Man is just a lump of MEAT?

reply to post by hippomchippo

So you want me to read the minds of animals and tell you their detailed thoughts as they listen to music, etc?

No. Sorry if it seemed I was pushing in that direction. It's more a case of a) what we see on an everyday basis: a very limited range of faculties in comparison to humans, and b) the paucity of experimental evidence that would suggest a comparable range of faculties in animals.

If the best we have is a crow exhibiting possible evidence of self-awareness or a bonobo figuring out how to use a stick I'd say the gulf is unfathomably vast. Granted, dolphins exhibit some wonderful traits, such as playfulness, but in reality it's still a very far cry from becoming breathless while watching a political sit-com, for example. Jumping around is infantile, if truth be told. Satire requires abstraction and an appreciation of universal values.

we don't know if they're loving a certain note or the whole melody, but we do know they like both music and art, and can have a sense of humor, unfortunantly, they can't speak english to tell you what parts they like.

Ah yes, language, requiring the ability to stream numberless abstract symbols at breakneck speed in order to express complex thought or appreciate the complex thought of others. That's something lumps of meat don't do, as I see it.

Time to reprieve Grandma from the fridge?

reply to post by pause4thought


Is an engine block just a piece of metal? Or has it been made something more by being functional?

It depends how you are asking this question. If you are talking on a simple physical level then yes man is nothing more than a complex combination of various cell types, beneath that we are atoms, beneath that sub atomic particles and beneath that nothing more than energy.

If you are talking philosophically then we are so much more. We are the past of our ancestors and the future of our race whlie being the ongiong present. We are the sum of all invention and discovery because without even one of those inventions maybe some of us wouldn't even exist and any future inventions may not have occured if we were not here.

Man this would sound so much better with alcohol.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

So you want me to read the minds of animals and tell you their detailed thoughts as they listen to music, etc?

No. Sorry if it seemed I was pushing in that direction. It's more a case of a) what we see on an everyday basis: a very limited range of faculties in comparison to humans, and b) the paucity of experimental evidence that would suggest a comparable range of faculties in animals.

If the best we have is a crow exhibiting possible evidence of self-awareness or a bonobo figuring out how to use a stick I'd say the gulf is unfathomably vast. Granted, dolphins exhibit some wonderful traits, such as playfulness, but in reality it's still a very far cry from becoming breathless while watching a political sit-com, for example. Jumping around is infantile, if truth be told. Satire requires abstraction and an appreciation of universal values.

we don't know if they're loving a certain note or the whole melody, but we do know they like both music and art, and can have a sense of humor, unfortunantly, they can't speak english to tell you what parts they like.

Ah yes, language, requiring the ability to stream numberless abstract symbols at breakneck speed in order to express complex thought or appreciate the complex thought of others. That's something lumps of meat don't do, as I see it.

Time to reprieve Grandma from the fridge?

Ofcourse we can process information better than most animals, we have a larger brain and we have a society that thrives on intelligence.
But that doesn't negate the fact that if these animals had the same system, they would probably develop their own art and music and celebrate it, and they already do, just not as much and not in the same context as us.
And it also doesn't make us not animals.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by hippomchippo]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I like your style. You've given us a lot to think about, even if you are sober.



reply to post by hippomchippo


You are most welcome to take that viewpoint. (Mine is based on the fact animals don't, in reality, have such faculties.)

Originally posted by pause4thought

The only true "emotion" the spirit truly knows is the "emotion" of LOVE. Rage, happiness, anger, hate, et cetera, all die with the physical "lump of meat."

A very interesting perspective. Thanks.



[edit on 26/6/10 by pause4thought]

You're welcome. It is an idea that has been proposed by those who have experienced NDEs. Most who have experienced this phenomena claim that during their NDE that is all they could feel. LOVE. There wasn't any sense of fear, resentment, or any other emotion that we experience in the physical matrix.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I found it interesting to note, that where psychology and psychiatry tend to reduce thought and the mind down to biological impulses, they describe the healthy sense of self as coming from a place of godlike omnipotence, and in this paper, even described it as being "magical".

