Utopia Talk / Politics / Nimatzo

williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 13:59:30 "If something is true or not, is independent of how noble/cowardly the facts are, they just are" But there is no proof that survival overrides all other instincts. Its an assumption thats never been proven.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:00:50 How survival-above-all is it for you to sacrifice yourself saving your 80 year old mother from a fire?
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:03:23 Your survival instinct gets overriden by your ethical principles in that situation. Something is about to happen that your ethics find impossible to bear with and so they overrides your will to survive.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:05:16 Nietzsche would have to be a moron to be arguing at that level. Thus, you have not "got it." How could you? You need at least to have studied him. I dont say anything about atoms that I havent read up on first.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:07:45 "Oh, I dont like those 'facts', so I'll just pretend theyre wrong cos theyre not noble" - thats how dumb you think Neitzsche was? lol
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:21:38 This shows how science is used as ideology. You've never questioned whether this has been proven. You've just heard it from sciency circles and therefore, for you, it is a truth, a fact, that cannot be debated. But you're wrong.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 29 14:23:21 Your personal values is what dictates your actions. If you value a loved one, or even a thing such as a Picasso, over yourself you will try to save them or it. If you value yourself then you will save yourself. But in between there is a myriad situations that may not require the ultimate sacrifice.
Paramount Member	Tue Nov 29 14:25:28 "How survival-above-all is it for you to sacrifice yourself saving your 80 year old mother from a fire?" Under normal circumstances your survival instincts in this example would tell you to not enter the burning house. But, your love for your mother could make you to risk your life for a chance to save her life. So, survival instincts does to override all. Love does. Your love for your children would make you to sacrifice your life to save them, for an example. And your reproductional insticts. If you only had one chance to reproduce but knowing that you could die after it, you would take the risk.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 14:25:33 I don't know what discussion this comes from and if wtb is representing it decently here, but survival trumping everything else is clearly not true and is not in any way accepted as "scientific fact". It's so easy to find counter examples that disprove that statement, the idea that this would be considered fact by the scientific community is laughable.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:26:51 There are indeed a myriad of sitations, instincts, emotions, rationalizations etc going on in situations of life and death - not just a nice and simple I/O button.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:27:53 "scientific fact". No, but darwinistic (perhaps he did not fully believe that either).
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:28:52 In fact, iirc he found it confusing that some animals have irrational mating practices, and didn't know what to make of it.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 14:32:33 Dawinistic... eh, I only know modern darwinism, really. I tried to read Darwin, but it was too old and dull for me, sadly. Couldn't say what he thought, but in modern darwinism this is definitely not the case. As I said, it is simply too easily disproved to consider a fact. Generally organisms tend to try real hard to survive though, obviously. Is there a central point to this discussion? Or is it just disagreement over this one little thing?
obaminated Member	Tue Nov 29 14:33:07 In a 15 post thread, 9 of them are fagfish.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Nov 29 14:34:07 I was thinking in terms of things you would not normally do. Would you override your sense of right & wrong if you were a member of The Donner Party? They were stranded in The Rocky Mountains during the Winter over a century ago and they resulted to cannibalism when their co-members of the party died.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:39:46 Sci still saying it: The human instinct to survive is our most powerful drive https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201206/is-our-survival-instinct-failing-us
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:44:06 The most powerful drive is for survival itself http://boo...ost%20powerful%20drive&f=false
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 14:45:50 Saying "the most powerful drive" isn't exactly the same as saying "always trumps all others". While I don't think very much of that article, that stance in itself can definitely be argued.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:48:22 It can be argued, it hasn't been proven.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 14:52:20 Is something like that even provable? Doesn't seem like it to me. I have a hard time thinking of another candidate for a more powerful drive though. Do you have one?
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:53:51 No, exactly, its basically impossible to prove. Yes, I have another candidate: dont think of one I/O candidate but myriad of sitations, instincts, emotions, rationalizations etc going on in situations of life and death
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 14:54:43 Well, obviously that is the case. I thought we were looking for the most powerful among them?
