed decades later by the nazis, basically meant that man had a desire to dominate those around him, which seperated him from the animals.

june181972
07-16-2006, 11:50 PM
I don't think so. Humans tend to suck in regards to the senses.



I disagree here. I think animals do make a choice. Consider a dog or a cat. They often come into conflict with humans and then need to decide what level of force to use.



As well as self preservation.



Not really. Even religion tends to offer comfor or survival.



Curiosity is a survival instinct.



We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.

Self preservation is appetite, procreation, and protection of family and territory

I NEVER MENTIONED RELIGION
In college, religion 101: Death and the after life
All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after

Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process.

"Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back"
Depends on what happens when you stick your nose in it.

june181972
07-17-2006, 02:28 AM
On a related note, has anyone read Nietzche? If so, what do you think of his argument as relates to this subject? His seperation of man and animal is one of a will to survive vs a will to power. Will to power, borrowed decades later by the nazis, basically meant that man had a desire to dominate those around him, which seperated him from the animals.

Never read Nietzche,
but sounds like someone else that is pointing out very clear differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 12:57 PM
We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.

Self preservation is appetite, procreation, and protection of family and territory

I NEVER MENTIONED RELIGION
In college, religion 101: Death and the after life
All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after

Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process.

"Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back"
Depends on what happens when you stick your nose in it.



We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

that just simply isnt true.. there are many other animals that use their sense in a more complicated way then we do and achive better results from the processing of these senses than we could ever dream of.

our 5 senses are actually quite weak (even when used in conjuntion with other senses)


Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.


the line is just as clear once u throw humanity in the mix as well...we are omnivorous mammals with a predatory drive.


All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after


completely un true.. one of humanity's greatest survival values is a natural result of man's belief and understanding of religion! religion has been one of the most valuable tools in our survival on this planet... religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)


Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process


what do u mean by "outright"? thats not the issue.. the issue is whether or not curiousity provides survival value and of course it does! as long as the behavior or thought process can yield more benefit than detriment.. it has survival value.. curiousity is an evolved cognition that has great survival value because it allows an individual to learn aout the nature of their surroundings and environment (immediate and remote).. with that information (provided it doesnt kill u in the process) u now have a great advantage (especially if u can now communicate what u have learned to the rest of the family unit)

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 12:59 PM
Never read Nietzche,
but sounds like someone else that is pointing out very clear differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

lets not confuse the issue.. this thread started out under the argument of whether humans were animals or not....

to that, the answer touted by many was either yes or no..

the issue of whether humans are different from other animals is a completely different topic.

june181972
07-17-2006, 01:45 PM
that just simply isnt true.. there are many other animals that use their sense in a more complicated way then we do and achive better results from the processing of these senses than we could ever dream of.
our 5 senses are actually quite weak (even when used in conjuntion with other senses)Name such an animal


the line is just as clear once u throw humanity in the mix as well...we are omnivorous mammals with a predatory drive.
My point exactly


completely un true.. one of humanity's greatest survival values is a natural result of man's belief and understanding of religion! religion has been one of the most valuable tools in our survival on this planet... religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)
How does religion help survival? Religion has been one of the most valuable catalyst of wars. You say completely untrue, when this is completely your opinion. But fact is, many religions only promise us great things after are lives are over. That is not survival as a scientist would define it. Right was right, wrong was wrong, life was life, and death was death long before man established religion and any of the rituals that go with them.


what do u mean by "outright"? thats not the issue.. the issue is whether or not curiousity provides survival value and of course it does! as long as the behavior or thought process can yield more benefit than detriment.. it has survival value.. curiousity is an evolved cognition that has great survival value because it allows an individual to learn aout the nature of their surroundings and environment (immediate and remote).. with that information (provided it doesnt kill u in the process) u now have a great advantage (especially if u can now communicate what u have learned to the rest of the family unit)
What do I mean by outright? You just explained it, curiosity can kill you in the process, just like I said in the post you are responding to. ("Maybe" if I do this, then "maybe" it can help me with this. Lets see "if" it works.) One's choice of fight or flight is an "outright" decision to try stay alive. Curiousity "can help" as well as religion, but you must also consider the human trait of zealousness. Which can result in death in both cases.
I'm trying to talk absolutes here.

june181972
07-17-2006, 02:02 PM
lets not confuse the issue.. this thread started out under the argument of whether humans were animals or not....

to that, the answer touted by many was either yes or no..

the issue of whether humans are different from other animals is a completely different topic.

Thread title: The 'We are Just Animals' Perspective
The scientific paradigm is that humans are in the animal kingdom.
So the point is to justify Homo sapien as a legitimatly unique, and descriptively sound binomial nomenclature

NO. We are not JUST Animals
If you want a yes or no answer

By the way
You did not answer the question about the brain mass to body mass ratio.
Nor did you respond to statement about animals never displacing humans from our chosen place of habitat.
Post #51

Robert
07-17-2006, 02:20 PM
its very simple

microbes that are eukaryotic (meaning composed of more than one cell)

This is completely incorrect, Prokaryotic cells are cells without a membrane bound nucleus, that is thier DNA, RNA is spead throughout the cells, they are primative cells.

Eukaryotic cells have organelles (endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes etc)
and a membrane bound nucleus. It is though they envolved by a process called endosymbiosis (basically engulfment of other cells to form organelles) from prokaryotic cells.

Calling humans eukaryotic is meaningless, it seems there is a whole lotta misinformation on the science side of things being thrown around in this thread

Robert
07-17-2006, 02:29 PM
Of course there distinct differences between humans and other organisms ranging from methods of development (protostomes and deuterostomes) right through to small differences like organ size and usage. I dont debate that we are animals, highly intelligent animals but animals none the less.

The question is how we differ from our closest relatives and while using large scale comparisons like multicellularity and the like we may appear very similar using a finer scale we possess things that put us millions of years ahead of the closest species (again this is a relatively small time period considering the duration of the earths existence but its long enough for me!!!).

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:01 PM
This is completely incorrect, Prokaryotic cells are cells without a membrane bound nucleus, that is thier DNA, RNA is spead throughout the cells, they are primative cells.

Eukaryotic cells have organelles (endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes etc)
and a membrane bound nucleus. It is though they envolved by a process called endosymbiosis (basically engulfment of other cells to form organelles) from prokaryotic cells.

Calling humans eukaryotic is meaningless, it seems there is a whole lotta misinformation on the science side of things being thrown around in this thread

i beg to differ.. calling humans "eukaryotic" is in no way a misnomer. eukaryotes are organisms composed of complex cells (mostly multicellular life forms as i pointed out earlier)

many different life forms are eukaryotic (plants, fungi, animals)

humans are animals, thus humans are eukaryotic... no misnomer here

calling humans eukaryotic gets to the heart of the issue.. that issue being what the original intent of this thread was.. are we are are we not animals... humans are eukaryotic (composed of more than one complex cell that contains membrane bound organelles),, and if we are eukaryotic that is to illustrate that we either are plant, fungus or animal

we are animal as u agree.

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:12 PM
What do I mean by outright? You just explained it, curiosity can kill you in the process, just like I said in the post you are responding to. ("Maybe" if I do this, then "maybe" it can help me with this. Lets see "if" it works.) One's choice of fight or flight is an "outright" decision to try stay alive. Curiousity "can help" as well as religion, but you must also consider the human trait of zealousness. Which can result in death in both cases.
I'm trying to talk absolutes here.

u are missing the issue and what is meant by survival value (from an evolutionary standpoint)

if a creature posseses this "trait" of curiousity, it has a 50/50 chance (or possibly greater) of that "trait" either providing a beneficial result or a negative result... as long as the beneficial reults outweight (by frequency or quality) the negative results, curiousity provides enormous survival value when compared to a creature that does not possess this trait of "curiousity"..

Robert
07-17-2006, 03:16 PM
Yeah i see wot you mean now your not using the single cell definition of eukaryote and that makes sense, my apologies.

But saying that being a eukaryote cuts to the heart of the issue, does not make sense to me. This is not a factor that differentiates us from primates which is the most important thing, for me it is clear humans dont bear resemblance to plants and fungi or even protists, its our relationship wit primates that is in main point of discussion. To look at this we should analyze smaller scale differences like oposable thumbs, brain capacity, mating/feeding strategies, all these things, but thats just my opinion
peace

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
that just simply isnt true.. there are many other animals that use their sense in a more complicated way then we do and achive better results from the processing of these senses than we could ever dream of.
our 5 senses are actually quite weak (even when used in conjuntion with other senses)Name such an animal



dogs have excellent hearing (in contrast to ours)
dogs have excellent smell (in contrast to ours)
dogs have excellent sight ( comparable to ours with use of a harderian gland)
dogs have excellent senses of touch (very comparable and on par with ours) involving similar receptors
dogs have very good taste receptors, especially sense they are couples with a pheomenal olfactory system...

the list of animals (including insects as well) could go on for pages when trying to compare and contrast with human senses.


in adiition, our sense of touch is laughable compared to any other creature that has antannae or hair feelers



the line is just as clear once u throw humanity in the mix as well...we are omnivorous mammals with a predatory drive.
My point exactly


if we agree on this, then nothing is to be said...




completely un true.. one of humanity's greatest survival values is a natural result of man's belief and understanding of religion! religion has been one of the most valuable tools in our survival on this planet... religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)
How does religion help survival? Religion has been one of the most valuable catalyst of wars. You say completely untrue, when this is completely your opinion. But fact is, many religions only promise us great things after are lives are over. That is not survival as a scientist would define it. Right was right, wrong was wrong, life was life, and death was death long before man established religion and any of the rituals that go with them.


do not confuse the issue

even tho religion has indeed been the major force of destruction in our history (modern history), this is no way means that the concept of religion and belief was not the major force that provided benefit to a social creature living at the whim of nature. i already explained the exact mechanism how it provided and ultimately still provides benefit from an evolutionary point of view.

religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)

june181972
07-17-2006, 03:18 PM
u are missing the issue and what is meant by survival value (from an evolutionary standpoint)


Okay, evolutionary point taken.

