Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Heaven and Hell


Guyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

and i had one containing over 10000 before the 2005 fire, and I'd read everyone of them :) 

And no, that was not included in the link It is prior knowledge/understanding required to to understand the link and its limitations

ie the link is talking about the abilty to form and speak oral/verbal language  which is delayed by deafness. However  if one is human then one can still learn to construct an inner language of the mind even if born deaf.  One just cant speak what one is thinking,

The boy and others mentioned in the link could think in narrative language but couldn't speak it until they learned how to use their  facial motor skills to form and speak the words out loud 

Other animals cannot form those inner narratives etc . Thats the difference between humans and  (almost) all other animals.

There a re a couple of them, who have lived with humans for years, who demonstrate some potential, but it may be mimicry not original creative thinking

Given the human time line ,a few species are within a 100000 years or so of  naturally evolving basic human level self  awareness and language, so that they  will be at the level humans  were a bit under 1000000 years ago  

I believe we can advance that process, so that we will have other species with whom to share our  words and thoughts ,  in a much shorter time frame 

Most probably other primates, dolphins and perhaps whales  although it is harder to get access to them. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol

I read a book every day. Sometimes 2 or 3m  if  the y are shorter and I have time. My wife and I are both often up until 1 or 2 am reading.  I read at least one paper fully each day and then i read a lot on line   I belong to the local book club and i run the community swap fridge for books and duds, so I have   about 600 books in my office and over 1500  dvds   Yesterday was a fairly busy day. i was given about 60 dvds and gave away about the same number, plus about 40 books

Last week a lady rocked up with the back of an SUV filled with books and gave me about  500 books in excellent condition,    ranging form children's, through adults, to biographies etc    I've managed to give away about half of them so far. 

However, I don't read as much as I did when I was working,  or younger, mainly because of the internet  I also no longer need a personal library after losing all those books in  the bushfire 

I use 3  ' local" libraries,  plus the online state library to borrow books, and  i am given hundreds of them by the libraries,    local second hand shops, and individuals 

One sister and my brother both have dedicated libraries in their homes, each with around 10000 books in them, so I have more books to read than I can ever complete in my life time 

I love it when people make  these sort of ';dumb" (ie unfounded and totally wrong,)  personal attacks, because it shows they  cant win a rational argument  and have to attack the opponent. 

Ps i do also read picture books ie comics or graphic novels, although these are harder to get  these days  and i had to give up buying the phantom when our local newsagent closed, . after reading it since 1955 and owning about 1500 issues of it 

Interesting that you see everything as an attack when it’s not. Don’t you have male friends, guys poke fun at each other and the smarter ones use satire the point is to show you that you take yourself far to seriously, lighten up. Smile, laugh, have some fun. :sk

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, XenoFish said:

As for heaven. I wonder if the thought of such a wonderland is of benefit. As we die, perhaps a visit to our own "heaven" help ease death. To in memory visit our loved ones again, before the lights go out.

You’re a good thinker.  I like that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you pull a fish from the river, and watch it flop about on the ground before you sever its spine, do you think it has any thought of heaven?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Guyver said:

When you pull a fish from the river, and watch it flop about on the ground before you sever its spine, do you think it has any thought of heaven?

What do you think heaven for a fish would look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

What do you think heaven for a fish would look like?

I haven’t contemplated the fish, but my instinct tells me it’s one of those go or no go type creatures.  No thought except survival and reproduction.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

 Behind every thing that was created ,there had to be a thought first.   

So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Walker, I really want you to read this post:

http://kromakhy.blogspot.com/2013/05/134-crows-capable-of-coordinated-attack.html?m=1

This is my blog about corvids, btw.

How would you explain that behaviour? Instinct? Really?

 

Yes Non humans, as with humans, act from preprogrammed genetic /biological drivers. Humans, however, become conscious of this and can choose to construct new motivations or drivers as cognitive constructs and behaviours.

We  can choose to love or hate, to be greedy or altruistic,  to fear or to be courageous.

  We KNOW those emotions, not just as feelings, but as intellectual constructs and choices .

 Only humans can choose good/bad,   constructive /destructive,  behaviours  Only humans can murder or rape.

And because we ARE  aware of choices, and the outcomes   each choice will produce (because we can see into the future  using logic and experience ) we become responsible for our behaviors in a way which no other animal can.

You cant try a non human animal for rape, abuse or murder.