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 14:55:26 No, Im arguing against duality, at its core.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 15:08:08 Without you elaborating on that, I don't see what the argument is really about. It doesn't seem like you need to deny the power of the drive for survival to do that to me.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 29 15:08:37 "Look at me, im a thinker, i quote some old dudes who also claimed they were thinkers" Wtb in a nutshell.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 15:08:44 All we are is empty vessels to forward our genes!"  This is a negatively loaded interpretation that social science (social constructionist) such as yourself make and pretty much no one else. There is no scientist that will tell you to go find the meaning of life in the way genes are spread.  You know you’ve heard words to that effect a million times in answer to the question “what is the meaning of life?”. You’ve probably said them yourself. “Science = the method  Science = the real science, the body of knowledge that it has produced  Science = technology  Science = the perspective of one angle of the universe.” *fixed “There is "science" also in the most broadest of terms, using reason and logic. Everyone is free to think and express their ideas or get them published. I don't know how I would quantify the value of the subjective vs the objective. All we are is the subjective, but we can still use objective reasoning independently of each other and reach the same results. That is the core of the scientific endeavor” The scientific perspective is to assume an objective perspective – to distance oneself as much as possible, while still aware that one is always a little influenced, from the object of study. This is a distinct perspective-taking and one that not at all means = truth. It might find things that fit in with that particular angle and thus be truthful within that reference frame, however, as all logical systems do.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Nov 29 15:18:23 I mean, I know the discussion here isn't the peak of research, but it does show common nihilistic science-used-as-an-ideology ideas just like the ones Ive mentioned: http://www.../forum/index.php?topic=44698.0
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 29 15:39:42 So what is it you object to?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 01:13:51 "science-used-as-an-ideology" Ok well that pretty confirms and sums up my take on this. WTB is arguing against people who view science as an -ism. Again that would be a creation a bi-product of what science actually and fundamentally is to begin with. "You know you’ve heard words to that effect a million times in answer to the question “what is the meaning of life?”. You’ve probably said them yourself." No not really, not in my adult life, the only question I have been interested in is "why". At any rate anyone who tries to find the answer to life in the way genes are expressed and spread is doing it wrong and will be very disappointed. The question "what is the meaning of life" is a nonsense question to me. "The scientific perspective is to assume an objective perspective – to distance oneself as much as possible" Which is very important and what makes science a powerful tool, the ability to independently verify fact from fiction. Yet at the same time someone could put a lot of effort into exploring the subjective consciousness, for instance via meditation/mindfulness and other methods for exploring the subjective experience. These things are not at odds with each other, or at least they do not need to be.
McKobb Member	Wed Nov 30 01:16:16 Asa did not believe so.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 01:17:53 "williamthebastard Member Tue Nov 29 15:18:23 I mean, I know the discussion here isn't the peak of research, but it does show common nihilistic science-used-as-an-ideology ideas just like the ones Ive mentioned:" I have not read your link, but as a word of caution. If we are going search the Internet for someone/thing to confirm the worst fears/highest hopes we have about a particular subject, then none of us will walk away disappointed. We will all find something.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 01:49:54 "No not really, not in my adult life, the only question I have been interested in is "why"." Well, i just posted a random forum at a sci-site and half of them are talking that way. If you think this is not a very common modern discourse, I claim you're wrong. Its a very well known discourse. "Which is very important and what makes science a powerful tool, the ability to independently verify fact from fiction. Yet at the same time someone could put a lot of effort into exploring the subjective consciousness, for instance via meditation/mindfulness and other methods for exploring the subjective experience. These things are not at odds with each other, or at least they do not need to be." Hmmm, mindfulness is horrible popular self-help psychology and flower power with bits from real thinkers in there, but thats another story. The thing is subjective and objective measurements should exactly complement each other, but since science is way more powerful in our era they dont. The objective perspective is "truth" but the subjective perspective is "interesting." When your mother dies, your subjective experience will be that this is a huge event. To the objective perspective, the perspective of the universe,of science, the event is utterly inconsequential. The latter perspective is not more "true" or "factual", its only more "true" or "factual from that angle.
