Outlawing faith

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

What about elephants then? 

 

Dogs also often appear to grieve. We have to be careful not to attribute human behaviours and motivations to other animals.    No one KNOWS how elephants think, or even if they are aware of the nature or permanence of death.   Only when we see physical evidences can we be certain  Many animals display changed behaviours when one of their group dies  This does not mean they are grieving as we know grieving or are even aware of what has happened 

The point of difference is this  Is this behaviour a programmed behavioural response OR is it a sign that elephants are aware of concepts like loss grief  death etc Do they know and understand what death means  ?   

Humans do There is no evidence that elephants do and some doubt if the y have the cognitive or language skills to construct and think in such abstract forms and terms.

i think elephants come close in some aspects, as do some primates, dolphins, and a few other animals As yet,however, we do not have any evidences that other animals have made the mental break through which humans made some 100000 years ago   Thinking at such a level requires a complex language form and there is no evidence that other animals have the sophistication of language to  think in non concrete terms.

Ive read that elephants paint what appears to be camouflage on their bodies but don't know enough to comment on this. It is probably an evolved behaviour with some survival benefit rather than an abstract creative effort  Whale songs are not creative or signs of self aware intelligence. They are hauntingly beautiful evolved behaviours with a particular purpose .  Birds and wasps construct intricate and strong nests  This does not mean they are intelligent self aware or even especially clever   No one should be hunting elephants but it is false and dangerous to argue against hunting them because the y behave like humans  If there was an overabundance of elephants, and the y were damaging the environment, then it would be acceptable even essential, to cull them or translocate them , when it would NOT be acceptable to cull humans, or forcibly translocate us,  because we are doing the same thing.  

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

None pf which goes to the abilty to think in abstract symbolic or creative ways which are the skills required to know and understand ourselves and our relationships Only  once a species has this level of self  aware consciousness, can it formulate abstract ideas like good and evil or spiritual /religious concepts. This debate is about where human concepts like love, compassion, justice,  altruism etc come from, and when, and how  we got   the abilty to make abstract thoughts like fairness or equality and use them to make rules and laws to govern our societies.  There is NO evidence that humans had the linguistic or cognitive skills to think like this before about 100000  years ago and more likely even more recently  There is no evidence of self conscious constructed moralities and beliefs before this time. It is possible but unlikely that the y existed due to the limitations on human thought and speech from earlier periods but until evidence is found we KNOW these abilities evolved around 70000 to 100000 years ago 

Walker,

Learning to use fire as described for cooking and promoting food growth is abstract thinking so is understanding the properties of stone and knapping it to make scrapers to remove hydes to make shelter and clothing or to make tools for hunting. Making watercraft to journey to another place with enough people to maintain a population is based on the ability to think and communicate by some means. Do you remember the link that I gave earlier about making heat treated compounds, that required the knowldge of the properties of what leaves to use and what type of wood would create the heat necessary and the ability to communicate? Speach has existed for half a million years and may have existed longer, in order for any of these advances to occur they had to be able to be self-aware and able to think in complex terms.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You are simply scientifically wrong not to accept that  primate animal behaviours remain drivers in humans  We only call such behaviours rape or murder in humans but the same behaviours exist in many animals, including many primates

Show me any primate that has achieved the same examples that I have just given with documentation

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I ask again, what do you think it is which makes humans violent, causes them to anger and makes them lust and rape?   Are you arguing we only become like this as we evolve intelligence?   Are you saying other primates and animals don't act or behave in these ways ?   Until we evolved self awareness and speech/ enhanced cognition, humans were just another ape, and we remain today basically hairless apes, with a self aware mind. We have to use those minds to redirect and even replace the evolved primate behaviours into acceptable social behaviours.  Grooming and food sharing won't do it. 

We are not the same as primates and have been a distinct and separate species for millions of years so there is no comparison that is relevant.

If you watch a female dog in heat with three males she will go to each of them and offer herself so that they will get her scent and deny them each several times to see which male is the dominant among them then offer heself seveal times to tjat one and deny him, if he shows hos dominance to her and grans her ny the back of the neck and she approves she will submit but she will make him work for it. It is not rape it is part of selective breeding something very different than rape.

Many serial rapists have had some abuses by there mothers, some were forced to wear girls clothes and humiliated, they rape as a form of revenge and select women of specific physical attributes or from similar qualities that remind them of that person. They stalk, plan and us certain methodology, they are deliberate and calculated acts that are in no way the same as what primates do. All abhorrent behaviour is done with premeditation.

jmccr8

Edited October 28, 2017 by jmccr8
added context

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker,

Learning to use fire as described for cooking and promoting food growth is abstract thinking so is understanding the properties of stone and knapping it to make scrapers to remove hydes to make shelter and clothing or to make tools for hunting. Making watercraft to journey to another place with enough people to maintain a population is based on the ability to think and communicate by some means. Do you remember the link that I gave earlier about making heat treated compounds, that required the knowldge of the properties of what leaves to use and what type of wood would create the heat necessary and the ability to communicate? Speach has existed for half a million years and may have existed longer, in order for any of these advances to occur they had to be able to be self-aware and able to think in complex terms.

Show me any primate that has achieved the same examples that I have just given with documentation

We are not the same as primates and have been a distinct and separate species for millions of years so there is no comparison that is relevant.

If you watch a female dog in heat with three males she will go to each of them and offer herself so that they will get her scent and deny them each several times to see which male is the dominant among them then offer heself seveal times to tjat one and deny him, if he shows hos dominance to her and grans her ny the back of the neck and she approves she will submit but she will make him work for it. It is not rape it is part of selective breeding something very different than rape.