  Other animals don't even have a concept of love or hate, and thus cant choose either, or construct either. they can feel attachment or fear   towards an individual or a pack  M ywife and then I are the alphas in our pack and our dogs behave accordingly. The cats, of course, are different 

No human animals  respond to evolved  biological imperatives, and conditioning/ training .

Humans do also, but can override those with will, discipline, and knowledge.  

Ps we have lived in the country most of our lives including about 30 years on farms.  We have interacted, with observed, cared for, and nurtured more animals than anyone outside  of a zoo  The y become a part of your family, BUT,  while we have a duty of care to them, the y have none towards us  While we can love them, they are incapable of the same sort of love for us.   

Ps we have had many birds as part of our family.

They  were not  pets but were tamed to come and eat from  our hand

That included magpies, wattle birds, and many smaller ones.  We have  cared for peacocks, guinea fowl, bantams, ducks and many species, of smaller birds    We hand raised 13 abandoned lambs and kept them for life.   I buried each one of them when they passed  

At one time we were caring for 8 adult dogs  and have always had a t least one cat as a part of our family 

Generally all our dogs were buried in our yard except a couple which were cremated and whose ashes we still have 

I know animals very well ,but i don't fool myself that  they have human- like capabilities. (Some do have human- like potentials)

Regular or occasional visitors to our home included kangaroos,  emus,  many types of lizard, and even a 2 metre long goanna.  The only ones not really welcomed were the big poisonous snakes .  

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I love it when you become so defensive when people make claims like that which imply high skepticism.  Heh. 

Now that I believe :)  

But in this case i wasn't defensive or upset,  just amused,   because it was so far from  the truth. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

There are biologists who claim that certain corvids are now at the same level as humans were during the Stone Age.

And the Stone Age is not thàt long ago, evolutionarily speaking.

 

I don't think so, but if you mean  old stone age (Paleolithic )  perhaps  they are getting close 

Not there yet, given that Paleolithic  humans were capable of this.

 

Paleolithic Art of the Old Stone Age

 

and this 

TOOLS AND WEAPONS IN THE PREHISTORY - ppt download

however if you take the earliest (Lower)  Palaeolithic period  (which is marked by the use of stone tools ) then covids and some other animals might qualify   Otters and some primates also use tools . Covids  and some great apes are the only ones   i know of  which make compound tools  

Back then, however, there is no evidence that those humans had abstract thought or symbolic language, either. Indeed any language,  if  it existed, would have been very simple and concrete.  

I did say tha t a few species  may be within human level  language abilty  given 100000 years of evolution 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

We know why people sing and the evolved reasons for that also then. Has nothing to do with whether either sings out of appreciation.

Which is it; if we can identify all the reasons they sing then that it's not 'as far as we know'.  'As far as we know', birds could be providing a lot more information than we know in their songs that we only know as a generic 'mating call'.  No, we can ultimately just assume and guess that 'we can identify all the reasons they do sing', especially since we don't speak 'bird'.  I see you've shifted from the debatable 'birds can't sing out of appreciation' to the definitionally obvious  'birds don't feel/appreciate like humans do' as you often do, which isn't the same topic.

Actually it does.

Humans sing, make music, art, literature etc., not because  they have to, as a part of their evolution, or for any evolutionarily driven  reason,  but as a conscious, skilled,   learned   response to higher order concepts like joy, wonder, love, hate, anger, devotion   etc 

As far as we know, no non human animals sing for other than evolved reasons, over which they have no conscious  choice.

You can speculate that animals feel joy and create songs to show that joy, but there is absolutely  no evidence for that, and a lot of evidence against it.

As I said before, I base my opinions on evidences, not emotions or wishful thinking,  and will change them as/if  evidences become available.    

and in modern times, yes, a lot has been deciphered, decoded, and understood about the variety and   nature of bird calls; yet, again, no evidence that any call is  a conscious response to beauty or joy  has been discovered 

and it is the same topic.

Birds don't sing from joy, or appreciation of beauty  because the y cant construct the understanding of joy or beauty .

  Humans can  sing from  joy only   because they CAN know, feel, and appreciate, that emotional and intellectual construction we call joy. 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Now that I believe :)  

But in this case i wasn't defensive or upset,  just amused,   because it was so far from  the truth. 

You were defensive. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You were defensive. 

You might perceive that, but i laughed out loud literally, because the idea that i only read picture books was so stupid as to be laughable 

Then i went on to repeat what I have said many times.