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:26 PM
Yeah i see wot you mean now your not using the single cell definition of eukaryote and that makes sense, my apologies.

But saying that being a eukaryote cuts to the heart of the issue, does not make sense to me. This is not a factor that differentiates us from primates which is the most important thing, for me it is clear humans dont bear resemblance to plants and fungi or even protists, its our relationship wit primates that is in main point of discussion. To look at this we should analyze smaller scale differences like oposable thumbs, brain capacity, mating/feeding strategies, all these things, but thats just my opinion
peace

peace robert

se the thing is.. i was merely trying to break the issue down to its essence to first illustrate that humans are animals (by simple classification) starting with our cellularity and worlking my way up

for one to argue that humans are not animals, they first have to somehow revamp the whole classification system from the ground up

if life forms can either be (in a nutshell, not counting viral life forms) prokaryotes or eukaryotes.. and the eukaryotes comprise plants, fungi and animals... then those who claim that humans are not animals will first have to somehow illustrate the the initial classification is faulty.

are we or are we not multicellular? if yes, then check one for eukaryotic.

are we or are we not plant or fungus.. if not then that leaves "animal"..

only from there we can now start to discuss the higher orders and note our differences and similarities ...

But saying that being a eukaryote cuts to the heart of the issue, does not make sense to me. This is not a factor that differentiates us from primates which is the most important thing, for me it is clear humans dont bear resemblance to plants and fungi or even protists, its our relationship wit primates that is in main point of discussion. To look at this we should analyze smaller scale differences like oposable thumbs, brain capacity, mating/feeding strategies, all these things, but thats just my opinion
peace

also, i wanted to add that i wholeheartedly agree with u that the smaller scale differences are truly the issue at hand, but when debating with others about something as trivial as "are humans animals or not", u must first start at the beginning

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:28 PM
Okay, evolutionary point taken.

anything i talk about in regard to life is always from an evolutionary standpoint

nothing makes sense in biology unless it it viewed thru a lens of evolution

Robert
07-17-2006, 03:34 PM
What ppl would argue, that is those that believe we are not animals, is that because we are conscious and far more intelligent then our closest living relatives, we should be considered in a separate grouping away from the animals. These ppl would not deny that we are related to monkeys, just that we are too advanced to be classed amoung them.

This is ludicrous to me, but i guess a lot of ppl think along these lines, and btw (though im sure you already now) viral life forms is a bit of an oxymoron coz viruses arent actually alive, but thats a whole other debate.....

june181972
07-17-2006, 03:34 PM
dogs have excellent hearing (in contrast to ours)
dogs have excellent smell (in contrast to ours)
dogs have excellent sight ( comparable to ours with use of a harderian gland)
dogs have excellent senses of touch (very comparable and on par with ours) involving similar receptors
dogs have very good taste receptors, especially sense they are couples with a pheomenal olfactory system...

the list of animals (including insects as well) could go on for pages when trying to compare and contrast with human senses.
Hearing and smell understood
sight touch and taste, not buying it
Insects have the exoskeleton, so not buying at least the touch aspect



if we agree on this, then nothing is to be said...





do not confuse the issue

even tho religion has indeed been the major force of destruction in our history (modern history), this is no way means that the concept of religion and belief was not the major force that provided benefit to a social creature living at the whim of nature. i already explained the exact mechanism how it provided and ultimately still provides benefit from an evolutionary point of view.

religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)
Maybe this issue is getting confused
The fact I even brought up "search for a higher power" (never religion)
was an attempt to show we are not just animals

Robert
07-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Maybe this issue is getting confused
The fact I even brought up "search for a higher power" (never religion)
was an attempt to show we are not just animals
This really depends on what you consider an animal, for me just because humans are highly intelligent does not mean we are not animals, and this intelligence includes searching for a higher power and questioning our existence

june181972
07-17-2006, 03:44 PM
This really depends on what you consider an animal, for me just because humans are highly intelligent does not mean we are not animals, and this intelligence includes searching for a higher power and questioning our existence

See Post #60 on page Four

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:45 PM
yea i know about the virus debate... its still an open debate :)

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:47 PM
Maybe this issue is getting confused
The fact I even brought up "search for a higher power" (never religion)
was an attempt to show we are not just animals

see thats the thing.. what do u mean when u say "not just animals"

humans are either animals or we are not.. u must take a stand or come up with some new classification system that somehow revamps biology to incorporate us as some special creature

Robert
07-17-2006, 03:49 PM
yea i know about the virus debate... its still an open debate :)
Yeah a very difficult one too answer, maybe steer clear of it in this thread:)

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:52 PM
Hearing and smell understood
sight touch and taste, not buying it
Insects have the exoskeleton, so not buying at least the touch aspect

well i dont know what else to tell u other than to do ur own research and read the literature

i have done extension research (field and lab) on insects, whether or not u accept the data is totally on u.

for one.. an exsoskeleton provides a great way to have a sense of touch!

LHX
07-17-2006, 03:53 PM
is anybody going to acknowledge the fact that animals don't use written words and symbols as a matter of significance?

without acknowledging that, all discussion of evolution and fungi and eukaryotes, etc. really has no foundation.

i want to jump back into this discussion, but we have not established any real foundation

also - i have questions from post #53 that didnt get answered

Robert
07-17-2006, 03:57 PM
is anybody going to acknowledge the fact that animals don't use written words and symbols as a matter of significance?

without acknowledging that, all discussion of evolution and fungi and eukaryotes, etc. really has no foundation.

i want to jump back into this discussion, but we have not established any real foundation

also - i have questions from post #53 that didnt get answered
All this indicates is higher intelligence, we are just highly intelligent animals, Written words and symbols are just products of this intelligence, not a factor that separates us from the entire animal kingdom

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 03:57 PM
This really depends on what you consider an animal, for me just because humans are highly intelligent does not mean we are not animals, and this intelligence includes searching for a higher power and questioning our existence

indeed

a search or acknowledgement of an alleged "higher power" is nothing special.. its merely the result of a suitable CNS system that allows conscious thought as well as abstract and symbolic thought... especially is a creature is social and lives at the whim of nature...

june181972
07-17-2006, 04:05 PM
see thats the thing.. what do u mean when u say "not just animals"

humans are either animals or we are not.. u must take a stand or come up with some new classification system that somehow revamps biology to incorporate us as some special creature

I know you understand the difference between the scientific definition of Animal
And the laymen's definition of Animal

Scientifically: Yes

Laymen=Just Animals: NO

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 04:10 PM
no
we dont

it would be useful for this discussion to be able to have a definition of intelligence, but it is the nature of the beast that we run into that age old flaw - when something tries to define itself


yes - these bodies are capable of holding intelligence


clearly, not the same way


what if it has nothing to do wiff 'greatest'
but just different?

see this is the thing.. from ur post it seems that u are coming to a conclusion that humans are not animals (or basically a vastly different type of animal ) simply because we are different than other animals in the kingdom..

electric eels are vastly different from gorillas, yet they are both animals.

different animals can do different things depending on the evolutionary history.. the evolutionary path of higher primates led to development of what we define and call sentient intelligence.... this in no way means were are not animal or vastly incomparably different to all other animals.

we are mrerly different.. but not different enuff to not be animal.. in order to not be "animal" me must not possess all the trimmings and characteristics that define something as animal..

we have all the trimmings.

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 04:14 PM
I know you understand the difference between the scientific definition of Animal
And the laymen's definition of Animal

Scientifically: Yes

Laymen=Just Animals: NO

i know that completely,, but my whole goal and point is that the laymans definition brings with it a bunch of errors in reasoning!

those reasoning errors are then (in error) tried to be applied to scientific discussion and scientific concepts... that the problem.

the same thing occurs when discussing a definition of a "theory"

the laymans defininition and connotation is vastly different from the true meaning, yet it is from this error in reasoning from the laymans definition that many errors rear their ugly head when actually discussion scientific theories within a scientific construct.

to me the laymans defintiion of "animal" doesnt exists and ultimately has no meaning because it carries alot of erroneous baggage

Robert
07-17-2006, 04:21 PM
Well i think we all agree that humans are animals

june181972
07-17-2006, 04:23 PM
i know that completely,, but my whole goal and point is that the laymans definition brings with it a bunch of errors in reasoning!

those reasoning errors are then (in error) tried to be applied to scientific discussion and scientific concepts... that the problem.


to me the laymans defintiion of "animal" doesnt exists and ultimately has no meaning because it carries alot of erroneous baggage


SERIOUS QUESTION:

If I told you that you have the mental capacity of a monkey
Would you not be offended, feel disrepected, feel that your work as a scientist is being belittled?

