Humans are animals

[Wysiwyg]

I was just contemplating (before the Sun. arvo footy game starts)that animals are constantly making choices as well.
What I don`t understand is how they think without words.What is the form of communication between brain and limb in animal?

With the sensory input to the brain from every given moment , a "decision" is being made to do something.Evidence shows that an animals stimulus response can be trained and taught.Above and beyond what is known to be instinctive survival .

To answer my own question ...... it has to be a stimulus response event.Nothing more and nothing less.Jump through the hoop and get the fish.

So in conclusion animals have stimulus response as do humans but we get to rationalise and reason (well depending on your level of awareness) any stimuli and sensory input as well as having the inherent survival mechanism that threads through all life forms.

 

[2020hindsight]

These guys have not got guns or nuclear missiles but are pound for pound one of the most "progessed" species on the planet.

a pisstake - lol
Killer Whales Playing with Seals includling badminton with tails lol - yeah right
but they do play with seals, and sometimes put them back on the beach

 

[2020hindsight]

'spiritual' is just religion without the rules
just make up any stuff u want.

no gods
no meaning
no purpose
no "higher calling"
no destiny

we are animals
is it really that hard to believe.

Cyn, Wayne answered as follows - ....

Depends on the use of the word "spiritual", as Julia discusses. But you do have something in common with the Catholic Church... Dogma. Cheers

personally I would say you have something in common with the most liberated among us -
certainly something in common with John Lennon as well m8
Imagine This

Imagine This is an audio mash up of GW Bush singing the John Lennon classic "imagine", it has been a worldwide hit and has made it into (John Peel's) BBC Radio 1 Music Festive 50 on UK Radio 1.

The audio was produced by Waxaudio, I created a video for it by tracking down over 40 separate video clips from George Bush speeches, I lip synched these clips to the audio and interspersed them with footage from the original imagine Video, along with some Iraq war footage and some other bits and pieces.

 

[2020hindsight]

Cyn,
I have a friend who's also a cynic - here's his life story ..

I was born a little pilgrim, near a little church clinic
I was weened on gin and genesis, (then moved to ton-and-ginic),
At first believed compliantly - that man's some mightly pinnacle !
but since i studied science III - I'm "born again cynical".

nothing wrong with a healthy scepticism - perhaps "cynical" is an rebel offshoot of that church ?
but equally , if driven by virtue (only) - can't be a bad offshoot at that
"an honest man is the noblest work of god " as they say (whether or not god exists)

cyn·ic –noun 1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2. (initial capital letter) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.

PS I'm all for definition #2 -
perhaps skip #3

skep·tic –noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

And I'm all for most of these , especially #4

 

[wayneL]

personally I would say you have something in common with the most liberated among us -

Dogmatism is liberation?

That's a new concept for me! Sheesh it is 1984, war is peace, ignorance is stength etc etc.

 

[2020hindsight]

Dogmatism is liberation?

That's a new concept for me! Sheesh it is 1984, war is peace, ignorance is stength etc etc.

lol - here we go again - trouble is I've gotta man the bar bq
but I don't have any problem with the following alternative to organised religion ... and he could be right, and the pope might just turn out to be wrong - guess we'll find out when we move on , lol.
I'll meet you there in 40 years. lol. and we can carry on the argument

'spiritual' is just religion without the rules
just make up any stuff u want.

no gods
no meaning
no purpose
no "higher calling"
no destiny

we are animals
is it really that hard to believe

PS you say Cyn's version = dogmatism (A = B)
I say Cyn's version = liberation (A= C)
you are challenging me that (B= C)? lol

 

[2020hindsight]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105416&highlight=xenophanes#post105416

THE FIRST (AND SECOND) LAWS OF XENOPHANES
Xenophanes 570 BC – 475BC
“If horses could draw, they would draw their gods like horses”

Praps if Horses could take courses and could take a page and draw
they would Draw their god’s as horses (that is Zenophane’s first law)
just as White men draw a white man, just as black men draw their kin
as abDullah draws an Arab, so too Moses draws his twin.

.........
did we Land from outer galaxies, in space suits or the nud,
or in Edin full of apple seeds, or some primeval mud
just as Astronauts draw spaceships, here we find his second law
there is No way known of knowing , which god’s less and which is more.

I 'd say his second law was Scepticism,
and his first was not too far from (at least consistent with) Cynicism

(PS presented without a snarling attitude of course )
...

 

[wayneL]

lol - here we go again - trouble is I've gotta man the bar bq
but I don't have any problem with the following alternative to organised religion ... and he could be right, and the pope might just turn out to be wrong - guess we'll find out when we move on , lol.
I'll meet you there in 40 years. lol. and we can carry on the argument

Forgive me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but this seems to infer a binomial choice between organized religion and atheism, and that the choice of atheism is more liberating than organized religion.