I have read since the age of 3, and  I read over a million words every week. I have read ( cover to cover) several major sets of encyclopedia and dictionaries  Ive read every one of the national geographics printed in the 20th century and many similar magazines   I' ve read at least   30000 books including many academic ones, well over 30000 newspapers and  probably about 5000 academic and lay journals and magazines 

   That's not being defensive, even if it is outlining WHY you got it so wrong. 

You suggest you were being humorous but, unfortunately, given our history here, I find that improbable   

There is nothing to defend, although plenty to educate/inform you, or others.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I love it when you become so defensive when people make claims like that which imply high skepticism.  Heh. 

“We can’t bust heads like we used to—but we have our ways. One trick is to tell them stories that don’t go anywhere like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so I decided to go to Morganville which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So, I tied an onion to my belt which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel. And in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. ‘Give me five bees for a quarter,’ you’d say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah! The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.”

LAST EXIT TO SPRINGFIELD (S. 4, E. 17)

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You might perceive that, but i laughed out loud literally, because the idea that i only read picture books was so stupid as to be laughable 

Then i went on to repeat what I have said many times.

I have read since the age of 3, and  I read over a million words every week. I have read ( cover to cover) several major sets of encyclopedia and dictionaries  Ive read every one of the national geographics printed in the 20th century and many similar magazines   I' ve read at least   30000 books including many academic ones, well over 30000 newspapers and  probably about 5000 academic and lay journals and magazines 

   That's not being defensive, even if it is outlining WHY you got it so wrong. 

You suggest you were being humorous but, unfortunately, given our history here, I find that improbable   

There is nothing to defend, although plenty to educate/inform you, or others.   

You're still being defensive. The main point was that I don't believe you've read 10,000 books, much less 30,000 books. I would expect insights on things much deeper than what you provide, if that was the case.

But alas, your insights are about as deep as a puddle. Really disappointing for somebody who has read as many as you claim. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Manwon

Butter and a frying pan :D

That sounds about right, all except for the Angle Fish that ones special!!:D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh:The unknown member:unsure:

FE0AEA88-3715-46AB-B625-A09BE8BBB577-13637-00000AF16841AD35.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You can speculate that animals feel joy and create songs to show that joy, but there is absolutely  no evidence for that, and a lot of evidence against it.

Your claim is still leaking, not sure where 'create songs to show joy' came from, we were talking about reasons for singing. 

We know that other animals feel joy:

Capture.JPG.f501dc8b828b65057cf13f0a761db541.JPG

And in addition to some species singing there seem to be many more that 'appreciate' and react to human music already.  We know that species sing to communicate information, so I'm not sure why you think communicating how they feel doesn't happen.  But you also mistakenly believe that we know 'all' the reasons birds sing which is similarly a claim that there is no evidence for and a lot of evidence against it.

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As I said before, I base my opinions on evidences, not emotions or wishful thinking,

The errors in your opinions aren't usually from emotions, it's from your defensiveness as has been discussed and evidenced here.  This from you is false:  "because we can identify all he reasons  they   do sing  ."  No, we do not know 'all' the reasons birds sing, no ornithologist claims this.  I see you didn't try to answer, 'if birds were singing out of joy, how would we know?", which you should be able to if we can identify 'all' the reasons they sing. There are probably some scientists who think 'joy' is out of reach of some animals.  Then again there used to be lots of scientists who thought that tool creation and use was out of reach of animals also.  Anyone who has paid any attention even just to popular news stories would notice the trend in the last few decades of animals turning out to have a lot more going on in their heads and their behavior than science previously thought and things that were assumed to only be human capabilities are not restricted to just us, and you are pretty consistently on the opposite side of that trend with your claims about the limitations of animals.

Quote

As far as we know, no non human animals sing for other than evolved reasons, over which they have no conscious  choice.

As far as we know, no human sings for other than evolved reasons over which they have no conscious choice.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

over which they have no conscious  choice.

I liked this point from https://www.natureinstitute.org/in-context-01/stephen-l-talbott/programming-the-universe-are-animals-robots :

Quote

In the first place, no one would be so foolish as to claim that an insect obeys rules in any literal sense. Certainly there is no conscious obedience going on, nor even a conscious apprehension of rules. At most one might say that the insect has rules of behavior somehow “built in” to it, which it must follow. 

But this, too, is a misrepresentation. Yes, an insect often displays a kind of rigidity in its behavior, and, yes, when we apply our narrowly focused, abstracting intellects to this behavior, we may all too easily reduce it to rules of thumb. Rules of thumb, however, are not the behavior they summarize and reduce, nor do they adequately describe the behavior. We learned this during the early days of artificial intelligence work, when researchers confidently applied the same reduction to human intelligence. Only slowly did they realize that our common sense — which lies at the opposite pole from the more highly conscious activity whereby we explicitly formulate and obey rules — was hopelessly beyond any imaginable collection of rules. 