This is my point, as simply as I can put it.

My First Timbs
07-17-2006, 04:39 PM
SERIOUS QUESTION:

If I told you that you have the mental capacity of a monkey
Would you not be offended, feel disrepected, feel that your work as a scientist is being belittled?

This is my point, as simply as I can put it.

IN ALL HONESTY

it would not offend me in the slightest!

u know why? because i dont view myself as better than a monkey to begin with! i simply view myself as along a different evolutionary path than modern monkeys

that alone never implies betterness

just as i originally stated.. the problem lies with human ego

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 04:40 PM
Wow, this discussion is getting interesitng!
Why get hung up on "humans are animals", when we can use our greater intelligence to come to a more complete and rational conclusion that accounts for most importantly, human culture.

Biologically, humans do benefit from an animal classifacation simply because this allows us to understand our connection to the various life forms and atmospheres of the planet...which then allows us to understand the way our bodies react to external stimilus like the elements or disease or evolutionary change and adaption.

However, when culture is excluded from the equation we often don't get to properly examine and classify the biological components of human beings. This is because cause and effect get reduced to circular reasoning based on speculative foundations.

For example, culture is indicative of language. And in particular, opposable thumbs serve humans quite well in the ability to express themselves in written languages. This ability is crucial to human survival and quality of life. The cause and effect become need and fullfillment.

From a purley biological point of view, opposable thumbs can only be attributed to an adaption from a prior, less capable form of the opposable thumb. All the while still eluding cause and effect unto an endless tunnel of hypothesized posibilities.

The crown jewel of human nature is the ability to come to truths by the use of all faculties and forms of life in consensus. Metaphorical language, or allegroy is a good example of this. The 'humans are animals' thing....is quite frankly a primitive, patronizing, and inconclusive distraction.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 04:44 PM
is anybody going to acknowledge the fact that animals don't use written words and symbols as a matter of significance?

without acknowledging that, all discussion of evolution and fungi and eukaryotes, etc. really has no foundation.

i want to jump back into this discussion, but we have not established any real foundation

also - i have questions from post #53 that didnt get answered

I agree 100%

whitey
07-17-2006, 05:01 PM
We do everything animals do. Sleep, eat, shit, kill, fuck, run around. Then we do some other things that some animals don’t do which some people thinks really separates us; talk, write, sing, do math and science ect. Just because we can do those things it really makes us that much more above other animals?

Can we run 60 or 70 miles an hour like a cheetah? Can we pull a huge tree out of the ground like an elephant? Can we fly like a bird? Can we stay under water for more than a couple minutes without a breathing instrument like a fish? The list goes on. My point is these things are all special in their own way, we lucked out and got a brain as our specialty. By that fact of evolution we are put on some sort of pedestal?

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 05:15 PM
Wow, this discussion is getting interesitng!
Why get hung up on "humans are animals", when we can use our greater intelligence to come to a more complete and rational conclusion that accounts for most importantly, human culture.

Biologically, humans do benefit from an animal classifacation simply because this allows us to understand our connection to the various life forms and atmospheres of the planet...which then allows us to understand the way our bodies react to external stimilus like the elements or disease or evolutionary change and adaption.

However, when culture is excluded from the equation we often don't get to properly examine and classify the biological components of human beings. This is because cause and effect get reduced to circular reasoning based on speculative foundations.

For example, culture is indicative of language. And in particular, opposable thumbs serve humans quite well in the ability to express themselves in written languages. This ability is crucial to human survival and quality of life. The cause and effect become need and fullfillment.

From a purley biological point of view, opposable thumbs can only be attributed to an adaption from a prior, less capable form of the opposable thumb. All the while still eluding cause and effect unto an endless tunnel of hypothesized posibilities.

The crown jewel of human nature is the ability to come to truths by the use of all faculties and forms of life in consensus. Metaphorical language, or allegroy is a good example of this. The 'humans are animals' thing....is quite frankly a primitive, patronizing, and inconclusive distraction.


Our intellect has complicated and made survival more difficult to do. Our intellect pretty much made our way of surviving more polished and less barbaric

LHX
07-17-2006, 06:08 PM
My point is these things are all special in their own way, we lucked out and got a brain as our specialty. By that fact of evolution we are put on some sort of pedestal?

what?

this aint vegas



i would agree with the claim that we have the bodies of animals

but this intelligence that is able to use words and symbols is some different shit altogether

LHX
07-17-2006, 06:11 PM
Our intellect has complicated and made survival more difficult to do. Our intellect pretty much made our way of surviving more polished and less barbaric

painfully true

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 06:24 PM
Our intellect has complicated and made survival more difficult to do. Our intellect pretty much made our way of surviving more polished and less barbaric

Our intellect as opposed to?....an animal's intellect? how is our survival more difficult?

I don't understand cause then you say our intellect made survival more polished and less barbaric....

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 07:00 PM
We do everything animals do. Sleep, eat, shit, kill, fuck, run around. Then we do some other things that some animals don’t do which some people thinks really separates us; talk, write, sing, do math and science ect. Just because we can do those things it really makes us that much more above other animals?

Can we run 60 or 70 miles an hour like a cheetah? Can we pull a huge tree out of the ground like an elephant? Can we fly like a bird? Can we stay under water for more than a couple minutes without a breathing instrument like a fish? The list goes on. My point is these things are all special in their own way, we lucked out and got a brain as our specialty. By that fact of evolution we are put on some sort of pedestal?

So you don't acknowledge that there is an heirarchy to the natural order of things in the universe?

Order and hierarchy are manifested in every aspect of life. An infant can't be compared to a full grown adult, because the adult has higher abilities.

A guppy can't compare to a shark....a pigeon can't compare to an eagle.

Mars can't compare to the Earth. These things all belong to the same 'class' technically, but there is still an obvious hierarchy involved.

LHX
07-17-2006, 07:13 PM
So you don't acknowledge that there is an heirarchy to the natural order of things in the universe?

Order and hierarchy are manifested in every aspect of life. An infant can't be compared to a full grown adult, because the adult has higher abilities.

A guppy can't compare to a shark....a pigeon can't compare to an eagle.

Mars can't compare to the Earth. These things all belong to the same 'class' technically, but there is still an obvious hierarchy involved.

i dont know if its necessarily a hierarchy

it just means that when you take any 2 things, you can point out differences

whitey
07-17-2006, 07:21 PM
So you don't acknowledge that there is an heirarchy to the natural order of things in the universe?

Order and hierarchy are manifested in every aspect of life. An infant can't be compared to a full grown adult, because the adult has higher abilities.

A guppy can't compare to a shark....a pigeon can't compare to an eagle.

Mars can't compare to the Earth. These things all belong to the same 'class' technically, but there is still an obvious hierarchy involved.

you in a cage with a lion, that hierarchy gets switched around real fast.

whitey
07-17-2006, 07:25 PM
what?

this aint vegas



i would agree with the claim that we have the bodies of animals

but this intelligence that is able to use words and symbols is some different shit altogether

Has nothing to do with Vegas. Lucked out in the sense that we have that as our main asset and other animals do not.

Evolution is about survival and what gives a species the best chance to do that. Other animals were getting bigger and stronger, humans got an increased brain size. That ended up being the better weapon.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 07:35 PM
i dont know if its necessarily a hierarchy

it just means that when you take any 2 things, you can point out differences

But, these differences make one of the two more effecient than the other because of it's own abilities, even while they are both in the same environment.

There is purpose in why a shark is dominate over guppies.

That purpose is for order, proliferation, and evolution.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 07:40 PM
you in a cage with a lion, that hierarchy gets switched around real fast.

That's where human intelligence comes in....we don't get in cages with lions, unless other humans force us to.

In which case...can you really call that person a human, when they are not being humane?

LHX
07-17-2006, 07:56 PM
But, these differences make one of the two more effecient than the other because of it's own abilities, even while they are both in the same environment.

There is purpose in why a shark is dominate over guppies.

That purpose is for order, proliferation, and evolution.

my money is on guppies surviving longer than sharks in the grand scheme of things

for the record

LHX
07-17-2006, 07:58 PM
Has nothing to do with Vegas. Lucked out in the sense that we have that as our main asset and other animals do not.

Evolution is about survival and what gives a species the best chance to do that. Other animals were getting bigger and stronger, humans got an increased brain size. That ended up being the better weapon.
i thought evolution was about change?

and survival is what happens when things adjust to their environment

where are all the words like 'temporarily' in your post?

are animals not still physically evolving?

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 08:10 PM
It seems like a lot of people have this idea of human exsistance being the plauge of the planet or even the universe.