I personally find it more interesting that a self concept based upon a false sense of being in control is described as "healthy." Not that the idea itself that we as humans have an ingrained false sense of control, or psychological need for it. You see this need for the delusion of control in many of our behaviors, (though I was unaware of the early infant programming of it) it is just surprising that they describe a healthy self as one based in delusional thinking.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Regardless of where thought comes from, clearly thought outlives the flesh which contains it, otherwise we would not be able to quote Shakespeare today.

And I take issue with this. Our thoughts do indeed die with us. In fact, they never leave us at all. Words may survive us, and words are an agreement that "this symbol or noise stands for roughly this item, concept, etc," but it is only "roughly." If you have seen a thing that another person has not seen, or experienced a thing a person has not experienced, you can use analogy to get them in the general ballpark, but you cannot actually share the thought or the memory of the experience.

We can quote Shakespeare's words, but we do not have his thoughts. As our argument in another thread over the Constitution and free markets will attest to, words are not the same as thoughts. There would not be volumes of case law interpreting such a small number of words if it were. It would all be self evident and we would not need interpretive law at all. How nice it would be if we could actually share our thoughts in a more holistic way. And how horrible too.



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


This dissertation I am editing actually goes to great lengths to describe and assert that all people have both a "true self" and a "false self" which they use to survive. The "true self" is who we really are, "unprotected" from external stimulus, and the "false self" is that persona we create in order to protect us from damaging external stimuli. Various forms of abuse and neglect will, according to this paper, affect both the true self and false self, but if this abuse and neglect happens at infancy, that child will never grow up with any sense of "true self" and their "false self" will be completely predicated upon the abuse and neglect they suffered, which is the evidence of psychological damage, diagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder, (BPD).

If personally find both psychiatry and psychology to be pseudo-sciences, and particularly psychiatry that has a long history of going back and forth between lobotomies, shock treatment, and various other forms of atrocities in order to "cure" mental illness. The more recent proclivity to medicate mental illness, I believe is an attempt by the psychiatric movement to gain more credibility by pointing to biological causes for mental illness, but I have known, and know several people who are either being medicated, or were, for ADHD. However, everyone I know, I have asked what quantifiable tests, such as blood tests, EEG's, MRI's, or CAT scans were done to diagnose this so called ADHD, and each instance no tests other than an interview were done to determine that they had a "chemical imbalance". This is hardly science.

I am not clear why you would declare an infants need to feel omnipotent as delusional. It doesn't take a psychologist to understand that infants believe they are the center of the universe, and this is hardly a delusion on their part, but simply their perception of the universe given their biological experience at that point. As they grow, they come to understand that they are not the center of the universe, but as this paper suggests, if they are allowed to grow believing they have an ability to affect the external world, they grow up to be healthy and functional, whereas those denied this opportunity of control grow up dysfunctional and mentally unhealthy.

There is a sense of omnipotence in creation, and artist's, inventors, architects, contractors, carpenters, and all sorts of contractors and other craftsman create all the time. What is so delusional about using this sense of omnipotence to create works not natural occurring in the world we live. While anyone of these creators can be delusional, they are not necessarily so simply because they are creating. What do you mean by delusion?

A child, according to this dissertation, who believes their gestures and facial expressions are affecting the reaction to their primary caregiver, believe this because the primary caregiver is duplicating the gestures and facial expressions of the child. This is deemed the appropriate response to a child's gestures and expressions, and a primary caregiver who reacts in opposition to a child's gestures and expressions, is deemed as inappropriate behavior, becoming the primary source of the development of BPD.

As I have said, I tend to take psychology with a grain of salt, but I do know from my own experience with my son and and other infants, that the best and surest way to get them to stop crying is to duplicate that crying, and even slightly exaggerate the crying. This duplication always, without fail, would cause a look of consternation from the infant, and when that look is duplicated this would lead to a look of delight from the infant. Sharing that delight with the infant is not only satisfying for an infant, but I found it quite satisfying as well, and from that point, a better form of communication ensues, often times answering what the source of the crying was all about. The explanation given in the paper I am editing, I suppose is as good as any. Where is the delusion in that?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

And I take issue with this. Our thoughts do indeed die with us. In fact, they never leave us at all. Words may survive us, and words are an agreement that "this symbol or noise stands for roughly this item, concept, etc," but it is only "roughly." If you have seen a thing that another person has not seen, or experienced a thing a person has not experienced, you can use analogy to get them in the general ballpark, but you cannot actually share the thought or the memory of the experience.