Many serial rapists have had some abuses by there mothers, some were forced to wear girls clothes and humiliated, they rape as a form of revenge and select women of specific physical attributes or from similar qualities that remind them of that person. They stalk, plan and us certain methodology, they are deliberate and calculated acts that are in no way the same as what primates do. All abhorrent behaviour is done with premeditation.

jmccr8

No.Abstract thought is quite different to, and separate from, the concrete thought and linear thinking required to make tools. My argument is simply that we must assume that such thought did not exist, until we have evidence that it did. Painting, ceremonies  certin forms of burial, fertility  figurines etc are evidence of a sense of spirituality and abstract symbolic thinking.  We discussed this before.  There are several levels of communication from  very basic to very sophisticated.

  Non human animals a t present have very basic communication. Ancient humans may have had   mid range language skills, allowing for concrete activities. However only modern humans (70-100000 years)  show any evidence of sophisticated   cognitive and language skills  (i also am not certain how accurate your dating of different technologies are, but that is a different argument.

The evolution of humanity is a gradual process. The divergence may have begun millions of years ago but human evolution continues today    Try and find examples of abstract and symbolic thinking in humans prior to 70000 years ago  eg any art work, any evidence of ceremonies or ritual burials, or artefacts reflecting spiritual awareness. 

And i talked about primate behaviour. in several primates the dominant male kills the old rival AND all the offspring from  that male.  He the has sex with all the harem of available females.   Sex in dogs is regulated by the female ovulation cycle When in heat a female will attract all males from  miles around and may mate with any or all of them   It isn't forced sex but it isn't consensual  either There i s no choice about it It is dominated and regulated  by biology 

Sure humans make choices and are affected by the psychology evolved in them as part of our self awareness.  That is part of my point   We make choices knowing what we are doing  There are no EXCUSES for rape or murder No human is compelled by their biology to kill abuse or have sex, unlike other animals. We regulate our behaviours through conscious choice   

And yes, you just made my point for me. These are deliberate premeditated acts, done in the knowledge of the harm that will ensue They are driven by biology, and then not controlled by will  or discipline, and so we are held accountable for them, where other animals are not. However, without our animal biology, there would be far less, perhaps almost no violent acts,  because we would have nothing driving us to behave in such ways and would have to deliberately and consciously construct a desire to hurt  rather than, as it is, consciously resist our biological impulses.

We don't construct the desire to kill or rape or dominate, or impregnate females . They exist as part of our evolved nature as primates.

  What we do, is engage in a constant struggle to moderate and eliminate those drivers, and fit our behaviours to more civilised standards.     

Ps i am prepared to push back the timeline a bit, given modern finds and theories  To possibly 160000 years ago, but again there is very little evidence of abstract thinking  This article explains it pretty well 

 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/

 

first known paint

rchaeologists excavating a cave on the coast of South Africa not long ago unearthed an unusual abalone shell. Inside was a rusty red substance. After analyzing the mixture and nearby stone grinding tools, the researchers realized they had found the world’s earliest known paint, made 100,000 years ago from charcoal, crushed animal bones, iron-rich rock and an unknown liquid. The abalone shell was a storage container—a prehistoric paint can.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Richard Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University, suggested that a genetic mutation occurred 40,000 years ago and caused an abrupt revolution in the way people thought and behaved.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

For instance, artifacts recovered over the past decade in South Africa— such as pigments made from red ochre, perforated shell beads and ostrich shells engraved with geometric designs—have pushed back the origins of symbolic thinking to more than 70,000 years ago, and in some cases, to as early as 164,000 years ago. Now many anthropologists agree that modern cognition was probably in place when Homo sapiens emerged.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Yet there are artifacts that do seem to relate to advanced working memory. Making tools composed of separate pieces, like a hafted spear or a bow and arrow, are examples that date to more than 70,000 years ago. But the most convincing example may be animal traps, Wynn says. At South Africa’s Sibudu cave, Lyn Wadley, an archaeologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, has found clues that humans were hunting large numbers of small, and sometimes dangerous, forest animals, including bush pigs and diminutive antelopes called blue duikers. The only plausible way to capture such critters was with snares and traps.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Archaeologist Franceso d’Errico of the University of Bordeaux in France suggests certain advances show up early in the archaeological record only to disappear for tens of thousands of years before these behaviors—for whatever reason—get permanently incorporated into the human repertoire about 40,000 years ago.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

My basic point remains however. Only ONCE a species has this level of abstract thought, can it construct ideas like love, justice, fairness   legality etc etc etc and establish ethical thinking. Only then can it construct laws based on those abstract thoughts  and ethical principles  Thus it is abstract thought which moves humans from primate to human and makes us responsible for our behaviours.   

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No.Abstract thought is quite different to, and separate from, the concrete thought and linear thinking required to make tools. My argument is simply that we must assume that such thought did not exist, until we have evidence that it did. Painting, ceremonies  certin forms of burial, fertility  figurines etc are evidence of a sense of spirituality and abstract symbolic thinking.  We discussed this before.  There are several levels of communication from  very basic to very sophisticated.

  Non human animals a t present have very basic communication. Ancient humans may have had   mid range language skills, allowing for concrete activities. However only modern humans (70-100000 years)  show any evidence of sophisticated   cognitive and language skills  (i also am not certain how accurate your dating of different technologies are, but that is a different argument.

The evolution of humanity is a gradual process. The divergence may have begun millions of years ago but human evolution continues today    Try and find examples of abstract and symbolic thinking in humans prior to 70000 years ago  eg any art work, any evidence of ceremonies or ritual burials, or artefacts reflecting spiritual awareness. 

