Does the Soul Exist?

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.

Is there a soul?

Humans have souls, but animals and other living things do not
1
6%
Both animals and humans have souls
6
38%
The soul does not exist
6
38%
Other
3
19%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby deschainXIX » 11 Oct 2014 23:39

R99 wrote:R99 wrote:
but Animals dont kill a deer unless its hungry. but wen it comes to human, it kills not just for survive, it also for fun, greed etc etc..


that sentence explain everything. this is why humans cannot be compared to animals. did u just ignored that statement deschainXIX. whats ur thought. if humans r that intelligent y cant they follow this simple rule. DO NOT KILL IF ITS NOT NECESSARY.


I ignored that statement because I really didn’t think I needed to respond to that. Sorry.

The statement that an animal kills only when it is hungry only supports my previous idea which is that all organisms are totally mechanistic and materialistic in nature. Thus, they have no soul. They simply go around doing whatever is necessary to keep them alive. This is nature, do you understand? Things happen, and it’s brutal and uncaring and cold.
(I’m simply restating the ideas I mentioned in my first post. Perhaps you should reread it?)
Now, let us analyze the reasons humans kill, since your argument is that humans kill for different reasons than animals. We are beings of a higher intelligence. It’s because we are slightly more neurologically complex that you are unable to comprehend the reasons humans kill. Those reasons are no different than animals.
We slaughter millions of animals a day for food and survival. But the only reasons people don’t eat members of their own species, as some animals do, is because humans are more intelligent than animals and humans have developed a civilized society. (Again, safety in numbers.) Establishing a society of such intricacy and complication is a sign of greater intelligence (still restating things I’ve already said).

Now, you say we kill for fun. That is correct. Our entertainment (movies, books, television shows) is absolutely brimming with delicious violence. We love it. And not to mention hunting. Every year people go into the woods armed only with a rifle and kill anything they encounter.
Do you not see the underlying, psychologically-revealing truth hidden in this behavior? I don’t blame you; most people won’t even acknowledge that they love violence. The reason we love all of these things, the reasons serial killers exist, is because we were once at a less-evolved state, in which we were not intelligent enough to form societies of safety. We had to resort to hunting in the wild and killing things to eat. And we still have that impulse, that instinct inside of us (especially males, since males were always the members of the tribes to be sent out to hunt and attack other tribes). Again, we are simply more evolved and more intelligent. More complicated.

Then you say we kill for greed. This one is so simple. Killing someone for greed is still a calculated survival strategy. Greed is simply a desire for money. Money = survival. That's no "better" than a lion killing a gazelle for meat.


We also have a big moral dilemma here, with your statement. You're saying that humans are basically crazy because they kill for stupid reasons. Thus you’re saying that killing for practical reasons is somehow morally more acceptable than killing because of psychopathy.

All of the above things aside, your entire "argument" here can be refuted by saying simply this: Being a killer does not make you unintelligent. It seems like your idea of an intelligent organism is one that does no harm to another organism unless it is necessary. And that's simply incorrect.


R99 wrote:We're talking about intelligence, right? Here's an experiment I'd like you to conduct: Google search these three words--"weather forecast tomorrow."

its comes from a fancy machine not from bio chemical brain. and that was the point.


:lol: Oh wait ... you're serious.
I really need to walk you through this, huh? *sigh* That's disappointing...
You see, there is no magical "bio chemical" in an animal's brain that makes it constantly aware of weather patterns. Not at all. Over years of natural selection, behavioral imprinting, classical conditioning, and habituation the animal has learned to detect subtle shifts in air temperatures and thus knows it is time to hibernate/migrate.
Neither do humans have a magical "bio chemical" that informs them of the weather. Contrarily, they have learned to record and observe the movements of the clouds, studying precipitation and what exactly happens in our planet's atmosphere, discovering air molecules and the way they interact with one another and move according to atmospheric pressure differentiation. And over time, they have learned to build machines. Computing, calculating machines that have been programmed to forecast the weather.

R99 wrote:so animals and plants have their own level of intelligence. they know more about the environment. and we dont. and i didnt said their intelligence r equal to us.