Obviously, the planet is polluted by human hands.

But, what is necessary about the exsitance of humans?

What beneficial part do humans play in the way things work here on Earth?

Does 'tilling the land' qualify? How important is it for us humans to till this Earth?

LHX
07-17-2006, 08:15 PM
before humans, there were no words

i cant emphasize this enough

symbols and words


humans are necessary because they have the ability to create in ways that other animals do not

as i said in the original post - knowledge of self is directly involved in this discussion

GODBODY

Mumm Ra
07-17-2006, 08:15 PM
what?

this aint vegas



i would agree with the claim that we have the bodies of animals

but this intelligence that is able to use words and symbols is some different shit altogether
Yeah I'm feeling you on that one right there....

I dunno what everybody's definition of "animal" is but my understanding is plants, animals, humans are all ANIMATed. Humans are the only creatures that have the ability/ will to go against their nature...
I dont see myself as an animal, but I see an animal inside myself.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 08:17 PM
my money is on guppies surviving longer than sharks in the grand scheme of things

for the record

lol...well, humans just might decide to wipe out all the sharks, humans have been known to kill off entire species before.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 08:20 PM
before humans, there were no words

i cant emphasize this enough

symbols and words


humans are necessary because they have the ability to create in ways that other animals do not

as i said in the original post - knowledge of self is directly involved in this discussion

GODBODY

And....what do we create that benefits anything other than humans?

Is there even a real purpose for us to do so?

Godbody sounds like an oxymoron to me. God is body....or it's not god.

whitey
07-17-2006, 08:38 PM
i thought evolution was about change?

and survival is what happens when things adjust to their environment

where are all the words like 'temporarily' in your post?

are animals not still physically evolving?

It is about survival. And how the enviornment around animals influences their course in the world. Everything is evolving.

Frontal Lobotomy
07-17-2006, 08:45 PM
before humans, there were no words

i cant emphasize this enough

symbols and words


humans are necessary because they have the ability to create in ways that other animals do not

as i said in the original post - knowledge of self is directly involved in this discussion

GODBODY

Right on, I was looking for a way to mention words and symbolism, seeing as they're a human design. The word animal consistently has negative connotations when attatched to a sentence about a person, almost inferior. Are animals inferior to us if we're not the same as our fellow beast?

LHX
07-17-2006, 08:53 PM
And....what do we create that benefits anything other than humans?

Is there even a real purpose for us to do so?

Godbody sounds like an oxymoron to me. God is body....or it's not god.

lmao - we create universes

we call them 'fiction'

the better we become at understanding the universe we live in, the better we become at creating universes


i know sometimes you dont enjoy the science fiction way of looking at things, but there is no way to determine that we are not the creation of somebody/thing else's 'imagination'

thru words and symbols we create universes

we don't have a 'purpose' like digging fields or travelling to mars

we have a responsibility to understand how to create and what it means to create

this is the significance of symbols


'MAN' has the body of an animal, but 'MAN' is no animal




i am trying to choose my words very carefully

giraffes do not write these kinds of things

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 08:57 PM
Our intellect as opposed to?....an animal's intellect? how is our survival more difficult?

I don't understand cause then you say our intellect made survival more polished and less barbaric....

I think those 2 comments link perfectly if you think about it.

Our intelligence is a double edged sword. I mean, look at such things that are needed to be done in order to survive now compared to centuries ago.

Survival, what does it take? depends on who/what/when you ask. Thousands of years ago humans didn't live in houses and buildings, we lived out in the wild along with our fellow ANIMALS (lol). No shoes, no credit, no car, nothing. Just hunt for animals, get some wood and rocks and start a hot ass fire, cooking up some funky ass fish that's probably extinct now. Much less civlized, more barbaric but it was survival.

Look at today, we've evolved into technology, transportation, labor, currency, social class (parity), leaders and followers ....(you get point)

Survival today isn't survival yesterday; thanks to our intellect.

It's funny though, why are we eeons ahead of the next closest species as far as intellect is concerned?

Why do certain animals show affection to one another like dogs or elephants while others solely seek dominance, reproduction and yes lust...?

Why do animals show affection (do u call it love?), but don't really seek friendship? Don't they fall in the same category? Seems like family is all that matters to most animals as they are protective of them, just like we our with ours. And if they do seek friendship, let's see him trying to communicate with a fellow cheetah that's thousand of miles away as we're capable of.

My point is yes, we are far more superior and greater than other animals. We run this bitch

LHX
07-17-2006, 09:03 PM
My point is yes, we are far more superior and greater than other animals. We run this bitch

yeah

into the ground

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 09:08 PM
damn shame but its true. Check it, right now i'm watching the travel channel and their showing tribes in 3rd world countries; now that's some old school survival right there.

Other animals have emotion too; fear, anger, lust, greed etc. They don't possess our intellect. Why have us humans evolved to have such great intellect, leaving all the other animals in the dust? Thousands of years ago we weren't too far ahead of the rest of the animail kingdom, look at us now

why? why have we evolved so much while the rest haven't?

That's something science will never be able to explain.

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 09:19 PM
I think those 2 comments link perfectly if you think about it.

Our intelligence is a double edged sword. I mean, look at such things that are needed to be done in order to survive now compared to centuries ago.

Survival, what does it take? depends on who/what/when you ask. Thousands of years ago humans didn't live in houses and buildings, we lived out in the wild along with our fellow ANIMALS (lol). No shoes, no credit, no car, nothing. Just hunt for animals, get some wood and rocks and start a hot ass fire, cooking up some funky ass fish that's probably extinct now. Much less civlized, more barbaric but it was survival.

Look at today, we've evolved into technology, transportation, labor, currency, social class (parity), leaders and followers ....(you get point)

Survival today isn't survival yesterday; thanks to our intellect.

It's funny though, why are we eeons ahead of the next closest species as far as intellect is concerned?

Why do certain animals show affection to one another like dogs or elephants while others solely seek dominance, reproduction and yes lust...?

Why do animals show affection (do u call it love?), but don't really seek friendship? Don't they fall in the same category? Seems like family is all that matters to most animals as they are protective of them, just like we our with ours. And if they do seek friendship, let's see him trying to communicate with a fellow cheetah that's thousand of miles away as we're capable of.

My point is yes, we are far more superior and greater than other animals. We run this bitch

Very well stated, if I do say so myself. I see where you coming from.

LHX
07-17-2006, 09:24 PM
damn shame but its true. Check it, right now i'm watching the travel channel and their showing tribes in 3rd world countries; now that's some old school survival right there.

Other animals have emotion too; fear, anger, lust, greed etc. They don't possess our intellect. Why have us humans evolved to have such great intellect, leaving all the other animals in the dust? Thousands of years ago we weren't too far ahead of the rest of the animail kingdom, look at us now

why? why have we evolved so much while the rest haven't?

That's something science will never be able to explain.

because SOMETHING HAPPENED

something

science and science fiction have both sought to figure out what 'it' was

TRUTH STRANGER THAN FICTION

Aqueous Moon
07-17-2006, 09:27 PM
lmao - we create universes

we call them 'fiction'

the better we become at understanding the universe we live in, the better we become at creating universes


i know sometimes you dont enjoy the science fiction way of looking at things, but there is no way to determine that we are not the creation of somebody/thing else's 'imagination'

thru words and symbols we create universes

we don't have a 'purpose' like digging fields or travelling to mars

we have a responsibility to understand how to create and what it means to create

this is the significance of symbols


'MAN' has the body of an animal, but 'MAN' is no animal




i am trying to choose my words very carefully

giraffes do not write these kinds of things

I'm not quite following....maybe don't choose your words carefully.

I'll brace myself.

LHX
07-17-2006, 09:45 PM
I'm not quite following....maybe don't choose your words carefully.

I'll brace myself.

nah - its not a matter of bracing yourself really

its just me trying to define that which cannot be defined

this spawns an interesting discussion tho:

regarding purpose


without a clearly defined purpose - most people fall apart

yet there is nobody who can explain their purpose and defend it without sounding like they are a member of a cult

strange?

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 09:48 PM
Not everybody finds their niche. Those that do claim they have a purpose, while others foolishly try looking for this "purpose". I for one do not have a purpose here. I was an accident actually.

LHX
07-17-2006, 09:56 PM
Not everybody finds their niche. Those that do claim they have a purpose, while others foolishly try looking for this "purpose". I for one do not have a purpose here. I was an accident actually.

what is the first thing you think when you wake up in the morning?

whitey
07-17-2006, 10:09 PM
My point is yes, we are far more superior and greater than other animals. We run this bitch

for the time being.

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 10:25 PM
what is the first thing you think when you wake up in the morning?

Calling out sick...haha

But I'm usually coming off a dream so I try to analyze it to tell you the truth. My purpose is just trying to be a good person who wants to leave it mark someway somehow. I want to be remembered, so I'm very vocal on what I think and feel, and I'm pretty humorous as well. I think people remember the opinionated, and I do that alot whether agree or disagree.

LHX
07-17-2006, 10:31 PM
My purpose is just trying to be a good person who wants to leave it mark someway somehow. I want to be remembered

remembered why?

for how long?