There is every reason to think that this must hold true all the more for the intelligence of the insect, which surely lies even further toward the “organic” and implicit end of the spectrum than does our own common sense. Only the abstract, rule-bound activity of our intellects allows us to think otherwise. We see the fly expending the last energies of its life banging its head against a window pane, and we think, “What a simple-minded program it is following!” 

But the fly was not made for a world of window panes. Its powers of adaptation are extremely limited. A lack of adaptability to a wholly alien world, however, is not the same as simple-mindedness or rule-mindedness. Within its own, infinitely complex and ever-changing world, the fly demonstrates an intelligence that in many respects is more subtle and efficacious than our own. (For an example of insect intelligence, see “The Obscure Wisdom of the Potter Wasp” in this issue.) Even the behavior at the window pane would reveal endless subtleties if we were to observe it carefully enough: how does it vary with different light and reflective conditions, different temperature conditions, time of day, the presence of other insects or spider webs, different chemical gradients in the air, and so on? The simple-mindedness of its “rules” is really the simple-mindedness of our observation. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As I said before, I base my opinions on evidences, not emotions or wishful thinking,  and will change them as/if  evidences become available.    

No, your opinions on this subject are based on your reading of Genesis, bolstered by the dogma of the fundie denomination for which you insist that you aren't an apologist.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yes Non humans, as with humans, act from preprogrammed genetic /biological drivers. Humans, however, become conscious of this and can choose to construct new motivations or drivers as cognitive constructs and behaviours.

We  can choose to love or hate, to be greedy or altruistic,  to fear or to be courageous.

  We KNOW those emotions, not just as feelings, but as intellectual constructs and choices .

 Only humans can choose good/bad,   constructive /destructive,  behaviours  Only humans can murder or rape.

And because we ARE  aware of choices, and the outcomes   each choice will produce (because we can see into the future  using logic and experience ) we become responsible for our behaviors in a way which no other animal can.

You cant try a non human animal for rape, abuse or murder.

  Other animals don't even have a concept of love or hate, and thus cant choose either, or construct either. they can feel attachment or fear   towards an individual or a pack  M ywife and then I are the alphas in our pack and our dogs behave accordingly. The cats, of course, are different 

No human animals  respond to evolved  biological imperatives, and conditioning/ training .

Humans do also, but can override those with will, discipline, and knowledge.  

Ps we have lived in the country most of our lives including about 30 years on farms.  We have interacted, with observed, cared for, and nurtured more animals than anyone outside  of a zoo  The y become a part of your family, BUT,  while we have a duty of care to them, the y have none towards us  While we can love them, they are incapable of the same sort of love for us.   

Ps we have had many birds as part of our family.

They  were not  pets but were tamed to come and eat from  our hand

That included magpies, wattle birds, and many smaller ones.  We have  cared for peacocks, guinea fowl, bantams, ducks and many species, of smaller birds    We hand raised 13 abandoned lambs and kept them for life.   I buried each one of them when they passed  

At one time we were caring for 8 adult dogs  and have always had a t least one cat as a part of our family 

Generally all our dogs were buried in our yard except a couple which were cremated and whose ashes we still have 

I know animals very well ,but i don't fool myself that  they have human- like capabilities. (Some do have human- like potentials)

Regular or occasional visitors to our home included kangaroos,  emus,  many types of lizard, and even a 2 metre long goanna.  The only ones not really welcomed were the big poisonous snakes .  , I suggest you add Robert Sapolsky to your library.

‘’I suggest you add Robert Sapolsky to your book collection.
 

“There are three forms of sexual coercion that researchers have documented in both human and nonhuman primates: harassment, intimidation, and forced copulation. Harassment is the most common and results when males make repeated attempts to mate that imposes costs on females, intimidation is the use of physical violence inflicted on females who refuse to mate with a given male, and forced copulation (or "rape" in the human literature) is the least common form that involves violent restraint for immediate mating. The researchers found convincing evidence that the first two forms of sexual coercion (but not the third) increased the long-term reproductive success among males in Japanese macaques, baboons, and our closest evolutionary relatives the chimpanzees. This suggests that, at least for these three species, sexual coercion has been selected as an adaptive strategy in male sexual behavior.”

