what I am asking is why isn't man's intelligence considered natural if our intelligence comes from material (human brains) that naturally evolved. When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
0 Replies
brianjakub
3
Reply
Wed 10 Jul, 2019 01:02 pm
@farmerman,
what I am asking is why isn't man's intelligence considered natural if our intelligence comes from material (human brains) that naturally evolved. When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
Im not sure even what your question is??
Assume man is natural, hen things of man are natural NO? Whats the argument?? Are you trying to insert the SUPERNATURAL??
There I dont agree because I see no evidence regarding anything supernatural
wy not just join in with actual thoughts and stop being the passive- aggressive asshole that you are
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
2
Reply
Thu 11 Jul, 2019 11:45 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
When a bird uses its brain to build a house it is natural. When a human uses his brain to build a house it's not natural. How do you make sense of that?
. Oxymoron.
0 Replies
rosborne979
3
Reply
Thu 11 Jul, 2019 01:13 pm
It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.
It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.
Just my 2 cents.
Below is Robert Heinlein putting in his not two cents but as least a silver dollar.
Quote:
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural". Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature"." - Time Enough for Love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love), 1973, Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein is Right as far as he went. It's all or nothing. We either follow the implications, or not. I'd say 90+ percent are happy to let it lie as an unanswerable question.
That leaves two other possible POV's. Some follow Heinlein's thought path and conclude it's all natural and Homo S. is top of the all natural pinnacle so screw those pitiful dirt worshiping tree huggers.
Or, we could wake up and smell the coffee and see the obvious. None of it is 'Natural'.
0 Replies
Leadfoot
1
Reply
Thu 11 Jul, 2019 02:46 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It might help if everyone just starts talking about "manmade" and "not-manmade", rather than what is "natural". Defining what is "natural" is going to get into philosophical semantics which you probably don't need for the original discussion.
The OP would have no meaning if there were no philosophical implications. How could the subject of the 'Idea of Evolution possibly be 'Dangerous' if not for that kind of factor? It's not like we are talking about Einstein's linking Energy and Matter giving us the ability to physically annihilate ourselves.
It is no wonder that some here don't even see the question.
Or maybe it's just avoidance.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Thu 11 Jul, 2019 03:39 pm
@rosborne979,
"Manmade" by definition means a creation of man. Examples? Cars, airplanes, tall buildings/structures, ships, tv, radio, internet, electric cars, etc, etc, etc, .......
Are you trying to insert the SUPERNATURAL??
There I dont agree because I see no evidence regarding anything supernatural
I am asking is a human creative while a bird is programmed when it comes to building houses because of the way the atoms are arranged in their brains or is it something else. Is it against the rules to discuss this? Or, is it like leadfoot implies, "intelligence is not a material thing in either one?
I am asking is a human creative while a bird is programmed when it comes to building houses because of the way the atoms are arranged in their brains or is it something else.
It's all based on evolution.
Quote:
Details
When we hear “evolution”, we often think of a progressive change. In the general sense, evolution refers to some sort of development. In a biological context, evolution can be construed as the sequence of events depicting the gradual progression of changes in the genetic composition of a biological population over successive generations. Or, it may also pertain to the genetic change itself over time. Evolution may also pertain to the change in the genetic composition of biological populations over successive generations.
Key players
For evolution to proceed, there are vital key players: mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
It’s amazing how a bunch of Atoms can mutate into something that can create a skyscraper but the same group of atoms that created the skyscraper can’t create another group of Atoms that can live let alone create.. Why do you think that is?
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Fri 12 Jul, 2019 10:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't try; it comes natural. LOL After all, Robert invited me here.
He invited me, too, but hey, he was much younger back then.