CherChezLaMarauder
07-17-2006, 10:37 PM
Well it's not like I'll be around to see or hear being remembered, buy hey it's pretty cool don't you think? Maybe I'll go back to The Bronx, kill all the dope dealers and take over their clientelle and run the streets. Then put 12 ghetto children thru college. Then some sexy mami will set me up and I'll be murdered while my head is leaning back getting a blow job. After the funeral they'll spray paint my potrait on the side of bodega on The Grand Concourse saying R.I.P. Marauder, you'll be missed

=P

My First Timbs
07-18-2006, 05:43 PM
i thought evolution was about change?

and survival is what happens when things adjust to their environment

where are all the words like 'temporarily' in your post?

are animals not still physically evolving?

here is what ppl miss and is cause for much confusion.

u have to realize that evolution is th emost all encompassing scientific discipline there is next to physics.

evolution has everything to do with a bunch of different complex topics

evolution has everything to do with change

but more importantly, that change is only due to what traits/phenotypes and genotypic frequencies are most successful.....this in turn means that evolution has all to do with change and reproductive success....but it doesnt stop there.... reproductive success has everything to do with ecology.. so evolution has everything to do with

change
reproductive success
ecology

but it doesnt end there.... ecology is firmly grounded in a carload of other chemial and biological disciplines!

u get the idea

so to simply state that " i thought evolution was only about change".. u are commiting a critical error that will not allow u to fully understand and see evolution for what it is.

LHX
07-18-2006, 06:18 PM
here is what ppl miss and is cause for much confusion.

u have to realize that evolution is th emost all encompassing scientific discipline there is next to physics.

evolution has everything to do with a bunch of different complex topics

evolution has everything to do with change

but more importantly, that change is only due to what traits/phenotypes and genotypic frequencies are most successful.....this in turn means that evolution has all to do with change and reproductive success....but it doesnt stop there.... reproductive success has everything to do with ecology.. so evolution has everything to do with

change
reproductive success
ecology

but it doesnt end there.... ecology is firmly grounded in a carload of other chemial and biological disciplines!

u get the idea

so to simply state that " i thought evolution was only about change".. u are commiting a critical error that will not allow u to fully understand and see evolution for what it is.

Timbs, please demonstrate where in my post I said 'evolution is only about change'?

also:
all the other aspects you mentioned seem to fit under the umbrella of investigating the intricacies of change

GENERAL WISE
07-18-2006, 06:27 PM
THE WU-TANG CALN IS COMMIN THRU THE OUTCOME IS CRITIC'AL
FUCKING WITH MY STYLE IS SORTA LIKE A MIRAC'AL
THE OLD' School ASkjbkjfnbhdkajhdkjahklfdhalkdshdlfj

FREE POST YEAH

Humans = not special = we are animals= God did not make us from his image
You lost as well as I and all of humanity who thinks that they are especial...

LHX
07-18-2006, 06:32 PM
one more thing:


but more importantly, that change is only due to what traits/phenotypes and genotypic frequencies are most successful.....

is it not true that the 'success' of a trait can change in the blink of an eye?

this is one of the areas where the practicality of these scientific disciplines fall apart, nor do they admit that many of these findings are nothing more than common sense when reduced to their most basic form



is it really a stunning revelation to state that adapting to the environment is a matter of having 'successful' habits?

whitey
07-18-2006, 10:04 PM
depending on the enviornment. other animals, the climate, maybe advance of a certain desease things do change. certain earthly phenomenon like earthquakes, sunamis, volcanos, meterors ect. but people dont look at it like that.

they only look at the here and now and dont see how 99% of all species that have lived on this earth are extinct. its a 4 billion year old process that has a couple billion more to go.

june181972
07-18-2006, 10:11 PM
here is what ppl miss and is cause for much confusion.

u have to realize that evolution is th emost all encompassing scientific discipline there is next to physics. this statement is highly suspect, and cleverly vague (see next reponse in white)

evolution has everything to do with a bunch of different complex topics
when trying to answer any "complex" scientific question, one has to incorporate multiple disciplines and sub-disciplines
science or no science, things are only as complex as one choses to make them

evolution has everything to do with change
everything, anything that happens is subject to what?
TIME
Time never ever stops changing, "the continuum of Time"
and Time brings about any and all change
what makes evolution's relationship to Time different from any other entity?

but more importantly, that change is only due to what traits/phenotypes and genotypic frequencies are most successful.....this in turn means that evolution has all to do with change and reproductive success....but it doesnt stop there.... reproductive success has everything to do with ecology.. so evolution has everything to do with
as far as reproductive success goes
humans spend the longest amount of Time in utero
and take the longest amount of Time to become fully grown from birth (or conception for that matter)
just another distinguishing quality of humans

change
reproductive success
ecology

but it doesnt end there.... ecology is firmly grounded in a carload of other chemial and biological disciplines!
"all encompassing???"

u get the idea

so to simply state that " i thought evolution was only about change".. u are commiting a critical error that will not allow u to fully understand and see evolution for what it is.
after all of this posting, now you want imply that the thread subject is too complex for the laymen to understand?

Aqueous Moon
07-19-2006, 01:56 AM
nah - its not a matter of bracing yourself really

its just me trying to define that which cannot be defined

this spawns an interesting discussion tho:

regarding purpose


without a clearly defined purpose - most people fall apart

yet there is nobody who can explain their purpose and defend it without sounding like they are a member of a cult

strange?

It's a conspiracy....it's supposed to sound strange.

If you live in a sick society and you are considered well-adjusted, does that mean that you are sick?

And, what does it mean when a sick society considers you crazy or cult?

LHX
07-19-2006, 08:32 AM
It's a conspiracy....it's supposed to sound strange.

If you live in a sick society and you are considered well-adjusted, does that mean that you are sick?

And, what does it mean when a sick society considers you crazy or cult?
i agree with everything you typed

but it still does not mean that it is easy for us to agree on 'Truth'


we agreed in the past that this process was set into motion because the 'original man' was unsatisfied, and that what we are experiencing is the process of becoming satisfied

putting this into different terms, what is the difference between now and before? what do we have now which is becoming satisfied that we did not have before?

everything seems to point to symbols and words

symbols and words are powerful, and they are the tool thru which all trick-knowledge is expressed and manifested

it seems that the purpose of this 'life' is to understand the power of symbols and words, and to be able to use them responsibly

this may seem like nonsense because we were all brought up in a society where people shoot their mouths off without thinking twice, but it may not be as ridiculous as it seems

in the search for 'purpose', most people look for something dramatic that provides an obvious sense of fulfillment (save the environment, stop the violence, etc etc), but if you trace all of these things back to their ORIGINAL SOURCE -- the SOURCE OF ALL PROBLEMS, it seems that you will find that all things bad are due to the fact that false words are spoken, and thru this, it is possible to send people moving in the wrong direction

---and to tie this back to the topic of this thread - our animal 'brethren' are not currently in the same process

we are not 'just' animals

we have the bodies of animals, but clearly we are also something else

something else completely

My First Timbs
07-19-2006, 06:39 PM
Timbs, please demonstrate where in my post I said 'evolution is only about change'?

also:
all the other aspects you mentioned seem to fit under the umbrella of investigating the intricacies of change

in your last post (which was a rebuttal of a post i think from whitey)

u stated

Originally Posted by LHX
i thought evolution was about change?

and survival is what happens when things adjust to their environment



from this post (being that it was a rebuttal of another post).. it implied to me that you were arguing that evolution wasnt about success and survival, but rather simply "change"

was i wrong in what u were implying?

Aqueous Moon
07-19-2006, 06:39 PM
I see what you are saying, LHX...

Why was the Original man un-satisfied? Zig Zag Zig/ knowledge wisdom understanding

Knowledge comes first but, it is not in the form of understanding. In order to get to understanding from knowledge you have to go through wisdom.

Wisdom is wise words being spoken, this is mos def what you are building off when you speak about the importance of symbols and words. Wisdom is also wise ways and actions. Wisdom reflects self.

Since the Original man started out with knowledge, he had to defragment his knowledge into the form of wisdom so that he could bring about understanding by showing and proving. This was his purpose.

So, what do we have now that we didn't have before? We now have proof of the Truth....or proof of knowledge.

We need to remember that Wisdom (words and symbols) are only reflections of the knowledge that was already planted from the very beginning.

In this context, realize that the reflection is not greater than it's source. It can become equal to it. But, it will never be the same as the foundation it stemmed from.

To bring about Trick-knowledge, you have to know and hide the Original knowledge, first.

My point being basically, nothing is new under the Sun. That portion of the Original Man in his state of un-satisfaction certainly had words and symbols. His ability to make trick knowledge and teach it attends to this.

The supreme understanding of knowledge in addition to wisdom is most def purpose.

Also, some human beings do come in animal form. But, not all of them. I am not speaking meaphorically when I say that.