And i talked about primate behaviour. in several primates the dominant male kills the old rival AND all the offspring from  that male.  He the has sex with all the harem of available females.   Sex in dogs is regulated by the female ovulation cycle When in heat a female will attract all males from  miles around and may mate with any or all of them   It isn't forced sex but it isn't consensual  either There i s no choice about it It is dominated and regulated  by biology 

Sure humans make choices and are affected by the psychology evolved in them as part of our self awareness.  That is part of my point   We make choices knowing what we are doing  There are no EXCUSES for rape or murder No human is compelled by their biology to kill abuse or have sex, unlike other animals. We regulate our behaviours through conscious choice   

And yes, you just made my point for me. These are deliberate premeditated acts, done in the knowledge of the harm that will ensue They are driven by biology, and then not controlled by will  or discipline, and so we are held accountable for them, where other animals are not. However, without our animal biology, there would be far less, perhaps almost no violent acts,  because we would have nothing driving us to behave in such ways and would have to deliberately and consciously construct a desire to hurt  rather than, as it is, consciously resist our biological impulses.

We don't construct the desire to kill or rape or dominate, or impregnate females . They exist as part of our evolved nature as primates.

  What we do, is engage in a constant struggle to moderate and eliminate those drivers, and fit our behaviours to more civilised standards.     

Ps i am prepared to push back the timeline a bit, given modern finds and theories  To possibly 160000 years ago, but again there is very little evidence of abstract thinking  This article explains it pretty well 

 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/

 

first known paint

rchaeologists excavating a cave on the coast of South Africa not long ago unearthed an unusual abalone shell. Inside was a rusty red substance. After analyzing the mixture and nearby stone grinding tools, the researchers realized they had found the world’s earliest known paint, made 100,000 years ago from charcoal, crushed animal bones, iron-rich rock and an unknown liquid. The abalone shell was a storage container—a prehistoric paint can.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Richard Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University, suggested that a genetic mutation occurred 40,000 years ago and caused an abrupt revolution in the way people thought and behaved.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

For instance, artifacts recovered over the past decade in South Africa— such as pigments made from red ochre, perforated shell beads and ostrich shells engraved with geometric designs—have pushed back the origins of symbolic thinking to more than 70,000 years ago, and in some cases, to as early as 164,000 years ago. Now many anthropologists agree that modern cognition was probably in place when Homo sapiens emerged.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Yet there are artifacts that do seem to relate to advanced working memory. Making tools composed of separate pieces, like a hafted spear or a bow and arrow, are examples that date to more than 70,000 years ago. But the most convincing example may be animal traps, Wynn says. At South Africa’s Sibudu cave, Lyn Wadley, an archaeologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, has found clues that humans were hunting large numbers of small, and sometimes dangerous, forest animals, including bush pigs and diminutive antelopes called blue duikers. The only plausible way to capture such critters was with snares and traps.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Archaeologist Franceso d’Errico of the University of Bordeaux in France suggests certain advances show up early in the archaeological record only to disappear for tens of thousands of years before these behaviors—for whatever reason—get permanently incorporated into the human repertoire about 40,000 years ago.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-the-human-mind-evolve-to-what-it-is-today-140507905/#dT5FY5U2uAfG7dch.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

My basic point remains however. Only ONCE a species has this level of abstract thought, can it construct ideas like love, justice, fairness   legality etc etc etc and establish ethical thinking. Only then can it construct laws based on those abstract thoughts  and ethical principles  Thus it is abstract thought which moves humans from primate to human and makes us responsible for our behaviours.   

 

 

 

I am using my phone right now and am not able to access what is on my computers right now and will come back to this later but you have shifted your position on what you earlier claimed about animal instinct and are refuting your earlier claims.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

Just now, jmccr8 said:

I am using my phone right now and am not able to access what is on my computers right now and will come back to this later but you have shifted your position on what you earlier claimed about animal instinct and are refuting your earlier claims.

jmccr8

No I haven't lol. if you can explain why you think so i will respond . Humans are basically animals( ie primates) We have been in that animal form  far far longer than we have been self aware  beings  and so our most basic drivers are still animalistic.  However, as we became self aware, we evolved cognitive abilities to construct abstract ideas like hurt and harm,  equality and justice, mercy and altruism.

As these conflicted with our animal drivers, we established expectations and laws to compel us to behave as self aware beings, and not just  as animals.

  Our animal urges are still our first and most powerful  drivers, but our minds  can override, control and   redirect those behaviours (through conscious will and purpose)  to obey the laws and standards we construct   

Humanity and individuals are in a constant struggle between our evolved biological drivers,(animal instincts)  and what we now know to be civilised and acceptable behaviours.

Slowly slowly, we advance the standards of humanity around the globe,  and slowly slowly, we win the individual  battle of mind over body.  

[I'mConvinced]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Dogs also often appear to grieve. We have to be careful not to attribute human behaviours and motivations to other animals.    No one KNOWS how elephants think, or even if they are aware of the nature or permanence of death.   Only when we see physical evidences can we be certain  Many animals display changed behaviours when one of their group dies  This does not mean they are grieving as we know grieving or are even aware of what has happened 

1. The point of difference is this  Is this behaviour a programmed behavioural response OR is it a sign that elephants are aware of concepts like loss grief  death etc Do they know and understand what death means  ?   

2. Humans do There is no evidence that elephants do and some doubt if the y have the cognitive or language skills to construct and think in such abstract forms and terms.

i think elephants come close in some aspects, as do some primates, dolphins, and a few other animals As yet,however, we do not have any evidences that other animals have made the mental break through which humans made some 100000 years ago  3. Thinking at such a level requires a complex language form and there is no evidence that other animals have the sophistication of language to  think in non concrete terms.

4. Ive read that elephants paint what appears to be camouflage on their bodies but don't know enough to comment on this. It is probably an evolved behaviour with some survival benefit rather than an abstract creative effort.  5. Whale songs are not creative or signs of self aware intelligence. They are hauntingly beautiful evolved behaviours with a particular purpose .  Birds and wasps construct intricate and strong nests  This does not mean they are intelligent self aware or even especially clever   No one should be hunting elephants but it is false and dangerous to argue against hunting them because the y behave like humans  6. If there was an overabundance of elephants, and the y were damaging the environment, then it would be acceptable even essential, to cull them or translocate them , when it would NOT be acceptable to cull humans, or forcibly translocate us,  because we are doing the same thing.  