Yes. You've learned that there are varying levels of intelligence. And humans are on higher, more complicated ones. And as for that second statement ... you realize that you just said a squirrel understands more about the various complexities of its forest environment than an ecologist does. Do I really need to refute that?

R99 wrote:i pointed these facts bcoz ur ego wants to believe humans r superior. and its not true,


Where did this even come from? You have literally missed almost everything I have said. Please, go back and read my initial post. I NEVER said that humans were superior. In fact, my argument was the complete opposite: that humans and animals are the SAME.

R99 wrote:u dont need to explain it again, i am just saying that sometimes in life we need to defend someone else more than ourself . and that time defines who u really are. even animals do that. and u r pointing things like animal instinct is bad thing. i think humans r brutal than animal. thats the whole point of my post. am just defending for animal world bcoz they dont have internet connection to post this


Addressing the statement that "humans are more brutal than animals," let me say this:
Humans and animals are equally brutal; it's just that humans bear more potency.
Here's another illustration: Two psychopaths are released from a state penitentiary. One of them is given a baseball bat. The other is given the key to a shed full of ballistic vests, automatic firearms, grenades, and a missile launcher.
These two men are equally insane, yet one is going to kill many more people than the other.
Well said.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby Summerlander » 12 Oct 2014 01:33

I agree with everything that DeschainXIX said here and I can see where he's coming from with great clarity. He is simply right! :-)

Also, to say that people must prove that there is no afterlife is like saying that people must disprove fairies and unicorns. And I suppose if someone claims that flying pigs exist and does not show substance we unbelievers are obliged to disprove the negative!

The person making the claim with certainty is the one responsible for providing evidence, buildit. We don't see any evidence for ghosts, spirits or afterlife. We do see evidence, however, for the detereoration of the human mind via physical damage or decay.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. You say individual A killed individual B in the courtroom but don't have evidence then you have lost the case. And you certainly cannot say: "Well, prove that it didn't happen like that!"

It's a fallacious argument, buildit. Strawman to the core! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby buildit » 12 Oct 2014 02:28

Summerlander wrote:Also, to say that people must prove that there is no afterlife is like saying that people must disprove fairies and unicorns. And I suppose if someone claims that flying pigs exist and does not show substance we unbelievers are obliged to disprove the negative!



If evidence is given that in any way substantiates the ability of a pig to fly, then dam straight it needs to be disproven in kind. After all, it was 1989 when a scientist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann) came out with a paper saying cold fusion had been successfully preformed. It took 3 in depth lab analysis's to disprove his work. Good thing they did, otherwise we'd have Billions invested into a useless science.

Summerlander wrote:The person making the claim with certainty is the one responsible for providing evidence, buildit. We don't see any evidence for ghosts, spirits or afterlife. We do see evidence, however, for the deterioration of the human mind via physical damage or decay.


And yet we are looking for dark matter and no one has ever seen it. All we have are circumstantial evidence that the universe is still expanding long after it should have stopped. Maybe it's ghosts? There we go evidence for ghosts now exists. Please prove it's not true, thanks. :lol: But in honesty don't you find the perpetuation of the theory for souls to be fascinating? Almost every race and religion has a theory / belief system that includes the existence of a energy force which we become upon death. That's a lot of religions to share such common idea to just dismiss it as a moth man mystery or form of mass hysteria because it doesn't fit your view of reality. :geek:


Summerlander wrote:I've said this before and I'll say it again. You say individual A killed individual B in the courtroom but don't have evidence than you have lost the case. And you certainly cannot say: "Well, prove that it didn't happen like that!"

It's a fallacious argument, buildit. Strawman to the core! :-D


The sad truth is we don't know and may not know for a very long time. We neither have instruments to detect life other than organic because we've never seen any other kinds. Yet ask anyone at SETI if other life forms exist in the universe and the answers of those scientists will be, "We think so". It must drive you mad to see brilliant scientists showing faith in something so abstract and unprovable. Simple MADNESS! :lol:

I cannot provide a perfect evidence for a soul as you cannot do so for against. So it's an open topic and almost anything we say is hypothesis only.