My First Timbs
07-19-2006, 06:45 PM
also:
all the other aspects you mentioned seem to fit under the umbrella of investigating the intricacies of change


well with that mindset anything and everything in the universe we live in can be mootly argued to simply be a component of change! being that we reside in a continuum of space and time.. but that of course is a weak point.. of course, time progresses in everything and inevitably everything will be affected by time's progressionand inevitable change.

that wasnt what the issue was about... the issue as i perceived it (and please let me know if im wrong in how i perceived it) was rather simply about what evolution is about and what major components are crucial for its understanding.

i was pointing out how in the scheme of things (scientifically that is) evolution is at the top of a pyramid, and it is firmly grounded and based on a host of other disciplines and phenomenon.... thus any sentence that implies that "i thought evolution was about ________" is critically flawed unless the sentence starts with "i thought evolution was about ______ and ___ _and ___ and ___ and ____ and ________"

My First Timbs
07-19-2006, 06:48 PM
one more thing:



is it not true that the 'success' of a trait can change in the blink of an eye?

this is one of the areas where the practicality of these scientific disciplines fall apart, nor do they admit that many of these findings are nothing more than common sense when reduced to their most basic form



is it really a stunning revelation to state that adapting to the environment is a matter of having 'successful' habits?

of course the success of a trait can change in the blink of an eye... a uccessful triat in one environment can be detrimental in another... a successful trait or gentypic frequency that occurs in one time period, could be a cause for extinction in another)

i dont c how that presents a problem to modern science? thats crucial to the understanding of how selection works.

My First Timbs
07-19-2006, 06:51 PM
after all of this posting, now you want imply that the thread subject is too complex for the laymen to understand

u are fundamentally missing my point

i never once stated nor did i imply that it is too complex for a layman.. im simply pointing out that evolution cant be viewed in a vacuum without taking into account the other disciplines which it is grounded in. i dont c how that is not understood?

u cant understand evolution if u dont have a firm understanding of genetics .. u cant understand genetics if u dont understand molecular biology... u dont get the entirty of molecular biology unless u have a firm grasp on organic chemistry.. so on and so on.....

thats all i was merely pointing out.... is there a problem with that statement?

LHX
07-19-2006, 10:34 PM
The supreme understanding of knowledge in addition to wisdom is most def purpose.


i follow you, but can you translate that into english?

the original man did communicate, but he didnt have symbols, words and lies.

there was no phonetic alphabet


this is the outcome

Aqueous Moon
07-20-2006, 02:29 PM
To translate, it means to know truth and speak truth is to bring about understanding. This is 'Supreme' because it expresses the highest form of love, which is purpose.

Why do you think the Original Man didn't have words?

Are you saying that words are a result of lies?

whitey
07-20-2006, 03:20 PM
Why do you think the Original Man didn't have words?


Because they werent invented yet. It was a lot of grunting and what not.

LHX
07-20-2006, 04:01 PM
To translate, it means to know truth and speak truth is to bring about understanding.
i agree - to know truth and speak truth is to encourage understanding


This is 'Supreme' because it expresses the highest form of love, which is purpose.
the highest form of love is purpose <--- this is the part that gets a little unclear -- it does not really compute


Why do you think the Original Man didn't have words?

Are you saying that words are a result of lies?

seeing as words can only be reflections of knowledge, and are not 'knowledge' themselves --
yes, basically all words are lies because they are not the things that they represent

Aqueous Moon
07-20-2006, 04:47 PM
i agree - to know truth and speak truth is to encourage understanding
To know truth is to have knowledge. Even a liar knows the truth. To understand knowledge comes directly from speaking and acting in truth, not from speaking and acting in lies. There is also the fool, who is mentally dead, and easily led in the wrong direction but hard to lead in the right in direction. It's like the 5%, 10%, and the 85%

the highest form of love is purpose <--- this is the part that gets a little unclear -- it does not really compute
Didn't say the highest form of love is purpose. I said the highest form of love is understanding. Purpose is transitory, and changeable. So, I didn't intend to equate it with Supreme understanding, I was just saying that it is a fullfilling feeling, like having purpose.


seeing as words can only be reflections of knowledge, and are not 'knowledge' themselves --
yes, basically all words are lies because they are not the things that they represent

Why are you limiting this to just words, though....it's bigger than that.

Knowledge is the foundation of everything in exsistance. Everything you see is a reflection of knowledge. Everytime you look in the mirror, you are reading a molecular and genetic code in the form of your face. So is your face a lie? No, it's just a reflection of the universal structure manifested in the human body.

Words are descriptions of your knowledge. Lies are a description of your deception by the use of words.

LHX
07-20-2006, 06:15 PM
Why are you limiting this to just words, though....it's bigger than that.

Knowledge is the foundation of everything in exsistance. Everything you see is a reflection of knowledge. Everytime you look in the mirror, you are reading a molecular and genetic code in the form of your face. So is your face a lie? No, it's just a reflection of the universal structure manifested in the human body.

Words are descriptions of your knowledge. Lies are a description of your deception by the use of words.

but the fact of the matter is that a WORD is not the thing that it represents

T-R-E-E is not the object you see outside growing in the ground
it is a representation of it

do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?

Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form

Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?

if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading?

It is a common element of most esoteric system to advise people not to 'worship false idols'

the fact of the matter is - words are false idols

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge

Mumm Ra
07-20-2006, 07:31 PM
ah this thread is beautiful

Aqueous Moon
07-21-2006, 01:38 AM
but the fact of the matter is that a WORD is not the thing that it represents
Yes, it is. It is that thing in a linguistic or a written form.

T-R-E-E is not the object you see outside growing in the ground
it is a representation of it
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - because it would still be a rose.

do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?
Because human beings speak by using words then, trick knowledge is enevitable?....I don't think we have the same understanding of trick - knowledge.

Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form
I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with this.

Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?
You could find out by looking, listening, observing and respecting. Why rely on words alone. Always seek proof.


if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading? No, because God has dna and molecular structure. He is true and living and all wise and righteous.

It is a common element of most esoteric system to advise people not to 'worship false idols'

the fact of the matter is - words are false idols
We should not worship words...we should study words and study through the use of words, and through our ways and actions.

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge
Wise words are equal to knowledge. There is no other way for the human being to get any kind of knowledge or wisdom if he doesn't use some form of words.

LHX
07-21-2006, 08:04 AM
but the fact of the matter is that a WORD is not the thing that it represents
Yes, it is. It is that thing in a linguistic or a written form.
??? are you sure about that?
a map IS NOT the territory
"The Way that can be described is not the True Way"

T-R-E-E is not the object you see outside growing in the ground
it is a representation of it
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - because it would still be a rose.
that's a good quote, but I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the letters R-O-S-E are not something that grow in the ground
if anything - that quote demonstrates just how loosely associated words are with the things they represent

do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?
Because human beings speak by using words then, trick knowledge is enevitable?....I don't think we have the same understanding of trick - knowledge.
trick knowledge is directly related to the use of words
it is an attribute of words -- the power

Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form
I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with this.
what is there to disagree with?
'wolves in sheep's clothes' - who can tell the difference at first?

Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?
You could find out by looking, listening, observing and respecting. Why rely on words alone. Always seek proof.
?
that proves my point exactly
if you rely on words, you are asking for trouble
the 'proof' wont come in word form

if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading? No, because God has dna and molecular structure. He is true and living and all wise and righteous.
then how does he manifest himself in so many forms?

It is a common element of most esoteric system to advise people not to 'worship false idols'

the fact of the matter is - words are false idols
We should not worship words...we should study words and study through the use of words, and through our ways and actions.
and we should know exactly what words are

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge
Wise words are equal to knowledge. There is no other way for the human being to get any kind of knowledge or wisdom if he doesn't use some form of words.
wise words are not equal to knowledge
they can come close, but it is still a matter of understanding what a word is and looking behind the word

knowledge exists without words

Aqueous Moon
07-21-2006, 10:19 AM
but the fact of the matter is that a WORD is not the thing that it represents
Yes, it is. It is that thing in a linguistic or a written form.
??? are you sure about that?
a map IS NOT the territory
"The Way that can be described is not the True Way"
That could be a good way of looking at things.


T-R-E-E is not the object you see outside growing in the ground
it is a representation of it
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - because it would still be a rose.
that's a good quote, but I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the letters R-O-S-E are not something that grow in the ground
if anything - that quote demonstrates just how loosely associated words are with the things they represent
Or it could show that we decide for ourselves what significance a word carries. Which is how it should be.


do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?
Because human beings speak by using words then, trick knowledge is enevitable?....I don't think we have the same understanding of trick - knowledge.
trick knowledge is directly related to the use of words
it is an attribute of words -- the power
Trick knowledge is just as related to ways and actions, as it is to words.
There are no words without speaking or writing them, even the way you listen to words matter. It is not the word that's the problem it's the person's understanding that really needs to be examined.

Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form
I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with this.
what is there to disagree with?
'wolves in sheep's clothes' - who can tell the difference at first?
I don't understand.


Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?
You could find out by looking, listening, observing and respecting. Why rely on words alone. Always seek proof.
?
that proves my point exactly
if you rely on words, you are asking for trouble
the 'proof' wont come in word form
It could come in word form if the person who supplies the proof decides to put it in word form.


if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading? No, because God has dna and molecular structure. He is true and living and all wise and righteous.
then how does he manifest himself in so many forms?
The same way human beings are all born with their own physical and mental characteristcs. And with Knowledge and wisdom, they obtain understanding which allows them to be wise, righteous, true and living.