Once again you ignored my previous post and questions, looks like that uncomfortable truth really is just that.  This is common when debating with you but I shall answer your post regardless.

1. If it was a programmed behavioural response then they would not be able to differentiate between dead relations and other random dead elephants, yet they can.  They clearly understand that death = loss and spend much longer grieving over loss of a 'loved one' rather than some random individual. 

2. Humans don't understand death beyond the loss of the physical so I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion.

3. Actually there is significant evidence that animals can and do have complex language form:

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/prairie-dogs-may-have-the-most-complex-language-in-the-animal-kingdom

Quote

Slobodchickoff argues that by varying the modulation of the call and the harmonics in their barks, prairie dogs can relay a large amount of information — for example, the kind, color, size, direction and speed of an approaching predator — in a short bark. He theorizes that the burrowing rodents evolved their complex language in response to the social demands of their multifaceted, highly organized societies. 

4. So you don't know enough to comment but made a comment anyway.  Why make the comment dismissive when you admit you simply don't know enough? 

5. Whale songs are not creative? 

Quote

 

The recordings were a revelation to most scientists. And there was something peculiar about the calls that the Paynes didn't recognize at first. It took Katy's special skill and training to discover it. 

The first time she heard such calls, Katy wanted to see the sounds, to see if there was a discernible pattern. So she got spectrograms of them — visual representations that showed peaks and valleys and gaps. As she traced them with pencil and paper, she began to see structure — what looked like melodies and rhythms.

"This is a crazy sort of arrhythmic portion of the sound," she said of one passage. "But it's coming into another rhythmic portion that goes up in pitch." 

The pattern's not random, Payne explained, and that's key. Lots of animals have calls or vocalizations. But the humpback whales' long, intricate songs change — they evolve.

It's exclusively the male humpbacks that sing, the Paynes now know, and at any moment in time, all the males in a local group sing the song in roughly the same way. But over time, some parts of a group's song gradually change, too — in rhythm, pitch and duration — as the whales listen to each other, and together take up variations that eventually become a new tune.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/427851306/it-took-a-musicians-ear-to-decode-the-complex-song-in-whale-calls

6. I bet the elephants would find it acceptable if humans culled humans to stop them destroying the environment.  Of course humans don't find culling humans acceptable as I'm sure elephants don't find culling elephants acceptable.  You are drawing conclusions that don't make any sense.  

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by I'mConvinced

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Once again you ignored my previous post and questions, looks like that uncomfortable truth really is just that.  This is common when debating with you but I shall answer your post regardless.

1. If it was a programmed behavioural response then they would not be able to differentiate between dead relations and other random dead elephants, yet they can.  They clearly understand that death = loss and spend much longer grieving over loss of a 'loved one' rather than some random individual. 

2. Humans don't understand death beyond the loss of the physical so I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion.

3. Actually there is significant evidence that animals can and do have complex language form:

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/prairie-dogs-may-have-the-most-complex-language-in-the-animal-kingdom

4. So you don't know enough to comment but made a comment anyway.  Why make the comment dismissive when you admit you simply don't know enough? 

5. Whale songs are not creative? 

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/427851306/it-took-a-musicians-ear-to-decode-the-complex-song-in-whale-calls

6. I bet the elephants would find it acceptable if humans culled humans to stop them destroying the environment.  Of course humans don't find culling humans acceptable as I'm sure elephants don't find culling elephants acceptable.  You are drawing conclusions that don't make any sense.  

 

it is a programmed behavioural response until we have evidence to know otherwise  scent alone allows animals to identify individuals Some birds can identify the individual calls of every one of their young.  none of this is evidence of abstract thought or indeed of language 

No other animals have the cognitive abilities to really understand  the nature of death or even of life as an abstract concept   This requires a sophistication of  language and thought that non human animals do not have  

Humans do indeed have complex abstract, and symbolic, conceptual understandings of death.  We build whole religions around those concepts  One of the reasons for believing that other animals do NOT is that the y demonstre no similar spiritual or religious constructs around death.(some animals may come close to very early human conscious  recognition of death as different to life, but none, as yet, display behaviours proving this recognition. )  

I dont know of any scientist who argues that any other animal has a sophistication of language form even approaching any where near a human level   They may have some sophistication of communication, but that is different and can be an evolved process not a learned construct  Many animals have extremely complex evolved communication systems but lack any understanding or awareness of those systems and any abilty to use the beyond how they are programmed to, which is the province of language) 

i did some research  on which to base a general comment, after saying i didn't have  the knowledge.  I have read somewhere about elephants camouflaging themselves with natural colours, but never read anyone claiming this was a self aware process with deliberate and conscious intent. 

No, contrary to popular belief, whale songs are like bird calls evolved with general or specific purposes.  They may sound beautiful to us but they  are not created songs from the mind of a self aware being  constructed to create joy or pleasure or express emotion They are practical communication but not language 

My point exactly.  Elephants  can't make such moral or ethical  judgements, only humans can .    Elephants do not have a self aware opinion about the morality of culling elephants OR humans.  Humans have both. We make judgement calls based on ethics and moralities, which, in turn, are based on abstract constructed values and priorities, often based, in turn, on constructed beliefs.     

 

Ps i went back many pages, found all your posts, and found i had answered them all, but re-answered some again, just to be clearer.  i also already answered your question about elephants, but you didn't accept my answer as correct.

i can't find any questions which i believe i have not answered as best i can.  

Edited October 28, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Post #809 on page 33 - not the one you quoted.

  The questions you repeated in your post 809 were answered once in an earlier post, but then re- answered, to the best of my abilty, in post 850. Maybe you missed it.  For me it is the last post on the previous page. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Mr Walker

[I'mConvinced]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

it is a programmed behavioural response until we have evidence to know otherwise  scent alone allows animals to identify individuals Some birds can identify the individual calls of every one of their young.  none of this is evidence of abstract thought 

No it isn't.  It is a response with an unknown motivational cause and that is not the same thing at all.  I think you need to go back and look at the definition of evidence.

