No such thing as God.

[iconoclast]

Solace,

Darwin uses an example in 'Origin' to show the divergent evolution of a species, i can't quite remember which species of bird or which chain of islands it was, but the point is that geographic isolation caused/allowed the same animal to develop in different ways, eventually into distinct species.

This has occured within the human species - over the 20,000 years or so we've had religious society. Because of the inclusive/exclusive dynamic of religous adherence/faith, we've become distinct breeding groups defined not by some reality, but by our ideas of reality.

Ruthless Logic, This is what I mean by we live in realtion to our understanding of reality, rather than reality. I'm not seeking to undermine, but to elevate the value of knowledge gained by empirical means. I think, with good reason - but not absolute certainty, that empirical investigation, (science) gives us valid knowledge of a reality that actually exists. But human society does not recognize this.

Society is fundamentally religious in nature - with national poltics and capitalist ideology built upon, essentailly rationalizing an irrational foundation. Because this conciet is acted out within a reality with definite characteristics - externalities like the energy crisis and climate change occur and cannot be addressed. That's why i argue we need to centralize scientific knowledge to society and act on the basis of valid knowledge. Then the disparity between social ideation and reality is minimized.

I admit this wasn't clear. I've spent much of the morning reading through this thread and I'm sorry to say that I have not credited many comments with their due - but it's apparent to me now that many comments i've dismissed as ill-informed or meddlesome were actually worthy of deeper consideration. In my defense have been reading and writing in the internet cafe up till now. I hope i'm clearer in future, both in what i mean, and about what you mean.

[Solace]

Darwin was talking about finches on the Galapagos. In that case there were definite physical deviations, such as the finches had twisted beaks useful for applying twigs as tools to dig termites out of trees. I'm not arguing that humans haven't evolved differently because of isolation, I can see that a caucasian looks different than an asian, after all. However, my opposition goes to this notion of equating learning to evolving. In certain cases, the application of knowledge prompts evolutionary deviation, but it isn't the fact that one possessed the knowledge itself that made them different. It's what one does with the knowledge that matters.

And this carries over to our problems with how the supposedly socially advanced parts of the world treats issues like climate change. We have the knowledge to do something about it, but we don't. Instead we're stuck in this rut of imperial superiority, rooted as much or more in the fact that people in these parts of the world have seen themselves as racially superior, rather than just religiously enlightened, and that therefore the whole world is their's to do with as they please.

[iconoclast]

Solace,

I don't see the problem with equating learning and evolution, because while racial differences have occured because of these conceptuaual divsions, and appear large in visual perception, they are cosmetic. Gentically, and in the sense we are discussing they are minute. All human beings are capable of an exquisitely complex conceptual appreciation of reality. If you look back at what i said it was 'some societies are more evolved than others.'
I'm attempting to indicate what you might call the collective consciousness - not the relative intellectual capicities of various racial groups, even while this collective consciousness has evolutionary, and therefore individual effects. If such disparities of intellectual ability do exist between racial groups they overlap somewhat, and they would be addressed by a generation of two of adequate nutrituion, healthcare and education, denied by the very factor i cite: 'owning knowledge for political and economic purposes.'

If you want me to address the obvious question: 'why did science happened in Europe rather than Africa?' then I think it's the weather. Nice if you can live from the fruits of the forest, but Europe is not so superficially abundant. It takes thought and work to live in a temperate environment, but yeilds great rewards to the same sort of patient application of study, forethought, experimentation and insight that underlies sceintific investigation. Not that it really matters - truth belongs to everyone capable of that same exquistie appreciation of reality that is the defining characteristic of the human being: merciless God of all other animals.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Solace,

I don't see the problem with equating learning and evolution, because while racial differences have occured because of these conceptuaual divsions, and appear large in visual perception, they are cosmetic. Gentically, and in the sense we are discussing they are minute. All human beings are capable of an exquisitely complex conceptual appreciation of reality. If you look back at what i said it was 'some societies are more evolved than others.'
I'm attempting to indicate what you might call the collective consciousness - not the relative intellectual capicities of various racial groups, even while this collective consciousness has evolutionary, and therefore individual effects. If such disparities of intellectual ability do exist between racial groups they overlap somewhat, and they would be addressed by a generation of two of adequate nutrituion, healthcare and education, denied by the very factor i cite: 'owning knowledge for political and economic purposes.'

If you want me to address the obvious question: 'why did science happened in Europe rather than Africa?' then I think it's the weather. Nice if you can live from the fruits of the forest, but Europe is not so superficially abundant. It takes thought and work to live in a temperate environment, but yeilds great rewards to the same sort of patient application of study, forethought, experimentation and insight that underlies sceintific investigation. Not that it really matters - truth belongs to everyone capable of that same exquistie appreciation of reality that is the defining characteristic of the human being: merciless God of all other animals.