Indeed? Really? What evidence do yo offer to support this contention that our thoughts die with us? What evidence do you have to support your contention that thoughts cannot be share? How is it artistic movements happen? Take, as just one example, the Absurdist movement of in the 1940's, 50's and 60's in theater. It is not as if Eugene Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter, Tom Stoppard, and Edward Albee all came from the same school, nor did they meet at some coffee house to map out this movement. It happened organically and separate of each other, yet in each case, the movement is defined by certain structural constructions that make it theater of the absurd. How is this possible if thoughts can not be shared?

We can quote Shakespeare's words, but we do not have his thoughts. As our argument in another thread over the Constitution and free markets will attest to, words are not the same as thoughts. There would not be volumes of case law interpreting such a small number of words if it were. It would all be self evident and we would not need interpretive law at all. How nice it would be if we could actually share our thoughts in a more holistic way. And how horrible too.

We do not quote Shakespeare because they are words, we quote him because they mean something to us. Shakespeare survives today, and in The U.S. in spite of the difficulty many find with Elizabethean language, because Shakespeare had a knack for speaking to universal truths. When we quote Hamlet by asking; "To be or not to be, that is the question", we are not quoting Shakespeare simply to recite, but rather to make a point. In this thread I have relied on Shakespearean quote twice now; "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" I did not do this just to parrot Shakespeare, I used his famous words to make a point.

What is self evident is self evident, and no statute, code or ordinance need be written in order for people to understand what is self evident. People didn't become aware of gravity only after Newton wrote down an equation describing it, anymore than it came into existence upon writing that equation. Gravity existed, people knew it did, and Newton discovered the mathematical equation to prove it did, but this proof did not make gravity any more self evident than it all ready was.

Where words come into play, prevarication comes into play, and herein lies the problem with languages outside of mathematics. Math seems to be the only language I know of where lies are revealed quite easily. When you speak of legislation, and attempt to equate that with law, you must necessarily separate civil law from natural law. There are a myriad of statutes, codes and ordinances that are predicated on ideas not self evident, and require explanation. I would suggest any legislation that requires explanation becomes evidence it is in fact not law, but simply legislation that can, at best, only serve as evidence of law.

Few people require an explanation as to why murder is law, where in murder is prohibited. This is self evident, and so because we understand that murder violates another persons right to life. Murder is not wrong because legislators deemed it so, it is wrong because it is an abrogation and derogation of a right. Those who argue that this is not self evident are engaging in prevarications, and either lying to themselves, or more dangerously, lying to others about their ability to see as self evident the fact that murder is wrong...either that, or they are delusional.

Originally posted by pause4thought
What do you see as the essential essence of a human being? Do you regard men and women as simply another member of the plethora of animate beings on planet earth?

Yes. I do. We are not, in my view, over and above the other being on the planet. We are also not all the same. Our consciousness may differ in some ways, but in my opinion, since we are utterly shut out of their thoughts, their feelings, their consciousness, we cannot make a coherent argument for our own specialness. Even the fact that we try to does not differentiate us in any remarkable way, as other creatures also behave in ways that indicate that to themselves they are special. The struggle to survive itself, (relational to others) would dictate that this idea of "specialness" would form to some degree.

Unless of course you held that the ability to expound upon it itself was the thing that set it apart, though we can only do so intra species to approximately the same degree they can expound upon their own specialness to us. Not being able to be in their minds, and experience their perception leaves us once again confounded.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Do you regard yourself and others as having the same value as other creatures, or does it vary?

I think I have the same value as other creatures, but in fact, my actions demonstrate that I believe I am special, and more worthy than other creatures. In short, I would kill a starving creature trying to eat me, but I would gladly eat another creature if I myself were starving. So even though intellectually I do not assume my own superiority, I favor myself enormously.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Are we on a par with the magnificent dolphin in terms of intrinsic value, or infinitely above? Do human flaws lead you to conclude some animals are better than humans — or does it vary from individual to individual?