On the plus side when I die I will try if possible to provide proof for those I leave behind. However, even then I may be incapable so do not take lack of evidence as proof. :roll:
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby Summerlander » 12 Oct 2014 02:43

Lol! You said it right: "If evidence is given..." So far it hasn't. So there is no reason to believe in flying pigs or unicorns or fairies.

Dark matter, as you naively decided to include in your argument, is something that has an effect on visible elements of the known universe. Scientists know it's there because of the way visible matter behaves. It is the "glue" so to speak, that prevents galaxies from flying apart because gravity is insufficient as a holder.

Living bodies, on the other hand, can be seen to be mechanistic and we can tell that behaviour and mental states are attributeable to the brain and its activity. No ghost needs to be postulated as a missing link. Consciousness has a physical origin for sure - all that we need to do is to unravel the organic puzzle that nature created over millions of years... ;-)

By the way, did you know dark matter was theorised before its existence became so obvious. You want to try a God of the Gaps ad hominem, I think you can do better...

Air is also invisible to the naked eye, my friend. What is your point? :-D

As for the SETI people, it's not faith, it's logic. It would be odd to think that we are the only ones in a universe that is so vast as to appear infinite.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby buildit » 12 Oct 2014 03:01

Summerlander wrote:Lol! You said it right: "If evidence is given..." So far it hasn't. So there is no reason to believe in flying pigs or unicorns or fairies.

Dark matter, as you naively decided to include in your argument, is something that has an effect on visible elements of the known universe. Scientists know it's there because of the way visible matter behaves. It is the "glue" so to speak, that prevents galaxies from flying apart because gravity is insufficient as a holder.

Living bodies, on the other hand, can be seen to be mechanistic and we can tell that behaviour and mental states are attributeable to the brain and its activity. No ghost needs to be postulated as a missing link. Consciousness has a physical origin for sure - all that we need to do is to unravel the organic puzzle that nature created over millions of years... ;-)

By the way, did you know dark matter was theorised before its existence became so obvious. You want to try a God of the Gaps ad hominem, I think you can do better...

Air is also invisible to the naked eye, my friend. What is your point? :-D

As for the SETI people, it's not faith, it's logic. It would be odd to think that we are the only ones in a universe that is so vast as to appear infinite.

[ Post made via Android ] Image


So you give validity when you see fit but expect others to blindly trust your interpretation or reality? I say we simply have not come far enough to prove the soul exists yet believe that our instinctual knowledge as a race that one exists is proof. So again we are back where we were, either choose to discuss the topic on a what is basis or go bang on a type writer in a dark room and see if you can produce a best selling novel on accident. (Statistically it is possible you know :lol: )


Just for the hell of argument here is something to chew on when it comes to a soul.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
Many scientists dismiss the implications of these experiments, because until recently, this observer-dependent behavior was thought to be confined to the subatomic world. However, this is being challenged by researchers around the world. In fact, just this year a team of physicists (Gerlich et al, Nature Communications 2:263, 2011) showed that quantum weirdness also occurs in the human-scale world. They studied huge compounds composed of up to 430 atoms, and confirmed that this strange quantum behavior extends into the larger world we live in.
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
R99
Posts: 409
Joined: 14 Nov 2011 07:53
Location: Where Fiction collides Reality

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby R99 » 12 Oct 2014 07:18

deschainXIX wrote:Then you say we kill for greed. This one is so simple. Killing someone for greed is still a calculated survival strategy. Greed is simply a desire for money. Money = survival. That's no "better" than a lion killing a gazelle for meat.


greed is a survival strategy .. OMG....... i dont have greed, still i survived 26 years.and am going to survive without greed as long as my body allows me to. u wont see greed in animals. that greed can alone explains animals and humans r NOW different.