Humanity on a pedestal once again. It's quite funny how us humans believe we are something special. I mean, it's understandable - everyone wants a purpose to life (due to our ability to reason), and so addressing our kind as a unique, elite species that seem to be the leaders of this planet makes sense. But, instead of trying to apply meaning to our lives, let's look at some things:

Why does it matter that we can appreciate the world, and how does that make us God of all other animals?

Just because we have intellect far greater (than we know of, currently) of other animals, we are better?

What if there are other conscious beings, either on this Earth that we haven't found, or elsewhere in the universe?

[Solace]

Zetherin,

I'm not so sure that it matters that we can appreciate the world, but rather it matters that we do depreciate it. Having a greater intellect doesn't make us better, it makes us stewards. But it seems we're not so good at that. Other conscious beings on Earth would likely call into question the role we play here. Other conscious beings elsewhere in the universe not so much so.

iconcoclast,

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

When you say that the evolutionary differences accomplished through learning are minute and cosmetic it does take the edge off my opposition to the idea. I'm still not sure that I agree with the equation, but I can at least accept it this way.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Zetherin,

I'm not so sure that it matters that we can appreciate the world, but rather it matters that we do depreciate it. Having a greater intellect doesn't make us better, it makes us stewards. But it seems we're not so good at that. Other conscious beings on Earth would likely call into question the role we play here. Other conscious beings elsewhere in the universe not so much so.

iconcoclast,

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

When you say that the evolutionary differences accomplished through learning are minute and cosmetic it does take the edge off my opposition to the idea. I'm still not sure that I agree with the equation, but I can at least accept it this way.

What makes us stewards?

[iconoclast]

Zetherin,

It doesn't reaaly - throwaway line, it makes us animal+, an animal, but more than an animal because of our intellectual appreciation of reality.

yes. qualitatively better.

it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that there are species in the universe of greater intellect than us, who proably encountered very much the same problems we are now encountering, and overcame them by centralizing scientific knowledge to a global society, as we must do if we want to survive.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Zetherin,

It doesn't reaaly - throwaway line, it makes us animal+, an animal, but more than an animal because of our intellectual appreciation of reality.

yes. qualitatively better.

it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that there are species in the universe of greater intellect than us, who proably encountered very much the same problems we are now encountering, and overcame them by centralizing scientific knowledge to a global society, as we must do if we want to survive.

But would removing the idealistic views, the thoughts of magic, the things that push us to deny logic, and ultimately the destruction of the Earth...would removing these be removing the very beauty of humanity? That is, the thing that will someday bring us destruction may be the very thing that makes us what we are.

If we did view the world through as much of an open mind as possible - rid ourselves of nonsensical ideals related to religion, realize that everything isn't as black and white as many people believe. Where exactly would we be? Sure, we'd have a society that is centralized on scientific knowledge, but would it actually bring us together? I'd like to hope so, but I'm not so sure.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts. I would very much like to spark thought in others if I am able to maintain a philosophy that I believe will benefit humanity.

[iconoclast]

Solace,

I'm not one for the whole "collective consciousness" idea. Frankly, I don't see eye to eye with enough people on too many issues, religious and non-religious, to think that I share much in common with them apart from DNA.

The collective consciousness is nothing to do with your own knowledge or beliefs per se, but those free floating ideas that exist in the relations between people within a society. For instance, Bob the Bailiff isn't well versed in the theory of property, even while he acts in accord with this knowledge everyday.

Debating the theory of property with Bob the Bailiff when he comes to take your stuff wouldn't do you any good. His adherence is not based on individual consciousness of the idea, but ideas located in collective consciousness.

It's these ideas that need improving, these ideas that define the group relative to the species, that motivate and demotivate social, poltical and economic action and have the effects of divergent evolution in denail of the fact that we're a single species.

[iconoclast]

Zetherin,

Such ideas must certainly be removed from politics and economics, and scientifically valid ideas be put in thier place. I accept the mutability of species, and have myself adapted to a worldview devoid of God's, ghosts and goblins.

That's not to say i didn't watch Dr Who, Buffy or enjoy reading The Odyssey, or Dante's Inferno. It's just i don't think we should base our social, political and economic decisions on equally fantastic ideas.

Consequently, and somewhat to my shame, i find myself attempting to disabuse a very stubborn Chrsitian of his delusions - for i know, first hand, how painful a process that can be. But i do have answers that don't infer nihilistic despair - i'm happy to provide free, even though they cost me dear.