Our behaviors are not at all out of line with the behavior of other animals. We are no better, or worse. Some animals show altruism, some humans do. Some social animals behave in ways that are sociopathic, some humans do. The one thing that makes us different, in my opinion, is that our behaviors have exempted us temporarily from the full weight of the naturally selective forces that our brethren are still subject to, and we are in fact acting as a selective force on par with that presumed asteroid millions of years ago. I dont LIKE this about us, about nature, but I am not special, despite my sense that I am, and nature plows ahead despite my likes and dislikes.

Originally posted by pause4thought
What on earth are we?

Living things that can make much more ado about our innate drive to survive and the special feeling it gives us of being important than it appears other creatures can. (Though who knows, perhaps bird songs are tributes to their specialness too)

Originally posted by pause4thought

If so, why not cook your neighbour? After all you are hungry.

What difference does it make that it's your grandma? Just a lump of meat...

Lets not forget that people do indeed eat their neighbor and their grandmother in certain conditions. That same drive that gives us that "special feeling" as a collective in good times narrows down considerably in bad times. Grandma starts looking mighty tasty if it comes down to her or you.

However there may be innate problems with cannibalism as a long term practice in animals. Most avoid it, except for dire necessity, and there is likely a survival based reason for this. It could be that eating your own kind makes for shaky social groups, or it could be related to prions. Or some other unknown factor.

"I think therefore I am" may be an important concept, but "I think I am special therefore I am special" makes us just like every other living thing.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Indeed? Really? What evidence do yo offer to support this contention that our thoughts die with us? What evidence do you have to support your contention that thoughts cannot be share?

Volumes upon volumes upon volumes upon volumes of writing by students, professors, lay people, professionals, etc., with differing opinions all expounded with vigor and certainty about volumes upon volumes of other peoples works, be they written or artistic.

There are as many interpretations of what an artist, philosopher, writer, etc., meant by something, or what they were trying to "say" with a piece as there are people. Thats what evidence I have.

Not to mention volumes of philosophical reasoning on the same issue you so blithely assume solved with your brilliant pronouncement that words on paper, or images on canvas, are in fact their very thoughts made manifest to us all. While they do approximate their thoughts, or send us in that direction, the words and images themselves are not their thoughts, and they are no guarantee that the viewer or hearer of such will then have the same thoughts. It can happen, but it usually doesnt.

Not to mention that it is remarkably common for people to mistake other peoples ideas, or intentions, even when they go out of their way to make them clear in everyday life, something which no one here has not experienced to some degree.


And further that enlightenment is not able to be conveyed via words from one to another or we would all have been Buddhas long since, and countless wars over the various interpretations of the same Gods same words would not have been fought.

What more evidence do I need that our thoughts are not sharable?

In regards to this,

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In this thread I have relied on Shakespearean quote twice now; "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" I did not do this just to parrot Shakespeare, I used his famous words to make a point.

A "rose by another other name would smell as sweet" actually makes my point, not yours. Words are agreements between people that a symbol has an agreed upon meaning. They require that both people already have a common thought, you are not transferring your thought to them. If one has not ever had contact with a rose, or smelled one, no amount of words of images could share the smell of a rose with another. You would have to resort to the next commonly shared thought to make give them an idea, but your experience of smelling a rose could not be shared.



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Not being able to be in their minds, and experience their perception leaves us once again confounded.

On the contrary. The fact that animals do not have the faculties to communicate what they perceive in itself demonstrates the gulf between them and us.

I think I have the same value as other creatures, but in fact, my actions demonstrate that I believe I am special, and more worthy than other creatures.

If I wanted to be harsh I might push you on this point. As it is I respect your honesty, and will leave it at that.

In short, I would kill a starving creature trying to eat me, but I would gladly eat another creature if I myself were starving.

Are you perhaps subconsciously circumventing the fact that most people have few if any qualms about eating animals all the time?