"cannibalism still exist,"experiment on this statement. and u said we have complex brain than animals. funny brain..



deschainXIX wrote:Now, you say we kill for fun. That is correct. Our entertainment (movies, books, television shows) is absolutely brimming with delicious violence. We love it.


no no , some brain damaged people love it. they r not real humans.

deschainXIX wrote:All of the above things aside, your entire "argument" here can be refuted by saying simply this: Being a killer does not make you unintelligent. It seems like your idea of an intelligent organism is one that does no harm to another organism unless it is necessary. And that's simply incorrect.


u need to check ur moral side for that statement.


deschainXIX wrote:Addressing the statement that "humans are more brutal than animals," let me say this:
Humans and animals are equally brutal; it's just that humans bear more potency.
Here's another illustration: Two psychopaths are released from a state penitentiary. One of them is given a baseball bat. The other is given the key to a shed full of ballistic vests, automatic firearms, grenades, and a missile launcher.
These two men are equally insane, yet one is going to kill many more people than the other.


humans bearing potency is license to kill slaughter anything u want.????

tree.....good, military......bad.. :D
I see the Truth now.

Snaggle
Posts: 590
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 13:08

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby Snaggle » 12 Oct 2014 10:17

buildit wrote: I have asked a few people who learned lucid dreaming and control on their own without learning aids or reading books. All of these people have suggested that when lucid dreaming and exhibiting their most powerful traits their physical form is fluctuating or pure energy. I suspect that energy form is the unconscious embodiment of a soul.


I would not count this as evidence for a soul and is incorrect in any case. I experienced Lucid dreams without ever having heard of them and taught myself how to do them. I have at least two other family members that did the same - lol, we also never talked about them. Dream bodies are not real and the traits or emotions in dreams can be experienced without dream bodies at all.

The Aware study tried to prove that the spirit existed by putting out cards that could be read only by looking down on them - no one read one. It did show that people were experiencing elaborate dreams /after life experiences after their brains were shut off and was strong proof that the mind is not the brain; but proving that consciousness may be some form of energy does not prove that consciousness long survives death. That energy may break apart and decay just like the brain and not survive the death of the brain by long.

Not that there's any good evidence on the other side either. Almost all the arguments against the soul presented so far have been irrational and actually stupid. One can be claimed to be reasoning if one just spews forth ones rationalizations - that's apologetics.
"There is only one God and his name is Death.
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby Summerlander » 12 Oct 2014 11:14

R99 completely missed deschain's point... :-D
By the way, guys, NDEs reports do not constitute any proof. The brain is still active however minimally. Certain reverberations can only be detected in certain labs - hospitals cannot dig far enough. (Hence why doctors tend to say no brain activity detected as opposed to no brain activity whatsoever.)

Also, out of trauma cases, only 20% tend to report experiences. The rest report nothing. Does this mean that only 20% have souls? Absolutely not! It means that, depending on the physical trauma, some brain states allow for conscious experiences whilst others don't. It also means that the NDE could be formed as a false memory just as the brain is returning to normal (no proof that the experience takes place while the brain bears minimal activity).

There is no energy that is equivalent to consciousness which exits the body at death either, Snaggle. We are our brains. Simple.

As for the pseudo-scientific conclusions of that link, buildit: it dismisses relational theories and makes assumptions without even having the quantum mechanics sussed out. We are still looking for a compatible theory of quantum gravity. I recommend that you read books by experts like Brian Cox, for instance, who worked at the LHC, rather than rely on dodgy websites that promote mysticism and fit your fantasy. ;-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby buildit » 12 Oct 2014 13:01

Summerlander wrote:R99 completely missed deschain's point... :-D
By the way, guys, NDEs reports do not constitute any proof. The brain is still active however minimally. Certain reverberations can only be detected in certain labs - hospitals cannot dig far enough. (Hence why doctors tend to say no brain activity detected as opposed to no brain activity whatsoever.)

Also, out of trauma cases, only 20% tend to report experiences. The rest report nothing. Does this mean that only 20% have souls? Absolutely not! It means that, depending on the physical trauma, some brain states allow for conscious experiences whilst others don't. It also means that the NDE could be formed as a false memory just as the brain is returning to normal (no proof that the experience takes place while the brain bears minimal activity).

There is no energy that is equivalent to consciousness which exits the body at death either, Snaggle. We are our brains. Simple.