Well, in one sense it is, but in another sense it isn't. As neither stance can be proven, there remain infinite possibilities outside of these two choices. Liberty is the freedom of "mind" to explore any or many of these possibilities with an open mind.

The effrontery to state this or that IS so, shows a mind confined by selective admission of available facts and a mind not at liberty to even consider other factors.

Agnosticism for instance, is a far more liberated viewpoint than atheism as an agnostic remains open to proof, one way or the other.

Dogmatism, whether religious, philosophical, scientific, or even just based on ignorance is most certainly not liberating.

 

[wayneL]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105416&highlight=xenophanes#post105416



I 'd say his second law was Scepticism,
and his first was not too far from (at least consistent with) Cynicism

(PS presented without a snarling attitude of course )
...

Ahh, but the presumption is that the like of Xenophanes would be cynical over religion, and rightly so. But we must presume some cynicism of the viewpoint of atheism too. It cut's both ways.

As far as philosophical skepticism is concerned;

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about

1. the limitations of knowledge,
2. a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
3. the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
4. a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment,
5. a lack of confidence in positive motives for human conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that is, cynicism and pessimism (Keeton, 1962).

...equally applies to Atheism, No?

A true skeptic remains open minded.

 

[2020hindsight]

The effrontery to state this or that IS so, shows a mind confined by selective admission of available facts and a mind not at liberty to even consider other factors....

Dogmatism, whether religious, philosophical, scientific, or even just based on ignorance is most certainly not liberating.

PS you say Cyn's version = dogmatism (A = B)
I say Cyn's version = liberation (A= C)

but to be honest I don't really agree that A = B, that he is being dogmatic.
I mean the fact that he states his case precisely (a la Lennon) and ends with a question....

is it really that hard to believe.

dogmatic?- innocent of all charges imo lol

dog•mat•ic –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

 

[2020hindsight]

"a method of intellectual caution "
yep I studied that at school as well
" intellectual caution effect " we called it

do I have probs with atheism (a la Richard Dawkins) - nope
do I have probs with organised religion - you bet I do
AIDS for starters

maybe im biased lol
(bound to be )

PS on the question of dogmatism of Cyn's post - I have assumed that it's presentation is identical to Lennon's "Imagine" .
But he may wish to be more dogmatic than that - up to him

I dogmatically state that I'm not gonna do his arguing for him lol.

 

[wayneL]

do I have probs with atheism (a la Richard Dawkins) - nope
do I have probs with organised religion - you bet I do

In a binomial argument, I would tend to agree with you. I have a mammoth problem with organized religion too. I also have a problem with Dawkins viewpoint in that it is cognitively biased and emotive, abeit less of a problem than say catholisism, so if forced to choose, I'd go Dawkins

However the point I've been labouring to get across is that it is not an either or situation. There are a million points in between the two views.. and perhaps some extraneous views as well (I've heard some pretty whacky stuff). The dogmatic adherence to the Pope or Dawkins is unintelligent and closed, no matter how many long word either likes to use.

Of course it is the individuals right to follow either doctrine, but I object to being preached to by either camp.... and the Dawkins view is far more proselytizing at the current time for sure.

 

[2020hindsight]

Of course it is the individuals right to follow either doctrine, but I object to being preached to by either camp.... and the Dawkins view is far more proselytizing at the current time for sure.

you know, I reckon Dawkins is taking the fight to the ridiculous growth of ignorance in the US bible belt.

He knows more science than all of the "Bible belt" put together.

He's trying to get their "education" classified as charity! lol

To be honest I sincerely hope he wins in his fight against ignorance.

Emotive? - a subjective call, m8 - I'd call it "from the heart" a la sincere
three youtubes , the second shorter (if you're in a hurry)
:: Richard Dawkins : Interview (2006) ::
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189271&highlight=dawkins#post189271
Richard Dawkins describes 'GOD'
classic description of "the god of the old testament" - assuming you can tolerate a few more big words lol
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"
No evidence of dogmatism (IMO) "we could all be wrong" etc

 

[wayneL]

you know, I reckon Dawkins is taking the fight to the ridiculous growth of ignorance in the US bible belt.

He knows more science than all of the "Bible belt" put together.

He's trying to get their "education" classified as charity! lol

To be honest I sincerely hope he wins in his fight against ignorance.

Emotive? - a subjective call, m8 - I'd call it "from the heart" a la sincere
:: Richard Dawkins : Interview (2006) ::
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189271&highlight=dawkins#post189271

It's a lost cause IMO. Those people are totally fanatic. Evidence means nothing to them. But Dawkins is also fanatical.

But we are still mired in the binomial argument. I am most certainly not arguing for any cause, just trying to keep the argument from polarizing into Pope Benedict vs Richard Dawkins. It seems it is terribly difficult to deviate from either of two memes.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. It's a lost cause IMO. Those people are totally fanatic. Evidence means nothing to them.
2. But Dawkins is also fanatical.