...I am not special, despite my sense that I am, and nature plows ahead despite my likes and dislikes...

I respect your view, which you have articulated well.

Lets not forget that people do indeed eat their neighbor and their grandmother in certain conditions.

Let's not forget that is almost universally regarded as barbarism. Even in times of widespread and severe famine.

Grandma starts looking mighty tasty if it comes down to her or you.

I disagree.

"I think therefore I am" may be an important concept, but "I think I am special therefore I am special" makes us just like every other living thing.

That's not what we are saying. I reflect therefore I am special is what we're about. And it's a quantum leap from instinctively behaving like I'm special.

Dr. Millard Rausch: "The normal question, the first question is always; are these cannibals? No, they are not cannibals. Cannibalism in the true sense of the word implies an interspecies activity. These creatures cannot be considered human. They prey on humans. They do not prey on each other, that's the difference. They attack and they feed only on warm human flesh. Intelligence? Seemingly little or no reasoning power, but basic skills remain. A more remembered behavior from normal life. There are reports of these creatures using tools. But even these actions are the most primitive, the use of external articles as bludgeons and so forth. I might point out to you that even animals will adopt the basic use of tools in this manner. These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct. We must not be lulled by the concept that these are our family members or our friends. They are not. They will not respond to such emotions. They must be destroyed on sight!"


[edit on 6/26/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Volumes upon volumes upon volumes upon volumes of writing by students, professors, lay people, professionals, etc., with differing opinions all expounded with vigor and certainty about volumes upon volumes of other peoples works, be they written or artistic.

What form of equivocation is this? Is it that you hope to suggest by this ambiguity quoted above to assert that the existence of volumes upon volumes of writing...etc., is the source of thoughts people have today, or are you suggesting that there are volumes upon volumes of writing...etc., making the same argument you are making. You have not been so clear with this, and your remark can be taken either way, and either way it is simply equivocation. You can not offer any proof that our thoughts die upon our biological death, and this is the evidence I am asking for. Failing that proof, all you can offer is merely your opinion, regardless of how vehement and dogmatic you may be with it. Your opinion is most welcome, but it is certainly not evidence that thoughts die upon biological death.

There are as many interpretations of what an artist, philosopher, writer, etc., meant by something, or what they were trying to "say" with a piece as there are people. Thats what evidence I have.

This is evidence that thoughts die? Hardly! It is merely evidence that individuals are capable of deriving at different interpretations of the same artistic work and does nothing to prove, or even suggest that thoughts die upon biological death.

Not to mention volumes of philosophical reasoning on the same issue you so blithely assume solved with your brilliant pronouncement that words on paper, or images on canvas, are in fact their very thoughts made manifest to us all. While they do approximate their thoughts, or send us in that direction, the words and images themselves are not their thoughts, and they are no guarantee that the viewer or hearer of such will then have the same thoughts. It can happen, but it usually doesnt.

Using Shakespeare as an example, regardless of the interpretations of his work, which indeed can be many and varied, the premise behind each play is understood. The basic premise of Hamlet remains the same regardless of how many different interpretations as to Hamlet's sanity, and that premise is that a failure to act swiftly and with assurance can create more problems than would reticence to act. This is the argument Shakespeare is making with Hamlet and he takes five acts to make the argument. McBeth; unchecked ambition leads to tragic ends. Romeo and Juliet; true love is everlasting even in death. With each of Shakespeare's plays, he is making an argument and sets out to prove his case with the drama or comedy he writes. Would you argue that the premises I have provided are merely interpretations?

Not to mention that it is remarkably common for people to mistake other peoples ideas, or intentions, even when they go out of their way to make them clear in everyday life, something which no one here has not experienced to some degree.

This only speaks to the inefficiency of most languages and not to the mortality of thoughts. As I have all ready suggested, mathematics is a pure form of language where there is no room for misinterpretation, and the only confusion that may arise is from those who are ill equipped to speak the language. You can scream from the highest mountain top, as loud and as long as you want that 2+2=5, but it will not make it any truer, and people will not view your assertions as simply just another interpretation, but will view you as either ignorant or a prevaricator. Long after your body dies, 2+2 will still equal 4, and thoughts are things that outlast your biology.