It is a common element of most esoteric system to advise people not to 'worship false idols'

the fact of the matter is - words are false idols
We should not worship words...we should study words and study through the use of words, and through our ways and actions.
and we should know exactly what words are
ok....that's what the studying is about.

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge
Wise words are equal to knowledge. There is no other way for the human being to get any kind of knowledge or wisdom if he doesn't use some form of words.
wise words are not equal to knowledge
they can come close, but it is still a matter of understanding what a word is and looking behind the word

knowledge exists without words

I don't know how you can say that wise words are not equal to knowledge.

knowledge exsits without words but, to no avail.....

LHX
07-26-2006, 09:41 PM
a little late, but...


but the fact of the matter is that a WORD is not the thing that it represents
Yes, it is. It is that thing in a linguistic or a written form.
??? are you sure about that?
a map IS NOT the territory
"The Way that can be described is not the True Way"
That could be a good way of looking at things.



T-R-E-E is not the object you see outside growing in the ground
it is a representation of it
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - because it would still be a rose.
that's a good quote, but I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the letters R-O-S-E are not something that grow in the ground
if anything - that quote demonstrates just how loosely associated words are with the things they represent
Or it could show that we decide for ourselves what significance a word carries. Which is how it should be.
this is a good point


do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?
Because human beings speak by using words then, trick knowledge is enevitable?....I don't think we have the same understanding of trick - knowledge.
trick knowledge is directly related to the use of words
it is an attribute of words -- the power
Trick knowledge is just as related to ways and actions, as it is to words.
There are no words without speaking or writing them, even the way you listen to words matter. It is not the word that's the problem it's the person's understanding that really needs to be examined.
there are words is related to ways and actions, but it stems from words - the foundation of it is in the development of words - everything that gets 'lost in translation'

Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form
I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with this.
what is there to disagree with?
'wolves in sheep's clothes' - who can tell the difference at first?
I don't understand.
When you try to put Truth in word form, it has the same effect as a trick. At first glance, there is no way to determine which is which. It's the perfect disguise.


Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?
You could find out by looking, listening, observing and respecting. Why rely on words alone. Always seek proof.
?
that proves my point exactly
if you rely on words, you are asking for trouble
the 'proof' wont come in word form
It could come in word form if the person who supplies the proof decides to put it in word form.
That kind of contradicts your initial response...


if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading? No, because God has dna and molecular structure. He is true and living and all wise and righteous.
then how does he manifest himself in so many forms?
The same way human beings are all born with their own physical and mental characteristcs. And with Knowledge and wisdom, they obtain understanding which allows them to be wise, righteous, true and living.
My initial question was: 'isnt it a little misleading?' - i agree with what you say here, but do you see where i am coming from? the fact that we have these bodies is something that, under the right conditions, can allow people to be misled ("how can I be God if I don't look like God?")

It is a common element of most esoteric system to advise people not to 'worship false idols'

the fact of the matter is - words are false idols
We should not worship words...we should study words and study through the use of words, and through our ways and actions.
and we should know exactly what words are
ok....that's what the studying is about.
true

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge
Wise words are equal to knowledge. There is no other way for the human being to get any kind of knowledge or wisdom if he doesn't use some form of words.
wise words are not equal to knowledge
they can come close, but it is still a matter of understanding what a word is and looking behind the word

knowledge exists without words

I don't know how you can say that wise words are not equal to knowledge.

knowledge exsits without words but, to no avail.....
Wise words are not equal to knowledge because they exist in the same realm as false words - as the Tao says - from 1 thing comes 2
The Word is one step removed from Knowledge

Aqueous Moon
07-27-2006, 02:50 PM
do you see where the difficulty comes in?
do you see how naturally this lends itself to trick knowledge?
Because human beings speak by using words then, trick knowledge is enevitable?....I don't think we have the same understanding of trick - knowledge.
trick knowledge is directly related to the use of words
it is an attribute of words -- the power
Trick knowledge is just as related to ways and actions, as it is to words.
There are no words without speaking or writing them, even the way you listen to words matter. It is not the word that's the problem it's the person's understanding that really needs to be examined.
there are words is related to ways and actions, but it stems from words - the foundation of it is in the development of words - everything that gets 'lost in translation'
You might be using 'trick-knowledge' out of context here. Trick - knowledge is about mind control in order to trick people into being robbed, ruled, and ultimately murdered. The implemation of trick knowledge does not naturally stem from the word. It stems from the desire to reject the word, hence to reject God:
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Truth doesn't get lost in translation when you have understanding. Trick - knowledge takes away your ability to understand the word.


Tricks and Truth are identical when they are expressed in word form
I can't even begin to express how much I disagree with this.
what is there to disagree with?
'wolves in sheep's clothes' - who can tell the difference at first?
I don't understand.
When you try to put Truth in word form, it has the same effect as a trick. At first glance, there is no way to determine which is which. It's the perfect disguise.


This might be true for the 85% - the deaf, dumb, and blind. They often take things on face value.

Pyramids were built by Egyptians.
Pyramids were built by Atlanteans.
/\
|
|
which one is Trick?
which one is Truth?
You could find out by looking, listening, observing and respecting. Why rely on words alone. Always seek proof.
?
that proves my point exactly
if you rely on words, you are asking for trouble
the 'proof' wont come in word form
It could come in word form if the person who supplies the proof decides to put it in word form.
That kind of contradicts your initial response...
Maybe, but I was referring to logic. That's why I said looking, listening, observing, and respecting. I always say that proof is about math. You have to be able to think logically in order to do math. I mean just looking at a sentence and discerning weather or not it's true is quite possible and it happens all the time because we don't just follow words, we follow our logic also.



if I carry the attributes of God in me, then isn't this face I look at in the mirror a little misleading? No, because God has dna and molecular structure. He is true and living and all wise and righteous.
then how does he manifest himself in so many forms?
The same way human beings are all born with their own physical and mental characteristcs. And with Knowledge and wisdom, they obtain understanding which allows them to be wise, righteous, true and living.
My initial question was: 'isnt it a little misleading?' - i agree with what you say here, but do you see where i am coming from? the fact that we have these bodies is something that, under the right conditions, can allow people to be misled ("how can I be God if I don't look like God?")
This depends on what your perception of God is. I am of the Nation of Gods and Earths, I see God all the time

they can REFLECT truth, but they are not Truth
they can describe knowledge, but they are not knowledge
Wise words are equal to knowledge. There is no other way for the human being to get any kind of knowledge or wisdom if he doesn't use some form of words.
wise words are not equal to knowledge
they can come close, but it is still a matter of understanding what a word is and looking behind the word
knowledge exists without words

I don't know how you can say that wise words are not equal to knowledge.
knowledge exsits without words but, to no avail.....
Wise words are not equal to knowledge because they exist in the same realm as false words - as the Tao says - from 1 thing comes 2
The Word is one step removed from Knowledge

Knowledge, wisdom (wise words), and understanding are all born on equality. If not then we can't achieve the freedom to manifest our culture which is Peace. This society of Amerikkka was born on inequality and it suffocates freedom and it manifests a culture of trick knowledge, we won't repeat those ways.

stak84
07-27-2006, 03:09 PM
id be a raccoon (no racist)

whitey
07-27-2006, 03:25 PM
Knowledge, wisdom (wise words), and understanding are all born on equality. If not then we can't achieve the freedom to manifest our culture which is Peace. This society of Amerikkka was born on inequality and it suffocates freedom and it manifests a culture of trick knowledge, we won't repeat those ways.

You can leave Amerikkka then. :f

CherChezLaMarauder
07-27-2006, 04:07 PM
what is truth? the truth that's out there is what goes on, facts. Somebody's truth is just a personal perspective. One man's truth can contradict another man's truth. I mean this is the puzzle of life that'll never be solved. wtf is there to know besides history? but how does history affect an individual, really? what you guys are going back n forth about is your own perspectives. it's a waste of time looking for truth while you're alive. The only meaningful truth will be known once youre dead. Life's nothing but seizing the moment and cherishing what you have now. Knowledge is good, but don't make it a life long duty seeking it, what will you get out of it? Just do whatever makes you happy.


And stop copying and pasting each other's comments...Jesus...