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No other animals have the cognitive abilities to really understand  the nature of death or even of life as an abstract concept   This requires a sophistication of  language and thought that non human animals do not have

You do not know this, cannot prove this and yet make it a statement of fact.  Please support your claims with evidence as I do.

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Humans do indeed have complex abstract, and symbolic, conceptual understandings of death.  We build whole religions around those concepts  One of the reasons for believing that other animals do NOT is that the y demonstre no similar spiritual or religious constructs.

I have shown you that elephants do indeed show loss and grief and have rituals surrounding death.  If you choose to interpret that differently then that is up to you but it flies in the face of all of the research done so far.

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No, contrary to popular belief, whale songs are like bird calls evolved with general or specific purposes.  They may sound beautiful to us but they  are not created songs from the mind of a self aware being  constructed to create joy or pleasure or express emotion They are practical communication but not language 

Any proof of this or just another baseless comment? How about the link I provided? Can you offer any evidence at all that whales are not self aware? 

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

My point exactly.  Elephants  can't make such moral or ethical  judgements, only humans can .    Elephants do not have a self aware opinion about the morality of culling elephants OR humans.  Humans have both.

Not your point exactly as you do not know whether elephants can make moral or ethical judgements.  You cannot say with any certainty at all that elephants are not self aware and that they do not have an opinion.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i did some research  on which to base a general comment after saying i didn't have  the knowledge

Then why didn't you retract the statement that you didn't have the knowledge? In fact they were in the same paragraph following each other, so you're telling me you stopped typing, read up on it, carried on typing and never changed the statement. This seems a bit stupid to me.

[I'mConvinced]

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

I answered this post. Maybe just not how you wanted it answered 

To reiterate  God did not change by  neurochemistry. The best answer i can give is that My neurochemistry adapted to the presence of the cosmic consciousness, by opening up already latent inherent human abilities which exist within every human being.  Read the book the cosmic consciousness or study enlightenment and consciousness raising to understand.

The cosmic consciousness exists all around us and also inside the biology of every human being. Our minds are evolved with the capacity, even the propensity, to sense perceive and react to this entity.   It s just that some are completely cut off from its presence and so just cant comprehend its existence,  some sense it and react to it marginally, and for some it fills their life.  I fall between the second and third categories   God is the wrong word because peole think of something like the christian god  The cosmic consciousness is a real, powerful entity concerned with human evolution and survival, who is accessible to any human and can open up the natural and latent abilities found in any human mind and body  .

if you dont have this access, it is because you have not learned how to This is no different to learning any skill, like reading or talking, or playing a musical instrument. You can do them but you need to take time and effort to do so. .  So I am normal.

Ppeople linked to the cosmic consciousness (or the holy spirit or whatever name the y give it ) are normal. People who are limited to the material and commonly accepted abilities of mind and body are also normal but unfulfilled in potential.  Is it normal to be able to read a page in seconds ?  Yes Is it normal to be illiterate ? Yes. Both are normal human conditions.

Is it normal to be totally aware of your surroundings and to extend your consciousness or chi beyond your body? Is it normal to be totally unaware of your environment, immersed only in your inner self ? yes both  are normal.

My abilities are the abilities all humans have within them. They only have to open up to them and take time and effort to train in their use  Eastern cultures accept this far more than our western ones. The university of Adelaide is currently  researching the use of controlled lucid dreaming and its practical potential applications   This is  where you take control of your dreams and  use them for entertainment, training/learning  or psycho therapy eg overcoming fears nightmares etc.    They are now trying to educate peolpe in techniques to succeed at this skill  I was doing all this, self taught,  back in the 1950s, and yet  for decades many refused to even accept that humans had such an ability     

You didn't answer the questions at all, you simply dodged around them. You've answered them there so thank you for that.

So lets take a logical look at this:

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

To reiterate  God did not change by  neurochemistry.

So you know for sure God did not change your neurochemistry. 

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

The best answer i can give is that My neurochemistry adapted to the presence of the cosmic consciousness, by opening up already latent inherent human abilities which exist within every human

Yet here you don't know for sure why it happened and can only make a guess. In the very next sentence.

Now lets look at a definition of normal:

Quote

 

normal

ˈnɔːm(ə)l/

adjective

1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

 

We can say for sure that the default state of human beings is not one in which we exhibit psychic powers, talk to the cosmic consciousness and are looked after individually by said being or beings.  Even if every single human is capable of eventually achieving this you cannot seriously argue that this is the normal state of being.   

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

Is it normal to be totally aware of your surroundings and to extend your consciousness or chi beyond your body?

Absolutely not.  In fact it is normal to not be totally aware of your surroundings.

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

Is it normal to be totally unaware of your environment, immersed only in your inner self ?

No, even during unconscious sleep we have a limited awareness of our environment through uncontrolled subconscious monitoring.

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

Is it normal to be able to read a page in seconds ?

And comprehend it? No.

On 10/27/2017 at 1:07 AM, Mr Walker said:

Is it normal to be illiterate ? Yes. Both are normal human conditions.

No, it is abnormal to be illiterate in modern times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

The global literacy rate for all males is 90.0% and the rate for all females is 82.7%

Please go back and read the definition of normal.  Nothing that you claim as normal would be accepted as normal by the vast majority of people, no matter how you try to spin it.

Edited October 28, 2017 by I'mConvinced

[I'mConvinced]

@Mr Walker

If I could I would please like to ask once more about the light in the sky that you saw.  You said it was like a pillar and was there for several minutes correct? Is this the only time you have seen this light in the sky or have there been other occurrences? If so, how were these instances similar? 