3. But we are still mired in the binomial argument. I am most certainly not arguing for any cause, just trying to keep the argument from polarizing into Pope Benedict vs Richard Dawkins. It seems it is terribly difficult to deviate from either of two memes.

1. I suspect you're right (all the more reason to ignore them - don;t go there - it can only lead to a major clash with Bin Laden and co)
2. we may have to agree to disagree
3. I realise that a website chatroom is not the ideal place to take extreme positions - especially for a thread of more that 2 posts lol
#1) WHITE!!
#2) BLACK!! - thread terminates lol
and I respect your role and abilities as moderator more than you can imagine
.. but

4. I have a problem with the assumption that the truth in an argument probably lies in the middle.

In a negotiation, everyone wants to say "ok - let's assume that the truth lies in the middle"
but what if it lies at (or even outside ? - unlikely) one or other extreme.?
I mean - Dawkin's (and Cyn's) argument is certainly one extreme I concede -
but what if they are 100% right?
and ANY move from their point of view is wrong. (?)

The middle of the road doesn't HAVE to be right

PS One of my kids went through an argumentative stage as a 3 year old lol
I said to him "Can't argue with you when you're like that - you keep saying that white's black!!"
HIS REPLY ..?
"nO IS NOT, daddy, IS Purple !!"

PS My head says there's no God
My heart permits his existence, mainly for the purpose of pleading a case for some justice to a Supreme being - even higher that the Supreme court lol - but it's just a poetic thing.
I was an altar boy 100 years ago lol.
But - My kids are atheists , unbaptised, and happy

 

[wayneL]

PS One of my kids went through an argumentative stage as a 3 year old lol
I said to him "Can't argue with you when you're l;ike that - you keep saying that white's black!!"
HIS REPLY ..?
"nO IS NOT, daddy, IS Purple !!"

This is actually a good point

There is the "it's black" argument.
Then there is the "it's whit" argument.

It may seem I am arguing for gray. I'm not.

I'm arguing that it could be purple (or red or green or orange... or indeed grey, black or white)

For instance even our concept of time could be cocked up. I was listening to a physics professor who argued that time is somewhat circular... and made a lot of goddamn sense too. The beginning of time (and the universe) is also the end of time, punctuated by expansions in the universe which concurently was a collapse of the universe. well it made sense how he said it lol.

Anyway getting to deep for me, I'm off to say OM.

 

[2020hindsight]

The beginning of time (and the universe) is also the end of time, punctuated by expansions in the universe which concurently was a collapse of the universe. well it made sense how he said it lol.

lol
now you're losing me

here's that post I put elsewhere - note last sentence
hence I dug in for Cyn's rights to state a point
no biggie
enjoyed the chat as always lol
white = rainbow for now lol
Like_youknow

"I implore you, I entreat you, and I challenge you to speak with conviction
to say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks the determination with which you believe it
because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker
it is not enough these days to simply question authority -
you gotta speak with it too"

 

[So_Cynical]

PS on the question of dogmatism of Cyn's post - I have assumed that it's presentation is identical to Lennon's "Imagine" .
But he may wish to be more dogmatic than that - up to him

I dogmatically state that I'm not gonna do his arguing for him lol.

I want nothing more to do with this thread :bonk: and no i wasnt thinking of lennon's "Imagine" just listing
all the usual arguments that come from people...i don't spend alot of time thinking about it.

Just 1 of life's constants for me..a non issue....as for Dawkins, i like him
i only found out about him a few months ago..lol, a media atheist.

Theres alot of interesting people on this forum...i think ill stick around.

 

[2020hindsight]

welcome lol
you bludy animal !

PS at least your position is constant through history.
take the hypothetical case of a person who said that they agreed with the pope - and lived for a few hundred years
they would have done several backflips with pike over the years lol

Ageo
you say "man never changes", 100 years I think you said -
trouble is the teachings of Rome change much more regularly than that

surely no one disputes that JC thought that the world was flat

 

[barnz2k]

Barn good to see, may i ask when you get insects in your house (cockroaches, ants, mozzies etc..) do you kill them or treat them with the same respect?

Mostly get cockroaches and spiders.. Spiders are cool, i catch em, check em out and then put em on a tree or something... I hate bloody cockroaches, but I still catch em and chuck em outside. And besides, I heard that if you kill cockroaches more will come! Something to do with smell maybe?? The bastards never die anyway, find em in your computer, fan, up drain-pipes whatever..

Years ago we had one inside the clock in the microwave. how the hell do they get there.. grow up inside?? radiation didnt even kill it!

wow 1 day and 3 pages lol.

Yeah progressive is true, but we also seem to be running ourselves into the ground by doing it - not progressing in a way that will sustain our race in the future.