LHX
07-27-2006, 05:09 PM
You might be using 'trick-knowledge' out of context here. Trick - knowledge is about mind control in order to trick people into being robbed, ruled, and ultimately murdered. The implemation of trick knowledge does not naturally stem from the word. It stems from the desire to reject the word, hence to reject God:
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Truth doesn't get lost in translation when you have understanding. Trick - knowledge takes away your ability to understand the word.
you cant control peoples minds without words

words and tricks go hand in hand

God was there without the Word

Trick-knowledge uses words to take away your ability to understand the word


This might be true for the 85% - the deaf, dumb, and blind. They often take things on face value.
the problem is not taking things on face value - the problem is that we live in a place where 'face value' and what is actually there do not correspond

people should be able to take things on face value
or rather
we should be in a society where things can be taken on face value


Maybe, but I was referring to logic. That's why I said looking, listening, observing, and respecting. I always say that proof is about math. You have to be able to think logically in order to do math. I mean just looking at a sentence and discerning weather or not it's true is quite possible and it happens all the time because we don't just follow words, we follow our logic also.
alot of flaws in peoples logic are so deeply rooted that they cannot even notice them

that goes for me too

i acknowledge there might be flaws in my foundation of logic, but i seek to remedy them all the time

that being said, there are sentences which 'look' true to me now which 5 years ago would have looked like they came out of a cheesy science-fiction novel

This depends on what your perception of God is. I am of the Nation of Gods and Earths, I see God all the time
i understand what you are saying
but im sure you also acknowledge that a lot of people either
a) don't see God
b) see God and don't realize it
c) see God and deny it
d) don't even consider God

my point is that when you start using words to describe things, or in this example, when God manifests itself in many different forms, you are liable to wind up in a situation where the form is worshipped rather than what is really beneath the surface

Knowledge, wisdom (wise words), and understanding are all born on equality. If not then we can't achieve the freedom to manifest our culture which is Peace. This society of Amerikkka was born on inequality and it suffocates freedom and it manifests a culture of trick knowledge, we won't repeat those ways.
inequality and suffocation is a form of refinement

in that light, some would suggest that this society is still in the womb, going thru its last stages

i dont think anything CAN truly be born on inequality - at least nothing of any substance


from that perspective, since trick-knowledge is that refining power, perhaps it is also a tool born on equality

even tho during the transition phase, it doesnt seem like it

LHX
07-27-2006, 05:20 PM
what is truth? the truth that's out there is what goes on, facts. Somebody's truth is just a personal perspective. One man's truth can contradict another man's truth. I mean this is the puzzle of life that'll never be solved.
personal perspective is personal perspective
truth is truth
'one man's truth' is a personal perspective of the truth
truth is a different story entirely, and doesn't require any 'personal perspectives'


wtf is there to know besides history? but how does history affect an individual, really?
history is about the least important thing
names, dates, places - these things are of little significance

what is significant is the process at work

what you guys are going back n forth about is your own perspectives.
in an effort to become more aware of the universe we live in
- coming to agreements
- checking one person's version of the map with another person's version will allow both people to have a better map, and be able to navigate their way thru the territory better

it's a waste of time looking for truth while you're alive.
...as opposed to what?
stimulation of the senses?

The only meaningful truth will be known once youre dead.

i cant really disagree with that - please to reference my frequent threads discussing death

Life's nothing but seizing the moment and cherishing what you have now.
LMAO

the Walt Disney perspective

let's all have a hot dog and an ice cream cone and watch the sunset



who is seizing your moment right now?

Knowledge is good, but don't make it a life long duty seeking it, what will you get out of it? Just do whatever makes you happy.
living in a garden with no threat of interruption makes me happy

i'm happy when i'm resting in peace

Aqueous Moon
07-27-2006, 06:21 PM
You can leave Amerikkka then. :f

Thanks for the advice and the rose.

Aqueous Moon
07-27-2006, 06:38 PM
what is truth? the truth that's out there is what goes on, facts. Somebody's truth is just a personal perspective. One man's truth can contradict another man's truth. I mean this is the puzzle of life that'll never be solved. wtf is there to know besides history? but how does history affect an individual, really? what you guys are going back n forth about is your own perspectives. it's a waste of time looking for truth while you're alive. The only meaningful truth will be known once youre dead. Life's nothing but seizing the moment and cherishing what you have now. Knowledge is good, but don't make it a life long duty seeking it, what will you get out of it? Just do whatever makes you happy.


And stop copying and pasting each other's comments...Jesus...

No, no, no...please don't say that. What can you possibly discover after your brain has decomposed, turned to worm food and does not have any energy coursing through it?

We have to get truth now, we have to get into heaven now before we die. I always think about that.

What would my last thoughts be like while I'm taking my last breath...I want to be thinking like, "Yes, I'm satisfied".

I think it's a huge tragedy that people die without ever knowing truth because someone tricked them into waiting for death to experience their heaven.

Truth is heaven, understanding is everlasting life, and wisdom is how you get there.

LHX
07-27-2006, 06:47 PM
We have to get truth now, we have to get into heaven now before we die. I always think about that.

What would my last thoughts be like while I'm taking my last breath...I want to be thinking like, "Yes, I'm satisfied".

I think it's a huge tragedy that people die without ever knowing truth because someone tricked them into waiting for death to experience their heaven.

Truth is heaven, understanding is everlasting life, and wisdom is how you get there.

thats muthafuckin words to live by right there

im gonna print this out and stick under the windshield wipers of cars at the mall


i couldnt have said it any better

Aqueous Moon
07-29-2006, 11:30 PM
you cant control peoples minds without words

words and tricks go hand in hand

God was there without the Word

Trick-knowledge uses words to take away your ability to understand the word

Trick knowledge uses lies. Words do not equal lies when they are wise words. Trick knowledge uses people as devils and images as imposters just the same as it uses words for lies.
God is the Word....in the very movements of the universe, in the form of a wave of thought was the Word of god. Thoughts are words too. Actually words are energy in the form of spoken or written thought. God had a thought to create so he said let it be and it was.

the problem is not taking things on face value - the problem is that we live in a place where 'face value' and what is actually there do not correspond

Nothing in the universe can be taken on face value....water is not really wet and the sky is not really blue.

people should be able to take things on face value
or rather
we should be in a society where things can be taken on face value
Ah....well, we should be able to live without being surrounded by lies and trick knowledge....

alot of flaws in peoples logic are so deeply rooted that they cannot even notice them

that goes for me too

i acknowledge there might be flaws in my foundation of logic, but i seek to remedy them all the time

that being said, there are sentences which 'look' true to me now which 5 years ago would have looked like they came out of a cheesy science-fiction novel
I can relate....we have to actually teach ourselves how to think. Or maybe re-teach ourselves because of the devil's brainwashing.

i understand what you are saying
but im sure you also acknowledge that a lot of people either
a) don't see God
b) see God and don't realize it
c) see God and deny it
d) don't even consider God

my point is that when you start using words to describe things, or in this example, when God manifests itself in many different forms, you are liable to wind up in a situation where the form is worshipped rather than what is really beneath the surface
People should stop worshipping. They should study instead. The truth is knowledge. Gain knowledge cause God is only manifested in human form. And everyone at some point in time has searched, recognized and considered the knowledge of plain truth, science, facts. It's simple, but they make it complicated for us.

inequality and suffocation is a form of refinement no, I can't agree.

in that light, some would suggest that this society is still in the womb, going thru its last stages yes, it's last stages of abortion from the planet Earth.

i dont think anything CAN truly be born on inequality - at least nothing of any substance Yes, trick knowledge and Amerikkka greatly lack substance. It's just illusion and lies.

from that perspective, since trick-knowledge is that refining power, perhaps it is also a tool born on equality no, it's just a tool of devilishment made to hide the truth of equality.

even tho during the transition phase, it doesnt seem like it

Refinement only comes from the power of truth.

Trick knowledge gives you a false sense of refinement and that's why so many people blissfully remain deaf, dumb, and blind.

LHX
07-30-2006, 11:14 AM
Trick knowledge uses lies. Words do not equal lies when they are wise words.
i never said they did

i said they LOOK the same


Trick knowledge uses people as devils and images as imposters just the same as it uses words for lies.
God is the Word....in the very movements of the universe, in the form of a wave of thought was the Word of god. Thoughts are words too. Actually words are energy in the form of spoken or written thought. God had a thought to create so he said let it be and it was. no disagreement

Ah....well, we should be able to live without being surrounded by lies and trick knowledge....
agreed


People should stop worshipping. They should study instead. The truth is knowledge. Gain knowledge cause God is only manifested in human form. And everyone at some point in time has searched, recognized and considered the knowledge of plain truth, science, facts. It's simple, but they make it complicated for us.
agreed



inequality and suffocation is a form of refinement no, I can't agree. this is the crux of our disagreement




Trick knowledge gives you a false sense of refinement and that's why so many people blissfully remain deaf, dumb, and blind. enduring Trick Knowledge is refinement

Aqueous Moon
07-30-2006, 12:27 PM
i never said they did

i said they LOOK the same

Oh my....maybe I was digging a little too deep into that statement. I'd say that it is obvious that all words look the same, including written lies.

enduring Trick Knowledge is refinement

It's kinda like what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, huh?

I'm thinking that it only makes you strong in order to be able to take in more trick knowledge.....

tacle
07-30-2006, 12:56 PM
Why an apple though, why not an juicy orange?

LHX
07-30-2006, 03:58 PM
Oh my....maybe I was digging a little too deep into that statement. I'd say that it is obvious that all words look the same, including written lies.

therein lies the problem



It's kinda like what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, huh?

I'm thinking that it only makes you strong in order to be able to take in more trick knowledge.....
that bubble bursts eventually