[jmccr8]

He has said that this entity can take human form and has been seen by others like when it delivered a bible to him at the hospital and the disappeared. That is still a bit odd because he does say that doctors and nurses saw it but when asked if they can affirm this claim it would seem that they are not able to. I am also left with doubts because Walker is not a believer in the bible and his god does not fit the description of the biblical god nor has he come to Jesus through the experience. Why would a god send a messenger to him with a bible that promotes a different god entity than itself as gods according to man seek to be worshipped and are generally described as jealous in nature? There is also no consistency in his appearance so how would one know that there are not several deceptive entities each claiming that they are the same original entity?

jmccr8

Edited October 28, 2017 by jmccr8
Fat fingers

[jmccr8]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No.Abstract thought is quite different to, and separate from, the concrete thought and linear thinking required to make tools. My argument is simply that we must assume that such thought did not exist, until we have evidence that it did. Painting, ceremonies  certin forms of burial, fertility  figurines etc are evidence of a sense of spirituality and abstract symbolic thinking.  We discussed this before.  There are several levels of communication from  very basic to very sophisticated.

Walker,

People create, whether you see a symbolism or not is irrelevant it is a process of thinking and being aware of what we are doing and having an intention of doing it by means of calculation. When H.Erectus traveled to Java do you believe that it was incidental that they were enough individuals to maintain a population or even take a chance on the unknown? No these are the actions of calculation and premeditation animal instinct wouldn't be a driver to put them at risk because it is not evident that there were conditions that would incite it as a reaction to an environment like running away from a bushfire, landslide or other natural events or predators. 

Here is a walking stick that I carved for my niece and the second picture is a picture of the prototype of a portable light tower that I built for an international equipment rental company. There are 1200 pieces that comprise the light tower and I handmade the components and did the welding and assembly, the cabinet parts were the only parts that I had made outside of the shop because I had them laser cut and machine broke.

For me as the creator of both, there is no difference in the thought process each has a purpose that is unique to itself and I see them both as a form of art just like I do when I work on a renovation or build a car. Other people create their own significance on what I build much in the same way that you make interpretations about archaic humans and what they thought or gave significance to.

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by jmccr8

[jmccr8]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No I haven't lol. if you can explain why you think so i will respond . Humans are basically animals( ie primates) We have been in that animal form  far far longer than we have been self aware  beings  and so our most basic drivers are still animalistic.  However, as we became self aware, we evolved cognitive abilities to construct abstract ideas like hurt and harm,  equality and justice, mercy and altruism.

As these conflicted with our animal drivers, we established expectations and laws to compel us to behave as self aware beings, and not just  as animals.

  Our animal urges are still our first and most powerful  drivers, but our minds  can override, control and   redirect those behaviours (through conscious will and purpose)  to obey the laws and standards we construct   

Humanity and individuals are in a constant struggle between our evolved biological drivers,(animal instincts)  and what we now know to be civilised and acceptable behaviours.

Slowly slowly, we advance the standards of humanity around the globe,  and slowly slowly, we win the individual  battle of mind over body.  

Walker,

It is obvious that we do not see things in the same way but I am going to post this to try to get you to see a point of reference from which to work from.

http://www.santiagosr.com/ensayos/aristotle

In the same way that Aristotle describes the three types of soul, we can look at what properties are unique to the soul and are independent of the body/soul relationship that is referred to as a man. When one views it from this perspective it can be seen that how you are arguing the comparison between animals and our species is not adequate and given that the homo species has been shown to manipulate their environment and be creative and deliberate in their progression for no less than million years as social groups, and I state this as a low estimate as we are still discovering our past your assertations fall short of reality.

Most likely most representative symbolism and other aspects like clothing of types of shelters and containers were made of materials that degrade faster and are not available for analysis so to state that they were absolutely not intelligent and utilizing/manipulating the environment to adapt is flawed. I'm not talking advanced civilization but am saying that you are making broad claims that you will not be able to support.

It is flawed logic to assume that biological drivers of animals are comparable to humans and I will argue this with you with no hesitation that this is the cause of premeditated conscious act of abhorrent behavior, the homo species has always protected each other because they cannot exist without depending on a group, you come here to interact because you do not wish to be alone and want to interact with other humans that is part of our nature.

jmccr8

 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

No it isn't.  It is a response with an unknown motivational cause and that is not the same thing at all.  I think you need to go back and look at the definition of evidence.

You do not know this, cannot prove this and yet make it a statement of fact.  Please support your claims with evidence as I do.

I have shown you that elephants do indeed show loss and grief and have rituals surrounding death.  If you choose to interpret that differently then that is up to you but it flies in the face of all of the research done so far.

Any proof of this or just another baseless comment? How about the link I provided? Can you offer any evidence at all that whales are not self aware? 

Not your point exactly as you do not know whether elephants can make moral or ethical judgements.  You cannot say with any certainty at all that elephants are not self aware and that they do not have an opinion.

Then why didn't you retract the statement that you didn't have the knowledge? In fact they were in the same paragraph following each other, so you're telling me you stopped typing, read up on it, carried on typing and never changed the statement. This seems a bit stupid to me.

You simply interpret what you see, through anthropomorphic eyes You see elephants stopping by a dead body and assume the y grieve because we grieve. However if they do not have the cognitive capacity to construct the idea of grief then it is NOT grief. It is a programmed response with a specific purpose.  I agree with you that in some things we do not know. However without evidences i assume the default position   that these qualities do not exist You assume a default position that they do  That is  strangely like believing in god without any real evidences  

You have NOT shown me that elephants grieve. You have shown me animals acting in a way that, in humans, might be grief (or might be curiousity)    You have ASSUMED that with elephants it is grief.

What if it is simply an attempt to see if the y still live and can be woken   What if it simply a recognition of the scent of a particular animal, and their connection to it?   Where are your evidences that these behaviours are representative of grief? 