And further that enlightenment is not able to be conveyed via words from one to another or we would all have been Buddhas long since, and countless wars over the various interpretations of the same Gods same words would not have been fought.

You are presuming that enlightenment is not able to be conveyed via words, and in your presumption you are either ignoring the so called Age of Enlightenment that is named so precisely because of the words, and mathematical equations, that were used to express this enlightenment, or you are dismissing this age as improperly named. Either way, Descartes pronouncement that; "I think therefore I am" remains an easily understood cognition that in many ways defines The Age of Enlightenment.

What more evidence do I need that our thoughts are not sharable?

You have not presented any evidence at all, and have only offered your opinion as to why you believe thoughts are mortal. Further, you have ignored the evidence I offered in the form of the absurdist movement, and the fact that different playwrights from different languages and cultures all began writing in the same structure, using the same set of rules, separately of each other, and without collaboration. You have barely even offered any correlation between your opinions and the notion that thoughts are mortal, and even if you had offered some quantifiable correlation, correlation is not causation, so I would suggest you go back to the drawing board and try again.

Originally posted by Divinorumus

Originally posted by pause4thought
So are people just lumps of meat? (Some may be more lumps of fat, given.)

Yup, hewmons are meat. Without a doubt. Meat!

Is that the guy from Cash Cab?!?

Originally posted by pause4thought


On the contrary. The fact that animals do not have the faculties to communicate what they perceive in itself demonstrates the gulf between them and us.

On the contrary. Animals and insects, etc., do communicate what they perceive. To each other. Do they need to be English speaking animals to be considered to be doing the same thing? You mistake your inability to understand what they are communicating with the notion that they are not, in fact, communicating anything at all. Thats an assumption. It may even be a correct one, in some cases, but it certainly isnt in all cases. One could even go hog wild with this idea, and say that we have no way of knowing for certain that some creatures may not be able to communicate telepathically, (the plant scenario with the little brine shrimp) and have no outward form of communication because they have no need of one. We dont know. It is our self serving bias that makes us feel our way of doing things must surely be the best and the height of evolution. (Or proof that we are specially created by God, dependent upon your indoctrination)

Originally posted by pause4thought
If I wanted to be harsh I might push you on this point. As it is I respect your honesty, and will leave it at that.

Whatever you think is best, but dont hold back on my account. I could care less if your honest opinion is "harsh." I dont even mind if its relevant to the point, and you just want to take a little dig. You will want to watch the terms and conditions of posting here though, someone else may report it if you get too crazy, though I probably wont.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
In short, I would kill a starving creature trying to eat me, but I would gladly eat another creature if I myself were starving.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Are you perhaps subconsciously circumventing the fact that most people have few if any qualms about eating animals all the time?

No, I simply didnt think it necessary to further elaborate on our hypocrisy regarding the taking of life in order to satisfy our own needs. I assumed it self evident that most people do not want to be treated by animals the way they treat animals.

I do think you are incorrect that they have few qualms about it though. I personally believe that that is why we have elaborate rationalizations about how animals dont feel pain the way we do, or think, or suffer, or etc., etc.
Much like we rationalize our cruelty and inhumane behavior towards other humans both historically and currently.

Originally posted by pause4thought

Grandma starts looking mighty tasty if it comes down to her or you.

I disagree.

Clearly, not every single human will engage in cannibalism. But in some places where protein is scarce in the environment cultures have evolved that condone the eating of their dead. See New Guinea and Kuru for further details if so inclined.

Originally posted by pause4thought
That's not what we are saying. I reflect therefore I am special is what we're about. And it's a quantum leap from instinctively behaving like I'm special.

And what I am saying is you have never had a conversation with a tree. How do you know a thousand year old Sequoia is not reflecting while standing there? It certainly has little else to do. You have no way of knowing if reflection is truly special. More modern studies of primates clearly show that their behaviors are not mere "instinct." Whales also appear to have culture, which certainly opens the door to the idea that they may also be reflecting.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Its not as complicated as you are making it seem.

Someone writes something.

Ten people write ten separate books holding forth on different opinions about what the original book was trying to say.

If person one was sharing HIS or HER thoughts, the following ten people would not differ in opinion about what person one was saying, and hence, there would not now be ten new books full of arguments about what person one was saying.

We dont share our thoughts. We might think we are. But what we are really doing is throwing things out there, and if we are lucky, someone already has the same thought and understands what we are trying to say. Often, they may make motions as if they agree, but in fact the thought they are having is NOT the thought you were trying to convey at all. They think they have what you are saying, and you think they have what you were trying to say, and both of you are actually thinking two different things.

If thoughts could actually be transferred by words, you would not see disagreement about what someone said. That thought would be transferred to each recipient whole and now ALL would share that same understanding. They might disagree with the thought, but they would not disagree what the thought was. Clearly, thats not what happens. We disagree about what people are saying or trying to say all the time.

The database in the listener is crucial to the speaker, writer, etc., conveying anything at all. Fortunately for us, many humans have many shared experiences, and so have a database of similar thoughts to "catch" your words.

If you actually care, you can read Plato's Seventh Letter, where Plato, a consummate wordsmith, as well as philosopher, (and the two do not always coincide) outlines in argument the weakness of language as a transmitter. There are others, of course, but I favor him personally, and you can read him for free online, whereas not all other discourses on the language problem are so readily available.

classics.mit.edu...

If you dont care, then just smugly sit back and chuckle to yourself about what a fool I am, and how glad you are that you are so much wiser.

Edit to add;

originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeux
You are presuming that enlightenment is not able to be conveyed via words, and in your presumption you are either ignoring the so called Age of Enlightenment that is named so precisely because of the words, and mathematical equations, that were used to express this enlightenment, or you are dismissing this age as improperly named. Either way, Descartes pronouncement that; "I think therefore I am" remains an easily understood cognition that in many ways defines The Age of Enlightenment.

Yes, because intellectual enlightenment, as a term used to contrast it against "the dark ages," means exactly the same thing as spiritual enlightenment, which was what I meant, and indicated so by the comment on how we would all be Buddhas by now. What are all those silly people doing meditating and reading the dhamapada??? Dont they know the Enlightenment has already happened?? Silly fools, the lot of them.



And further, I did not get at all that "Romeo and Juliet" was about true love being ever lasting and eternal. I got from it that love makes you do stupid things, for no good reason. Who knows which one of us is closer to Shakespeare's intent?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I could not have said it better myself. Great and very easy to understand explanation

Essential essence...could be said a will to receive but modified in order to match nature. Depending on what the source is, some say people aren't "human" until they develop some spiritual nature, until then they are of the same quality as animals. Depending on the person they can be equal or greater than animals. Does an animal sin? No, so really there aren't any human flaws other than uncorrected egoism. People have an ability to love their neighbor, animals don't, the choice is up to the individual.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ghaleon12]

It is a proven fact that humans suffer from gradual neurological degradation if they consume human meat. Think of it as a protective measure, though on a slower scale. It's actually related to madcow disease (Creutzfeldt-Jakob).

I don't think I'm just a bag of meat walking around, my life means something... it has to. I do think that life is this cruel joke, a brief taste of this amazing gift, then it gets snatched away and you have to hope that when you go, there is something on the other side. Why only 80 years? Why are we so fragile? It just blows.

I hold Humans above animals (most), I respect animals as well, I know that they can love, laugh (have you seen a dog laugh?) They get sad... this is not a projection of human emotion onto another living being. While I do consume animals, I also do not kid myself on where and how these animals make it to my plate. I have constant reminders in my back yard on where chicken breast comes from... I raise chickens. I know where my deer sausage came from, I shot, cleaned and had the deer processed. They give their lives so I can live mine. It is the way of things, because in reality we are just another animal.

I find the flow of discussion quite interesting. It speaks volumes to the simple question put forth; Man is just a lump of meat?

From the consciousnesses to interpretation of ideas; from the state of being to the state of knowing. Each has been touched on, slightly expounded and fought for by its creator set forward here in the world of 1's and 0's.

Which leads me to such: Is the digital world and Man's fascination or rather its affair with it because we finally achieved God like status? Is it the ultimate means to satisfy our hunger to be well received and believe once again that the world does in fact revolve around each and every single one of us?

The ability to be perceived as omnipotent; reaching out to thousands, nay millions of other persons via this digital construct. The notion that we affect this world, giving it life where there was none and setting out the players while watching how each interact within our conjured sphere of bits; our digital playground where no longer do we need to contemplate if we are just a lump of meat.

If you doubt this notion, go to any Facebook page and enjoy the status updates of friends and family telling you the most mundane things in hopes that they will be well received by their followers. Even here on this site, is it not just a massive tavern or public square where we hope that others will receive our message and praise us through the granting of stars and flags?

--------------------

Now that I purged that from my system I feel much better.

I did not catch who the original arguments were from, so I will just generalize my own.

The argument that we are just animals -------------

This argument is an interesting one in that biologically, we are just that. We fall under the family of mammals. We breathe air, grow hair, have 4 limbs, etc. Those are undeniable facts proven by science via hypothesis forming, testing and duplication of results....or what is seemingly the archaic notion of a form of scientific methodology.

But does it not run deeper that just biology? Let us look at one of the most primal instincts that animals exhibit, flight or fight. We all experience it, Man to insect. Yet, for Man we experience it slightly different. For we have the ability to reason our decision to either flee or stay and fight. Sometimes we must convince ourselves to go against our instincts for what we reason to be a greater good or higher calling.

A dog does not reason with itself on if it made the right choice to chase the cat or piddle on the carpet. An alligator does not fight its urge to chomp down on some poor unsuspecting tourist that waded a little too far into the swamp. Thus, these creatures do not reason. They cannot look inward to question their routine, to question their existence, to question their purpose or to question if they are just a lump of meat.

It is that which sets Man apart from being a mere animal. For our ability to reason sets us apart from the alligator, the dog, the spider or the flea.

The argument that our thoughts never leave us -------------

I believe that one holds this argument true if they do not see themselves as the greater species. That Man is superior to that of a mere animal. By holding themselves that they are nothing more than just an animal, I can see why they would believe their thoughts never actually leave themselves.

If we seek to understand that we are possibly more than mere animals, it is that very act in which our thoughts leave us. The expression of ideals, thoughts, dreams and understanding is how we imprint our thoughts onto future generations. It is where folklore derives from, where the great works of art throughout history was created from, and where our ability to impress upon our offspring not only our biological genes but also our experiences.

Jean Paul points out that Shakespeare, through his works was addressing universal truths. Illusion points out that those works are subjected to interpretation.

Let us explore both to find the answer to this question then. When Man creates, we do so for one of, or combination of the following: utility, functionality, aesthetics, incitement of Man's emotions or incitement of Man's ability to Reason.

The reasoning on why someone creates something is left to subjection and personal interpretation.

Person A may think Shakespeare wrote his plays for the incitement of Man's emotions. The ability to command the world around him, drawing out emotions at whim via the stories he created.

Person B may think otherwise! They believe that he wrote his plays to incite Man's ability to Reason. Again though, the ability to command the world around him, but rather than emotion, he is drawing out reason and questioning via the stories he created.

The question still not answered as to has thought ever left Shakespeare. I contend yes. Through his works he expressed whether through life experiences or through the observation of the world around him that there were universal ideas and notions. Ones that followed Man through the ages. It is these he placed into the formats of either tragedy or comedy. Overall that is the purpose of the plays, while each stanza or act can be scrutinized as to their meaning.

It is through that which his thoughts left him and were forever immortalized by his plays. It is no different than folklore, which thoughts are passed from generation to generation. It is no different than an architect looking to inspire the world with their creation. Or the speaker that can eloquently convey their thoughts to all people through the spoken word.

If that is not your thoughts leaving you, then why do we even communicate? Yes, we cannot transfer how we, as individuals experienced Shakespeare, as that was purely subjected to the fact that we are separate entities and what we experienced was subjected to the culmination of our life events. Yet, the thought was shared. Regardless of the lens of which an individual may filter that thought through, it was shared nonetheless.