As for the pseudo-scientific conclusions of that link, buildit: it dismisses relational theories and makes assumptions without even having the quantum mechanics sussed out. We are still looking for a compatible theory of quantum gravity. I recommend that you read books by experts like Brian Cox, for instance, who worked at the LHC, rather than rely on dodgy websites that promote mysticism and fit your fantasy. ;-)


You sound like a politician. Our lack of evidence can be used as proof but because you guys don't have any hard evidence your proof is dismissed off hand? :( When discussing quantum level particles so many theories are out there and I'm sure just as many predicting a link or interaction will be shown false as those proven true. But until such time as instruments can detect that level all theories must be given equal weight based upon the evidence.
So when determining if consciousness is a state of mind linked to a quantum interaction along micro tubuels within the nerve cells we must either find evidence that fits the puzzle better or develop tests to prove it doesn't exist. Right now there are tests being done on the ability of chemicals which effect only the micro tubuels to effect human consciousness, making the possibility of the quantum level interaction being a possibility even better.
So if our consciousness exists at the quantum level as theorized by Dr Stuart Hameroff, then why not a soul?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Does the Soul Exist?

Postby Summerlander » 12 Oct 2014 14:16

buildit... :D

You are the on claiming that souls are real and that there is an afterlife. Therefore, the onus is on you to supply evidence for what you claim. It makes no sense trying to get people to disprove your statement when you haven't even provided one good reason for believing what you do other than "it makes me feel better" or "if I'm right I will remind you of how much you were wrong for eternity." Your reasoning isn't very logical now, is it?

If the courtroom analogy that I presented earlier is hard for you to grasp, try this one: there is a gnome living in the back of my garden. I've got nothing to show for it. You should believe what I say because I say so. If you say you don't believe that there is one then prove to me that there isn't. Don't you see what is wrong with this tactic? :roll:

When discussing quantum level particles so many theories are out there and I'm sure just as many predicting a link or interaction will be shown false as those proven true. But until such time as instruments can detect that level all theories must be given equal weight based upon the evidence


This is where you go wrong. Quantum theory is a theory in itself. What differs are its many interpretations, e.g. Copenhagen, many-worlds etc. Quantum theory has predictive power and it works. What you miss in your reasoning is Occam's razor. There is no need and no room for mystical interpretations for that which we are still trying to suss out. You see, you are too premature when it comes to conclusions and willing to fill any noetic gaps with whatever fantasy you fancy. This is the equivalent of the God of the Gaps I mentioned earlier. 8-)

Also, you seem to be mistaking the term "scientific theory" with our quotidian use of the word "theory." They are not the same. The equivalent of our quotidian term in science is a "hypothesis." In science, a hypothesis and a theory are not the same. The former is weak and very much, less than deductive or a priori even. The latter, by contrast, contains substance, calculations, homework (often a posteriori). Theories are testable, falsifiable (which does not mean that they are false!) and reliant on empirical data. A theory can be refined and subject to slight changes pending new discoveries. Some scientific theories can be regarded as facts! Those are the theories that have stood the test of time, lie evolution and gravitation, and what they imply is just beyond obvious.

I don't mean to sound patronising, but, I have encountered a lot of people like you who have brought me the same lame arguments. You are exactly where I was when I was a teenager. It is time to drop your bias and wish-thinking. Trust me, follow the evidence and you will feel better for it. :)

So when determining if consciousness is a state of mind linked to a quantum interaction along micro tubuels within the nerve cells we must either find evidence that fits the puzzle better or develop tests to prove it doesn't exist. Right now there are tests being done on the ability of chemicals which effect only the micro tubuels to effect human consciousness, making the possibility of the quantum level interaction being a possibility even better.


This (which I have come across before - just check the "quantum mechanical dream world" thread :P ), if you can pardon my French, proves fuck all! :mrgreen:

Micro-tubules and quantum mechanics do not explain consciousness at all. Hameroff also assumes that there is a hard problem of consciousness, when, other philosopher's like Dan Dennett, would argue that there is no such thing and that consciousness is an illusion (this means that it is not what it appears to be, and not, as some erroneously interpret it, that it does not exist).