Cloud Strife Member	Wed Nov 30 02:11:16 suicide end thread
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 03:20:36 "If you think this is not a very common modern discourse, I claim you're wrong. Its a very well known discourse." And no said it wasn't, but since took a personal angle on your question I gave you my personal answer. The discourse can exist, you can misunderstand it and it can also be one with out answers. Skimming your link, I find nothing to object to, not after I factor in, how people interpret the question, what mood they are in and the type of person they are. "Hmmm, mindfulness is horrible popular self-help psychology and flower power with bits from real thinkers in there, but thats another story." Yes, awful, apart from when it isn't. It is like you are fighting an urge to disagree. "but since science is way more powerful in our era they dont. The objective perspective is "truth" but the subjective perspective is "interesting." Part of that power is to summarize and quantify subjective experiences, enabling a greater understanding. "The latter perspective is not more "true" or "factual", its only more "true" or "factual from that angle." And few people would disagree with that particular example of a loved one dying, probably because we can all independently verify/experience this to some extent. So in that sense it is probably not the best example of what you are trying to say. The issue arises when we are trying to convince someone else about policy decisions, right? What do the studies say, what are the facts? It is impossible for us to verify the veracity of a claim, simply based on subjective experiences. That doesn't mean they are false, but it should garner some understanding as to why others might have a difficult time being convinced. My subjective experience says something different than yours, science is just a way to bridge that gap. Funny enough, whatever obstacle this barrier poses, will probably be overcome with science. A way for us to exist inside the others mind.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 03:55:35 Falsification and duplication makes science powerful. Other researchers need to see what you have done, be able to duplicate what you have done, and there needs to be a way to prove what you have done is wrong. It has little to do with objectivity, though disclosing conflicts of interest is part of good research. The idea of truth and facts are incidentally contrary to good research. There are no absolute truths or facts, all we have is degrees of confidence that we must accept will be replaced with other theories with greater degrees of confidence sooner, rather than later. A researcher who thinks himself to be objective and in posession of facts and truths may as well just go full Ayatollah and convert to the religion of his choice. Its no accident that most of Iran's political leadership have engineering degrees. Its an easy mistake to make.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 03:59:03 I an example I would share with you. I have this relative, a highly educated person and would probably score very high on an IQ test. She is by no means scientifically illiterate. She was telling me about her fears as a women (she told me I could not understand), when walking through the city in the morning getting attacked by all the weird people in town. It is true that I can not understand how a woman might feel about this, what I can understand are the studies. Which show that while women are more likely to say they feel unsafe, the reality of crime statistics is that men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, specially with an unknown assailant. At the same time, men are less likely to say that they feel unsafe. Probably in this case, science should color our sense of safety. Emotions are very strong and given to us at birth, they are "all" that we are, but they are also are very good at fooling us. Science on the other hand (and I use the word broadly) is something we have to learn.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 04:10:51 "It has little to do with objectivity" You just described the peer review process, which is fundamental for science and there to filter out personal bias. Objectivity is central to science. "There are no absolute truths or facts" Except that there are, they are just rare. Something can be true by definition, a classical example is "all bachelors are single". Though I don't think that is the issue here, that we are not aware of the elusiveness of absolutes.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 04:28:01 Nimi Aximatic truths. lulz. And no, I did not describe a peer review process. I described good scientific research. You don't have to get this Nimi. Few procedural orientated people do. Hence the political elite in Iran being filled with doctorates in engineering. If absolute truths and objectivity exist, then all you need is good procedures to find God, or whatever else you might be seeking.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 04:48:52 "It is impossible for us to verify the veracity of a claim, simply based on subjective experiences." You are still stuck in tyhinking the objective perspective is the truth, how we verify truth, hence why youre saying subjective cannot be tested objectively (which I dont agree with, btw.)
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 04:53:32 The truth is that your mother dying is a huge deal. From a certain angle. But not from the universalist objectivist angle. If someone says, but can you verify that your tears are real you are perfectly right to say, fuck off, just because i can't verify that they're real in no way makes them less a factual reality.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 05:37:26 "Aximatic truths. lulz." You can shift the goal posts, but logical absolutes are a thing. "I did not describe a peer review process." Perhaps you didn't. "I described good scientific research." Does not exist without peer review. "You don't have to get this Nimi." What I do not get, is why you think you got something I want or need. Do you think I have something you need to get? Why do I need to take lessons from a fishermen? I mean if we are going to reduce each other to one thing. Makes for shitty conversation. "If absolute truths and objectivity exist, then all you need is good procedures to find God" Math does not prove gods existence. Objectivity, as a trait, well I don't know if it does exist, it is elusive, which is why we build systems and processes to help us, peer review and "good science".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 05:52:18 "You are still stuck in tyhinking the objective perspective is the truth, how we verify truth, hence why youre saying subjective cannot be tested objectively (which I dont agree with, btw.)" No, but to understand each other, it requires effort from both of us. I said it is impossible to verify a claim based on a subjective experience. That does not mean that objective truth is THE only kind of truth. "The truth is that your mother dying is a huge deal. From a certain angle. But not from the universalist objectivist angle." And in this particular case, WTB these truths can co-exist. This is not a good example of what you are trying to say as I explained earlier. "just because i can't verify that they're real in no way makes them less a factual reality." You have never lost a loved one, a pet a friend? You can't verify the pain and suffering in any way? Like I said, this is not a good example, because death is something we all have to deal with, one way or another.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 06:10:34 "I said it is impossible to verify a claim based on a subjective experience. That does not mean that objective truth is THE only kind of truth" it means its the only method by which you verify a truth, i.e. the standard of truth. The verification has, in fact, nothing to do with the degree of truth. No, I cant verify that your pain is real, not objectively.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 06:14:17 "And in this particular case, WTB these truths can co-exist" I keep saying they coexist, they are different viewing angles, one is not more factual than the other because its method is to objectively verify.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 06:38:23 Nimi Why would I think I have something you want or need? Axiomatic truths are things that are true because we have defined them that way. A bachelor by definition is an unmarried man. Thinking objectivity exists, or that absolute truths exist, is religion, not science. There is no such thing as objective truth in science. The mere suggestion of such a thing defeats the idea of scientific progression. All we have are ideas and theories that are doomed to be replaced by better ideas and theories. This is the cornerstone of everything.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 06:39:02 an unmarried man is an unmarried man. Lulz.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 06:40:12 "it means its the only method" Pretty sure there are methods. "The verification has, in fact, nothing to do with the degree of truth." Fair enough, verification already means something specific. What I mean when I say verify is a way to tell truth from falsehood, there is probably a better word for it. "No, I cant verify that your pain is real, not objectively." Expect that I did not ask you to verify it objectively. I asked "You can't verify the pain and suffering in any way?", which you can with personal and subjective experiences and inference. We can talk then about our our subjective experiences. "I keep saying they coexist, they are different viewing angles, one is not more factual than the other because its method is to objectively verify." And I keep telling you that it is a poor example of what you are trying to argue. Meaning I understand your position well enough to give tell you how to improve it. Do you have another example?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 07:02:29 "Why would I think I have something you want or need?" You just don't get it jergul! If you think there is something I don't get, then perhaps you are shit at explaining? Could be, I leave that door open for myself, maybe I am shit at explaining this. Which is why I don't feel the urge to tell you that you just don't get it and perhaps never will and then dismiss everything you say based on some detail in your life. "Axiomatic truths are things that are true because we have defined them that way. A bachelor by definition is an unmarried man." Yes that is what I wrote, giving an example of when absolute truths can exist. "Thinking objectivity exists, or that absolute truths exist, is religion, not science" Math. The fact that these things exist, does mean they can be applied to everything or that they are always useful. "There is no such thing as objective truth in science. The mere suggestion of such a thing defeats the idea of scientific progression." Something that is true is true regardless of objectivity or subjectivity. Object, subject only becomes an issue when minds are involved.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 07:05:56 A bachelor is an unmarried man is an example of a truth of the type: An unmarried man is an unmarried man. Nothing is true in a scientific sense. Science is not designed to find final solutions to research questions. "Something that is true that is true" belongs to the field of religion.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 08:53:09 *yawn*
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 09:24:45 Verify substantiate, confirm, prove, show to be true, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, evidence, establish, demonstrate, demonstrate the truth of, show, show beyond doubt, All of these are objective practices.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 09:44:46 Math is a map. A map of mount everest does a terrible job of relaying the experience of being on the mountain. However, it can be very exact at a different perspective of the mountain. I dont know how to explain this heh
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 09:46:01 Do you see how the map only relays, though very exactly, a certain, very narrow aspect of what the mountain actually is?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 09:47:28 "though very exactly" i.e. math/the map adhere very strictly to the rules of its particular method.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 09:48:08 The map is not "truth."
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 09:49:35 Nimi. Right back at you, bro. Moron.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 09:55:59 wtb Most of the points you listed are scientific nonsense. You can prove something within axionomic system, but that still leaves the axioms fundamentally unverifiable. Substantiate, corroborate, back up, support, uphold, show are all good words. But they do not suggest objectivity. Neither in scientific, nor in common language use. I am not saying anything new here.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 10:01:04 "But they do not suggest objectivity. Neither in scientific, nor in common language use. " Actually, youre right, it's incorrect.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 10:04:49 Jergul, please delete my comment 09:24:45 since its wrong and since youre a lazy ass mod.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 30 10:33:22 axiomatic* Word.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 11:15:21 The map is a truth, not the truth. Just like the experience of standing on the mountain. A problem with this is that your memory of the experience is fallible and will actually change every time you recall it, it can actually change depending on what mood you are in when you remember it. The map will be the same. This is a weakness of memory and in extension subjective experiences. Jergul, I think it is for the best bro. We tried, but you just can't help it.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 11:16:29 "The map is a truth, not the truth. " I'll settle for that.
