Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
once an animal develops objective reasoning it ceases to be an animal and becomes human
Again this is just false. On every level.
Firstly just because you can fit into a new category (human) does not remove you from the previous one (animal). It is what is called a SUBcategory. You might want to look this up. When an animal has the attributes to make it a dog it becomes "dog" but it does not cease to also be "animal".
The fantasy woo woo world you live in seems to be one where everything can fit into one classification or label ONLY. Our reality out here in the real world is by far the exact opposite of that.
Secondly your attempt at redefining our use of the english language above fails from the opposite direction too. If another species were to evolve the characteristic of Objective Reasoning it would not become "Human". It would retain it's existing label or receive a new sub-label within that category. Which leads to the third total fail in your assertions.....
Thirdly the definition on how we classify "Human" does not limit itself in even the remotest way to "Objective reasoning" as an attribute. "Human" is defined as "A bipedal primate belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens." and definitions go on to include "In taxonomy, humans belong to the family Hominidae, of the Primates, under class Mammalia of phylum Chordata. They are identified by the highly developed brain that confers advanced skills in abstract reasoning, articulate language, self-awareness, problem solving, and sapience. They are bipedal primates in having an erect carriage. They are skillful in handling objects with their hands. Humans may also be described as social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and living life with (inherent) values and ethics."
If I were in your position I would learn the existing definitions out there instead of making them up. I would also learn the methodologies for how such definitions are formed, instead of redefining linguistics to suit yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
so you are saying that humans are not capable of objective reasoning?
No one said anything even remotely resembling this. This is the most blatant misrepresentation of another user I have seen on this forum since.... well since monday actually.
But I guess if you feel compelled to redefine linguistics and definitions to suit yourself.... having you redefine what people actually said into what you want to insert into their mouth should not come as a surprise or disappointment to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
if you say man is an animal then you might as well say man is a body
You have a body but you are not your body.
You have an ego but you are not your ego.
or you might as well say that man is just atoms
And all of the above would also be linguistically correct. So what is your problem? We are just atoms. We are just animals. We are just human. We are just a body. Many labels fit correctly and contextually. You seem to have a desperate need that everything in the world should fit one label and one label only.... and that this label should mean what you want/need it to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
you haven't read anything I've written have you?
As with much of what you have written on this thread, the EXACT opposite of what you just wrote here is what is actually true. Literally. The exact opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll
Say a million years from now science comes up with more facts that theory of evolution is wrong. What you gonna do then?
Very little given I will be dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll
So you have a photoshopped image of a monkey becoming a man. And now, you have a monkey and a man - well and alive, but what happened to the chain in the middle?
There is no chain in the middle because nothing in evolution claims a monkey became a man. All you have done here is shown you do not understand the conversation.
we are not "just atoms"
We are an emergent property of atoms.
That is totally different.
that is the whole point of that I am making and it seems to be going over your head.
being made of something is completely different from being something
Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do.
animals are only capable of subjective thinking.
only humans are capable of objective reasoning.
That may seem like a small change but small changes can and do have big effects
we are not "just atoms"
We are an emergent property of atoms.
That is totally different.
that is the whole point of that I am making and it seems to be going over your head.
Disagreement with your point is not the same thing as it going over my head. I understand your point perfectly well thank you. I just find it to be nonsense.
The point going over YOUR head is that this label does actually correctly apply. We are atoms. Nothing more. You need to build a bridge, and deal.
The emergent properties of such a system are another attribute deserving of another label. It does not negate the correct application of any other label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
only humans are capable of objective reasoning.
You have asserted that a number of times now. Can you prove it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
humans have emerged from the animals
False. They are still animals. They just have one attribute that you are claiming is different. Many animals have attributes not shared by other animals. It does not stop them being animals.
The term "animal" still correctly applies to humans. If this bothers you.... well tough really.
Which means we are atoms. Well done, you are getting it.
Cars are too, and when their atoms attain a certain configuration you apply the label "car" to it and say "cars are made from atoms". Again both observations are equally valid.
we are not "just atoms"
We are an emergent property of atoms.
That is totally different.
that is the whole point of that I am making and it seems to be going over your head.
being made of something is completely different from being something
Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do.
Are you serious or are you trolling? It's hard to tell. Your whole schtick here is that human beings are something other than atoms. You've simply made this claim up; you have absolutely evidence for it whatsoever. And from that position of make-believe, you assert that objective reasoning is some grand accomplishment. What you don't seem to grasp is that ALL reasoning is the product of chemical and electrical energy coursing through the fibers in a physical brain. If that brain gets damaged, reasoning is damaged. There is no evidence anywhere that reasoning continues beyond the damaging or death of the brain. Your claim that it does is something you've simply made up and are supporting with this bizarre appeal to rationalism, which is the method of thinking that you're NOT using in this conversation.
Thanks for playing, but don't expect to be taken seriously if all you have to offer is "because I said so" to substantiate your assertion that human beings (and reasoning, objective or otherwise) are anything but the products of atoms interacting with one another.
you obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Did you even read the article on emergence?
Quote:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics. Similarly, psychology could be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological dynamics, and free-market theories understand economy as an emergent feature of psychology
whether or not people have a soul that lives on after death is completely irrelevant to anything that I have said
(unless you mean that in some metaphorical sense)
you obviously have no idea what I am talking about. Did you even read the article on emergence?
whether or not people have a soul that lives on after death is completely irrelevant to anything that I have said
(unless you mean that in some metaphorical sense)
Your claim is that we're made of atoms, while our identity is something that transcends our physical composition, though other animals' identities don't transcend their physical compositions. I think that calling that "something" a soul should suffice for our conversation here, unless you're presenting some third alternative. Additionally, your claim that human beings have "emerged" from the animals smells of semantic abuse. If you're claiming that emergent properties are purposeful, or that they're following some sort of plan, the onus is on you to prove it.
Empiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends. On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition. Just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen". (Psychology is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergent property of particle physics). People subscribing to the purely empirical world view do not think in terms of right vs wrong but rather in terms of great vs not great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