I CAN say with certainty that non linguistic animals are limited in their cognitive abilty. the two evolve together. It requires a very high evolution of language with abstract and symbolic  mental attachments to words to construct a sense of grief or love  Thus we KNOW that other animals rarely if ever construct concepts or ideas like love empathy compassion grief hate  etc  It is impossible for them to do so if the y lack the language to conceive of the concepts Such things in humans are not mere physical emotional responses but self aware intellectual constructs  I love my dogs because i can. They do not love me because the y have no concept of such love. They are loyal protective etc as part of their evolved nature  

Yup i always do some research when i don't know something  It took me seconds to find articles and a couple of minutes to read a dozen pages. You will sometimes see a  that i edit almost every post. This is not for proof reading but while i pause and check facts etc. Why retract?  Both statements were true as i wrote them. I dont mind admitting when i don't know something.  Knowledge takes only moments to gain and alters what you know, and hence understand.  immediately.  

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

You didn't answer the questions at all, you simply dodged around them. You've answered them there so thank you for that.

So lets take a logical look at this:

So you know for sure God did not change your neurochemistry. 

Yet here you don't know for sure why it happened and can only make a guess. In the very next sentence.

Now lets look at a definition of normal:

We can say for sure that the default state of human beings is not one in which we exhibit psychic powers, talk to the cosmic consciousness and are looked after individually by said being or beings.  Even if every single human is capable of eventually achieving this you cannot seriously argue that this is the normal state of being.   

Absolutely not.  In fact it is normal to not be totally aware of your surroundings.

No, even during unconscious sleep we have a limited awareness of our environment through uncontrolled subconscious monitoring.

And comprehend it? No.

No, it is abnormal to be illiterate in modern times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

The global literacy rate for all males is 90.0% and the rate for all females is 82.7%

Please go back and read the definition of normal.  Nothing that you claim as normal would be accepted as normal by the vast majority of people, no matter how you try to spin it.

And here is our dilemma .i simply disagree 

"Psychic abilty is totally normal in humans"  I know this from reading and my own experiences 

"Psychic  abilty is not normal in humans."  you know this from your own experience. 

Who is right ? 

In humans many things are normal. ie within the statistical  norms Or are you saying that homosexuality, left handedness, and red hair are not normal qualities of humanity.

Normal does not mean universal. Just within the norm. 

Both literacy and illiteracy are quite normal conditions around the world .

If a human can train themselves to do something, then that behaviour is normal Ie it is normal for a person to be able to speed read   Again normal does not actually mean usual, or even common, just within a range of norms  Speech is normal but you can't speak until you learn to.  A full awareness of your surrounding environment is normal, but again you have to learn how to do it (as all early people learned)  Speaking english is normal, but so is speaking chinese

 

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

@Mr Walker

If I could I would please like to ask once more about the light in the sky that you saw.  You said it was like a pillar and was there for several minutes correct? Is this the only time you have seen this light in the sky or have there been other occurrences? If so, how were these instances similar? 

Think of the transmat beams from star trek This was a cylinder of intense opaque and fluorescent light powerful enough to light up many hundreds of square feet as light as day and easily to see as well as in daylight It was about 2 metres tall and  a mtre in diametre Think of the size of a round telephone box  It appeared about a metre away from me and on ground level  You could not see into it and indeed it was blinding to try and do so 

This was the only occasion i have experienced this form of manifestation  It was the first full physical manifestation of the cosmic consciousness, although it had connected with me at the age of 12 or so and had already saved my life a few times by this point However i had not realised its full power and physical potential until this time. Over the next 45 years it has manifested in many shapes and forms, to educate mentor guide and physically protect And to share with me some of its own abilities 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

He has said that this entity can take human form and has been seen by others like when it delivered a bible to him at the hospital and the disappeared. That is still a bit odd because he does say that doctors and nurses saw it but when asked if they can affirm this claim it would seem that they are not able to. I am also left with doubts because Walker is not a believer in the bible and his god does not fit the description of the biblical god nor has he come to Jesus through the experience. Why would a god send a messenger to him with a bible that promotes a different god entity than itself as gods according to man seek to be worshipped and are generally described as jealous in nature? There is also no consistency in his appearance so how would one know that there are not several deceptive entities each claiming that they are the same original entity?

jmccr8

Where did you get the idea the witnesses could not affirm sighting this being? They all commented on him  his youth expensive suit and extreme good looks They asked who he was and where he had gone to .

No one including myself actually saw him dematerialise from a small isolated balcony  outside my room, 5 floors above the ground, but as no body was discovered on the ground below and i was moving toward the only entrance /exit, his disappearance remains a mystery.    Prior experience ( for me  with such things)  suggested a dematerialisation and transport to another location 

The message which I opened the book to, said, "have no fear. No harm will come to you because I am watching over you "

' What other book would contain such a direct and relevant message for a person alone and facing a major operation  over 400 miles from home  

Actually my experience with this entity has direct similarities and parallels with encounters of many biblical writers, but also accounts by humans of all beliefs and faiths and even form some atheists.  It often appears to me as it might to a shaman from an early age giving advice encouragement and wisdom  ie as a spirit, manifesting as a plant or animal guide, to stop me getting lost,   to find food or water, or to give me a winning tip on the melbourne cup  

There is only one god form but it manifests to people in ways which make sense to them and allows effective communication And always you apply common sense and good judgment to its advice Mine has never suggested anything which would bring harm to me or others, and if it did, i would ignore it. 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker,

It is obvious that we do not see things in the same way but I am going to post this to try to get you to see a point of reference from which to work from.

http://www.santiagosr.com/ensayos/aristotle

In the same way that Aristotle describes the three types of soul, we can look at what properties are unique to the soul and are independent of the body/soul relationship that is referred to as a man. When one views it from this perspective it can be seen that how you are arguing the comparison between animals and our species is not adequate and given that the homo species has been shown to manipulate their environment and be creative and deliberate in their progression for no less than million years as social groups, and I state this as a low estimate as we are still discovering our past your assertations fall short of reality.

Most likely most representative symbolism and other aspects like clothing of types of shelters and containers were made of materials that degrade faster and are not available for analysis so to state that they were absolutely not intelligent and utilizing/manipulating the environment to adapt is flawed. I'm not talking advanced civilization but am saying that you are making broad claims that you will not be able to support.

It is flawed logic to assume that biological drivers of animals are comparable to humans and I will argue this with you with no hesitation that this is the cause of premeditated conscious act of abhorrent behavior, the homo species has always protected each other because they cannot exist without depending on a group, you come here to interact because you do not wish to be alone and want to interact with other humans that is part of our nature.

jmccr8

 

Aristotle did not have the benefit of  an understanding of neuroscience, or cognitive development, and the nature of mind  Nor of modern psychology.  He did a brilliant job with what he had, but it is now superseded by modern sciences 

Humans recognise their soul because of their self aware nature And in reality our soul IS a cognitive construct of our mind.

It consists of many elements and we grow and shape it as we become self aware.

You can become a good man or an bad man in very simple terms, and your soul will then reflect the decisions you have made and the outcomes you have caused   We KNOW the hurt and pain we can cause others and this sets up a cognitive neural feed back loop in most, causing conscience guilt and then reponses to compensate for these feelings.

It is not flawed logic it is elementary biology  and has been understood since a t least Desmond Morris's seminal work :"The naked ape"  The study of evolution show us the similarities in biology genetics and drivers between all primates  And humans are ONLY an evolved primate. Our self aware consciousness is like icing on the cake of our primate self, in that it alters and improves the overall cake, but doesnt change it's basic nature 

I might be mistaken but it almost seems as if your belief about the nature of humanity is a form of creationist one; ie that humans are basically somehow different in nature from all other animals  That our self awareness is some form of separate  gift. 

WE have been non self aware primates for millions of years, and much of that  evolved nature remains deeply ingrained in us.  The veneer of self awareness is by comparison only a hundred thousand or so years old and in deep conflict with those older biological imperatives 

[Illyrius]

On 30. 09. 2017. at 7:08 AM, Wes4747 said:

Should all things requiring faith be outlawed? I will make my case.

All cults rely on faith. Cults are like drugs and.... Drugs are bad... Um kayyy?

Should all things requiering thinking be outlawed? I will make my case.

All bad deeds rely on thinking. Bad deeds are like evil and... Evil is bad... Um kayyy?

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Aristotle did not have the benefit of  an understanding of neuroscience, or cognitive development, and the nature of mind  Nor of modern psychology.  He did a brilliant job with what he had, but it is now superseded by modern sciences 

Humans recognise their soul because of their self aware nature And in reality our soul IS a cognitive construct of our mind.

It consists of many elements and we grow and shape it as we become self aware.

You can become a good man or an bad man in very simple terms, and your soul will then reflect the decisions you have made and the outcomes you have caused   We KNOW the hurt and pain we can cause others and this sets up a cognitive neural feed back loop in most, causing conscience guilt and then reponses to compensate for these feelings.

It is not flawed logic it is elementary biology  and has been understood since a t least Desmond Morris's seminal work :"The naked ape"  The study of evolution show us the similarities in biology genetics and drivers between all primates  And humans are ONLY an evolved primate. Our self aware consciousness is like icing on the cake of our primate self, in that it alters and improves the overall cake, but doesnt change it's basic nature 

I might be mistaken but it almost seems as if your belief about the nature of humanity is a form of creationist one; ie that humans are basically somehow different in nature from all other animals  That our self awareness is some form of separate  gift. 

WE have been non self aware primates for millions of years, and much of that  evolved nature remains deeply ingrained in us.  The veneer of self awareness is by comparison only a hundred thousand or so years old and in deep conflict with those older biological imperatives 

Wouldn't call myself a creationist as I think potential exists and is why we are here the means by which are an unknown. I used Aristotle because his process of deduction is still valid today and I don't see that modern understanding of man through science detracts but rather enhances his premiss. As of yet the complexity of man is still an unknown and science does affirm that we are unique and a separate species that have qualities that can be measured and makes us distinct.To me why we are is not a major concern to me in so much as what we do with that uniqueness.

jmccr8

[Wes4747]

1 hour ago, Mr. Argon said:

Should all things requiering thinking be outlawed? I will make my case.

All bad deeds rely on thinking. Bad deeds are like evil and... Evil is bad... Um kayyy?

A little late in the game for a post like that, dont ya think? 

Or did you not read through the thread simply throwing your divine mystical cynicism as cheap icing upon the labors of the cake?

Sincerely, thank you for your contribution. 

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Or did you not read through the thread simply throwing your divine mystical cynicism as cheap icing upon the labors of the cake?

I read a bit, but not nearly the whole thread. Just answered to your case.

You're welcome.

[Wes4747]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

I read a bit, but not nearly the whole thread. Just answered to your case.

You're welcome.

Ah. Very well. Interesting thought experiment and i gained a world of perspective by posing the question. There were a few little gems in there i do believe.

As for outlawing thinking, or faith for that matter, no need to bother. Thinking is no longer hip nor required to waste away in our society.

This post was actually more of a call for readers to critically consider what they put their faith into, and how important it may be to the holders. The same should be considered for thoughts, touché- i see what ya did there.

[Illyrius]

4 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

This post was actually more of a call for readers to critically consider what they put their faith into, and how important it may be to the holders. The same should be considered for thoughts, touché- i see what ya did there.

If that is the case then I have to say that i agree. Faith without critical thinking tends to be very destructive, as is the case with the reverse, and to clarify about that reverse case, too much rationality is as insane as is too much unfounded faith. The problem of our time lies more in this second case of over-rationalization. But that is another subject.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Mr. Argon