TJ Member	Wed Nov 30 11:26:09 WTB=But there is no proof that survival overrides all other instincts. Its an assumption thats never been proven. This thread needs a clear definition of survival as an instinct. It is wandering all over the map. The discussion of individual survival has discounted or totally ignored the subject of objective choice. Environmental experiences determine individual choices. They are indeterminable collectively. Examples 1)A soldier sacrificing himself for the survival of his/her unit. 2)Sacrificing yourself to save your 80 year old mother from a fire-WTB, or even a stranger. 3)suicide as CS mentioned 4)should we talk about being tortured and threatened with death if you don't provide information sought by your torturer? Wagering risk against survival, to spare listing thousands of examples, happens daily. Does the instinct of thrill override the instinct of survival? In the context of those mentioned, defeats the assumption, of instinctual survival. Saving individuals while risking yourself is an aspect of survival. Objectively, weakness can express strength and strength can express weakness and survival instinct is being shuffled in this thread. Science can't corral objective choice. So in this situation I agree with wtb's first statement in thread. It has never been proven and never will because it began with a bare bone assumption on survival.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 13:53:07 WTB This was a distraction from the main point though. You say that there is widespread nihilism and that it is driven by some kind of worship of science, fair description? Your example with a link to a forum is not good evidence, for reasons you are aware of. So what are you reasons?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:04:36 I dont remember what the original point was, but its very far from being a controversial claim. No, I dont say thats good or bad evidence, its one example of very much what I claim. I continue to claim that its a very common modern discourse of our era. Perhaps start at this page: "While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism. It has been over a century now since Nietzsche explored nihilism and its implications for civilization. As he predicted, nihilism's impact on the culture and values of the 20th century has been pervasive, its apocalyptic tenor spawning a mood of gloom and a good deal of anxiety, anger, and terror." http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 14:09:55 But that is just more claims, by more people. What evidence is there for the widespread nihilism?
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:19:57 I claim that scientism is a very common state of mind in our current era, often seen as a predominant characteristic of our era, in fact (scientism is generally linked to nihilism). And you can deny it is. Now Im going to get a brandy.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:22:29 I would say the west is very definitely in the throes of general nihilism now. Even ISIS is a kind of godless attempt to copy religion for people who dont believe in anything.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:23:57 ISIS is religion for people brought up on school shootings.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:34:45 "WTB This was a distraction from the main point though." Actually, no. The point you disputed was basically the same point as the OP in this thread.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 14:42:06 "I claim" I will settle with that.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:42:57 The original debate, though, was that I rejected that survival is the over-riding instinct: “Plenty of people vote for other reasons, such as environmental cares for future generations…” “To be nietzschean, I/theyre still voting for themselves because…” “This is where nietzsche and darwin part company; Nietzsche sniffs disdainfully at Darwin's survival above all being the one and all over-riding instinct…” To which you replied: “How anyone "feels" about the presented facts doesn't make them more or less factual.” Which actually looks like a nice example of scientism, as I’ve mentioned. You were defending something that is incorrect but you are clear that, with science’s assumed backing, there was no debate to be had about what the facts were.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 14:44:23 As it turns out, how you felt about those presented facts made them more or less factual to you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Nov 30 15:24:08 "survival above all being the one and all over-riding instinct" Which no one has claimed and is the premise of your argument. Anyway, personally I find post modernism absurdly useless, either it is obscure sophistry or stupid and obvious.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:24:59 But you defended that statement instead of correcting it and many people have claimed it.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:33:26 You know how dawkins explains it? "organisms are the "survival machines" of genes." exactly as I claimed, we're basically nothing more than vessels for genes.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:35:57 dawkins, here, is an expression of his nihilistic era.
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 30 15:41:41 That is an origin explanation. That doesn't make it "the meaning of life". The fact that we're a self-replication process gone bonkers, doesn't make that you can't give all sorts of meaning to life that has nothing to do with that.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:42:55 But it was one of my original, disputed, claims that nobody sees life as us being vessels for genes, and here we have the head guru saying almost ad verbum what I said.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:47:01 "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” hehe good god.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 15:47:33 This is a man who has confused his map with reality, judging by that quote.