In fact, all it suggests is that its effects may contribute something towards helping the classical complex brain in achieving conscious states. Some would argue that quantum states have minimal contribution, but one thing is for sure: for consciousness to emerge you still need a Tonomian system. You still need neurons and you still need an neoencephalon. In other words, consciousness still requires a complex, evolved life form. You can't just have quantum particles floating about.

Testing consciousness hinges on reportability and interrelates with memory. One can deduce that a rock, which contains quantum particles, is NOT conscious nor living. Consciousness cannot exist independent of brains and even brains will not always guarantee conscious states. Hence the reason why living people have periods of unconsciousness. 8-)

The double-slit experiment is not affected by conscious observers. The word observation usually means taking measurements in scientific circles. A state that is measured is bound to be affected by the thing that measures it. This is what gives origin to the uncertainty principle. Nothing mystical about it as obscurantists would have you believe. Imagine it's dark, you are equipped with a torch, and you're searching for a green tennis ball in a meadow. You find it when you shine the light on the object. The ball appears bright green and well-lit when the photons bounce back from it and reach your corneae. But this isn't what the ball looked like when it was resting on the ground under a dark sky. The object, in its undetected condition, was simply a dark sphere in appearance. There is nothing mystically fantastic about this and this is how I make my case. :ugeek:

As for the universe appearing to be fine-tuned for life as buildit's previous link suggested: oh dear. It could have been better than this. The universe is vastly hostile to life. Life emerged here because the conditions, unlike many other wasteful solar systems out there, allowed it too. Like bacteria thriving on warm filthy surfaces. No need to posit intelligent design.

If one still insists that the universe was fine-tuned to bear life from the beginning (supposedly by some higher power - never mind coincidence) then I invite you to evince what you make of our cosmic abode in a multiverse of "failed" lifeless worlds... :!:

@ R99:

greed is a survival strategy .. OMG....... i dont have greed, still i survived 26 years.and am going to survive without greed as long as my body allows me to. u wont see greed in animals. that greed can alone explains animals and humans r NOW different.

"cannibalism still exist,"experiment on this statement. and u said we have complex brain than animals. funny brain..


You have survived because you have been reared and nurtured and live in a more or less altruistic society. even this apparent altruism has its selfish motives. you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. All children show signs of greed and you were one before. Even as an adult, you have greed - it might not be to the extent that others have greed, and you may not even express it, but you do have it. also, 26 years isn't exactly a life time.

I could also give countless of instances in the animal kingdom that could be interpreted as incest, murder, and deception by lay humans. And if you ever pick up a book on criminology, you might be shocked to find that the greatest psychotic criminals tend to have very high IQs. Intelligence is not measured by morality 8-)

Another thing. Say there is a population of birds which, during preening, help one another to remove harmful ticks from their heads. Say the birds who follow the rule of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" constitute 60% of the population. Let's call these birds, which abide by reciprocal altruism, the "Suckers." They will always repay debts but this obviously costs them time and energy. The other 40% constitute birds that never reciprocate help. They allow themselves to be saved from the ticks by letting the other birds preen them but will never repay the favour. These birds, let's call them "Cheats," will save time and energy like it or not.

Cheats soon overtake Suckers by numbers. They will be more likely to survive and propagate their genes. It is just how it is. :roll:

no no , some brain damaged people love it. they r not real humans.


Are you telling us that you don't vicariously enjoy the carnage and the fear depicted in a horror movie? Also, who are these real humans you refer to? They can't constitute a majority...

humans bearing potency is license to kill slaughter anything u want.????

tree.....good, military......bad..


This indicates that you have majorly misconstrued what DeschainXIX said. Not once did he talk about licences to kill due to potency. He merely posted what is factual. Even in the animal kingdom (all you have to do is switch to National Geographic one of these days) you will find that potency tends to be exploited to the advantage of a species and to the detriment of another. It is a dog-eat-dog world. It's just a fact. We also need to be careful not to mistake convenient symbioses for altruism or evidence that animals hold superior moral values. This is simply a corruption of the truth. Closer scientific inspection reveals, most notably at the level of genes, that relationships between different species come with a selfish interest. :ugeek:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest