Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#37368 - 04/04/10 08:59 PM H++ [Re: Wijesin]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member

Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

First let me clarify Dimitri likes to argue while he is intelligent he tends to sometimes lose focus of what he’s arguing. This is simply an observation nothing else we are all human after all. No one here but Dimitri is arguing that man is unfailingly/infallibly superior. Let’s not all fall down this rabbit hole shall we?

I originally wrote,
“Are humans better than other animals? Come now Dimitri what other animal has risen above the others as gods? What other animal has so changed reality to fit their will? So yes while it is important to remember that man is an animal as any other. It is also important perhaps more so to never forget than man is also so much more important than any animal. Humanity invented by humans that’s actually very funny. After all the very concept of inventing is itself human as is anything ever invented.” ~ta2zz

My previous post to Dimitri clears up what arguments I was having. Sometimes while I myself do like to quote people at times splitting up what someone says can alter the context in which it was said. This is probably truer for someone who doesn’t speak English as his or her first language.

Of course we can see primitive examples of things we humans do in other animals. If being the only animal that can bring all these attributes together to achieve what we have so far is not proof enough of importance of humanity if simply being human itself is not proof enough to the both of you, I fear we will never agree on this subject.

When I think of gods I must admit it’s the Roman and Greek gods that held the most interest for me as a growing child. These gods did things to their whim for the sake of their will alone, as man. They did not simply do things because it so happened to be a natural byproduct of their normal function, even if they adapted to said function or environment. This talk of bacteria is way off the track I’m on.

Humans seem to have a very close relationship with bacteria. Without it there would be no humans, no animals. To try to attribute intelligence to a bacteria or single celled animal is like saying the same about DNA or the atoms and molecules themselves.

No other animal that we know of has ever held the knowledge as man to manipulate things on such a level as man. From the atom to the stars no other animal comprehends such things much less sits and talks of enhancing itself with something it has constructed from a conscious thought.

That somehow brought this all back on track…


We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

#37792 - 04/18/10 12:42 PM Re: RE: H+ [Re: ta2zz]
Dimitri Offline

Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3410
f we agree we could simply end this by my asking two questions.

1. Has any other animal created or changed reality from a thought?
2. What technique and from what animals behavior did we copy the concept of inventing from?

Agreed those are the main questions...
With the first one there needs to be a assumed fact, i.e the assumption animals (apart from humans) can also think and have "thoughts" and "ideas". Then conscious and unconscious thoughts should be worked out.
From what I can guess organisms have created and changed the world we live in (reason why I mentioned the bacteria). It is in my opinion and view that an idea is not always needed to change reality or the world. Natural causes like eruptions, smashing meteorites,.. are good enough.

For the second question; what, in the end, is inventing? When taken an objective view; an invention is combining different techniques into a new form to suit a certain purpose. Basing on: "no idea is unique", "new form" is actually a review of natural evolutive procedures made out of human-made materials and the combination of the known techniques to finally get the end-result.

I must question why you felt the need to mention a snail’s operculum without naming it. This is a funny practice for one who “knows what he is talking about” or one who at least researches enough to be able to form a coherent argument.

To be honest, I had forgotten the name and was a bit lazy to look it up. My bad.

You question my inability to see the similarities between a tattoo needle and a wasp’s sting. Did you not see where I told you such uneducated guessing on your part does nothing but hurt your own credibility? I think you did but you selectively ignored it.

I live to learn, and I would be inhuman if I didn't make a mistake or two, three, four,...
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Page 3 of 3 <123

Moderator:  Woland, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, TV is God, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.057 seconds of which 0.04 seconds were spent on 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.