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 30 16:16:58 I think you contribute meaning to that quote that isn't intended.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:24:04 Heh, I dunno about that, its about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:30:49 Yeah, finally, although Dawkins here agrees that there is more to us than that, he does refer to the darwinist idea of survival of genes above all: http://youtu.be/eTaYUsAlkIo?t=88
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 30 16:43:22 In the context of evolution, survival of genes does go above all.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:46:21 "But if the ultimate purpose of our existence..." -Dawkins Yawn.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:49:26 This is what darwinists claimed, as Dawkins confirms, and which Nietzsche sniffed at saying, yeah, thats a tiny perspective thinking its the most important perspective, to which nimatzo claimed that nietzsche was only "feeling" while Darwin was in possession of oure truth or "facts", to paraphrase. I think Ive backed that up pretty well now.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:52:50 "the ultimate purpose of our existence" means "the meaning of life"
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 30 16:58:25 You are very yawn-inducing, yes. That phrase obviously refers to that being the purpose for which we originally came into existence. In fact the quote continues by asking how, if that is the case, that it is that we can defy it. And thus not be just that. I think you really want to believe there is this bizarre denial of reality going on that you can then heroically rally against or something? I can't see why you so desperately want this to be the case though.
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 16:59:07 zzz
williamthebastard Member	Wed Nov 30 17:01:41 "That phrase obviously refers to that being the purpose for which we originally came into existence. " No it doesnt at all. It refers to that being the viewpoint of darwinists, the meaning of life, empty vessels. Ive backed that up well enough for you to give up now. If you actually watch, you'll see that dawkins believes (bizarrely) that we are now breaking these laws and taking things into our own hands and this defiance is a product of our unique intelligence (sounds highly doubtful to me, but thats another topic)
Nekran Member	Wed Nov 30 17:16:34 He quite clearly means that it is the purpose for which we came into being. This is true... we (and all life) are essentially copying machines. This is not all we (and yet again, all life) are though. It is you who states that people believe that it is all we are, to then rally against it. I haven't seen people that aren't angsty teens that've just learned about the ToE ever make that claim. I mean, I assume you're not denying the ToE here. So then you accept that the purpose for which we came into being is indeed the copying process. That does not mean that that purpose is all that defines us. Or even matters at all to us. As for the intelligence thing... I think he might be underestimating the rest of the animal kingdom, but I understand what he means. Our intelligence does make us do things that completely go against the gene-copying-drive that gave rise to us. I think you really confuse the "purpose for which we evolved" with "purpose one can give one's life", which are two completely different things.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 01 01:22:35 "williamthebastard Member Wed Nov 30 15:24:59 But you defended that statement instead of correcting it and many people have claimed it." What did I defend, where?
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Dec 01 01:31:16 I'm trying to read this thread, but it looks like half of the conversation is missing...
Cloud Strife Member	Thu Dec 01 01:33:25 CC, it's bullshit philosophizing. It mostly reads in this distorted nonsensical way where people are responding to nothing in particular with something else unrelated.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Dec 01 01:36:52 Oh okay ;p ... I even clicked on "show deleted posts" thinking that the context would appear ;)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 01 01:42:03 WTB, you are looking at a technical description of a process of life and walk away disappointed by the lack of poetry and morality. You seem to be the only one here unable to reconcile the different types of facts/experiences into a satisfactory model of the world. However non of this matters in the end, if nihilism is rampant and anyone wants to fix it, they have to figure out where it comes from. If nihilism is indeed rooted in the theory of evolution, well then you know where to look for solutions. Dismissing the science because anyone thinks the results are "cowardly" is perfectly useless for solving anything or even worse, learn anything.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 01 01:58:22 Cherub Cow Some of the conversation is in an earlier thread and some of the explanation is WTB's rapid fire posting. Most of it however is a bit of Don Quixote fighting the wind mills and the post modern view on "truth" and "science".
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 01 02:22:01 "He quite clearly means that it is the purpose for which we came into being. " 'Prove it. He quite clearly says "But if the ultimate purpose of our existence is the narrowly darwinian one". Its amazing how from darwinians' "narrow definition of our utlimate purpose in life is survival of the species" (Darwin wouldnt have used the concept of genetics) to Dawkins "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" neither of you have ever heard of this perspective before. Again: zzzzzz
williamthebastard Member	Thu Dec 01 02:23:49 Dawkins today would likely rather agree with nietzsche than with darwin on this topic, interestingly enough. Nihilism isnt rooted in Toe, sigh...its very linked to scientism, however.
	show deleted posts