The good news is with better examples socially (as a whole) this includes our non humans (read up on the bonobo’s) the day may come when no one is ever sexually violated non human or not.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/httpblogsscientificamericancomprimate-diaries20110720science-of-sexism/

 

Nota bene: this is a graphic article, Rape is not a joke or a light matter. In the future MW it would behoove you to use great care in the claims you advance due to the sensitivity of the matter especially, in the current climate of the “Me Too”movement. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Yes Non humans, as with humans, act from preprogrammed genetic /biological drivers. Humans, however, become conscious of this and can choose to construct new motivations or drivers as cognitive constructs and behaviours.

We  can choose to love or hate, to be greedy or altruistic,  to fear or to be courageous.

  We KNOW those emotions, not just as feelings, but as intellectual constructs and choices .

 Only humans can choose good/bad,   constructive /destructive,  behaviours  Only humans can murder or rape.

And because we ARE  aware of choices, and the outcomes   each choice will produce (because we can see into the future  using logic and experience ) we become responsible for our behaviors in a way which no other animal can.

You cant try a non human animal for rape, abuse or murder.

  Other animals don't even have a concept of love or hate, and thus cant choose either, or construct either. they can feel attachment or fear   towards an individual or a pack  M ywife and then I are the alphas in our pack and our dogs behave accordingly. The cats, of course, are different 

No human animals  respond to evolved  biological imperatives, and conditioning/ training .

Humans do also, but can override those with will, discipline, and knowledge.  

Ps we have lived in the country most of our lives including about 30 years on farms.  We have interacted, with observed, cared for, and nurtured more animals than anyone outside  of a zoo  The y become a part of your family, BUT,  while we have a duty of care to them, the y have none towards us  While we can love them, they are incapable of the same sort of love for us.   

Ps we have had many birds as part of our family.

They  were not  pets but were tamed to come and eat from  our hand

That included magpies, wattle birds, and many smaller ones.  We have  cared for peacocks, guinea fowl, bantams, ducks and many species, of smaller birds    We hand raised 13 abandoned lambs and kept them for life.   I buried each one of them when they passed  

At one time we were caring for 8 adult dogs  and have always had a t least one cat as a part of our family 

Generally all our dogs were buried in our yard except a couple which were cremated and whose ashes we still have 

I know animals very well ,but i don't fool myself that  they have human- like capabilities. (Some do have human- like potentials)

Regular or occasional visitors to our home included kangaroos,  emus,  many types of lizard, and even a 2 metre long goanna.  The only ones not really welcomed were the big poisonous snakes .  

I didn't even bother to read your next tome of text.

I had a glance at it, and... no.

Why? Because either you didn't read the post I linked to, or you just had no fu king clue of what it really meant.

But please continue.

I'm out.

Edited to add:

Posting large tomes of texts only proves you really do not understand the question at hand. It's a way of hiding behind lots of words.

I will bet it will impress some, but I am not among them.

You know, what I want is you to quote lines of my post from my blog, and add your comment to them.

No tomes of words to deviate, no, straight replies.

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think maybe we are more like animals than we might care to admit, and they are more like 'us' than we might realize.

i know one thing,, our cocker spaniel  Ginger  LOVED my dad.   :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lightly said:

I think maybe we are more like animals than we might care to admit, and they are more like 'us' than we might realize.

i know one thing,, our cocker spaniel  Ginger  LOVED my dad.   :)

Awww, how sweet. on one of my caregiving jobs there is a sweet cocker spaniel, his name is Curly he literally looks out for me, has a special howl to let the family know I am at the door, when I care for his owner he is by my side, follows me everywhere, he is truly a new friend. He makes it very clear he likes me. My furry grandson loves his grandma, I hadn’t seen him for 4 months and I was worried he wouldn’t know me but he remembered his gramma and it was apparent in how he jumped in my arms and cuddled and licked me. Our little maltipoo Zenny hugs us to show his love. 
River is waiting for my son to come in from work, he waits everyday in this chair. 

 

B4DA5AE2-1208-430B-9DFC-536664279544.jpeg

EBF7265D-D95E-47AA-95C0-E89780DC60F5.jpeg

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

 Behind every thing that was created ,there had to be a thought first.   

to add I `m guessing where is heaven and hell ? in this book of my minster he did passed away to, he says he contacted  katy on the other side  and she says everything you have on your  planet  has its begining here.here is the workshop or factory  of every thing you have now or your going to have 

 

Hi! This Is Katy...: Wallace Tooke: 9780964683501: Amazon.com: Books

 

wish you all could study that book :)and what has the meanings of her words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.