Thank you Janine Benyus. I am amazed in tears knowing that God is not a person that he should like when He invited us to "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" in Gen 1:28
Inspiring... and I'm not very easily inspired anymore; I was made dull and complacent and learned taking everything for granted, growing up. But for the last couple of years I've been trying to unlearn the misinformation, lies and blindness!
Thanks to inspirational people like her - Janine Benyus - and others, for instance Carl Sagan, I've been re-learning how to appreciate all this wonder that is our existence! It's easy to notice just the ugliness, but to see the beauty... is spectacular!
I may just be emotional. I may just be swayed by Benyus's wonderful, contagious, childlike enthusiasm. I may be completely forgetting or ignorant of the powers of natural selection and the like. I may be simply projecting our natural psychological tendency on the world, but somehow...
...It just seems real stupid to suggest that their isn't some kind of incredible intelligence behind this genius.
@Hypergalactica I like how self depricating you are but this is the conclusion billions of our ancestors have come to in one way or another since forever! As an atheist I want to remind you that simple things can produce complexity given enourmous lengths of time but as an environmental, psychedelic type I also want to say something profound about how nature's pattern intelligence IS the genius, Gaia, metamind you allude to but I seem to have run out of characters and blown it... Drats.
Within every cell of all of life, there exists an interactive receiver/transmitter system, with quantum characteristics which has the capability of interpreting the encoded signature which is transmitted from sources that have only been realized by some as of late.
The medium used to send and receive information between all of life on the planet and the sentient design system is earth’s magnetic field and through varying frequencies which stimulates oxygen molecules
the part about the water compared to the volume of the earth is bullshit , one bcoz the earth is around 75 percent water and to when we look at a globe the majority is blue which = water
God i hate when they spend first five minutes on shi't like motivational pictures, "i live here", love, old sayings, meaningless personal stories and other crap. Get to the point. Amazing otherwise.
I disagree with you, but you made me laugh really hard. It takes quite a lot to inspire the average Joe to take an interest in science and that personal touch is usually what sells it.
Interesting talk but I don't like the speaker. It's not a miracle that the electric eel doesn't fry itself with 600V because volts aren't electric flow. She didn't mention the current because it's probably an underwhemling number.
The intensity of the electric flow is the potential difference divided by the resistance (Ohm's Law). So a larger potential difference does imply a larger current. The question she was asking was how does the eel insulate itself, which means how does it create a large electrical resistance. So yes, the current is an underwhelming number, the question is, why is it such a low number, when compared to the potential difference?
lol You can't just conclude that, you first have to demonstrate through the lens of science that consciousness is the basis of reality. But even then, whether people will equate it as being proof of the existence of a particular god (concept) is another matter.
Consciousness does not conform well to the limited confines of language. It escapes definition. Even if i attempt to define it in words for u -which is impossible- u would have to assimilate those words via ur own personal cns, memory, lexicon, emotional database with all its preferences, dominant sensory modality, etc, and it wouldn't reveal anything to u, it would convince u of nothing.
So not thru description... what's going to happen is that science will procure a means (in the form of a technology/process) which will enable anyone to experience consciousness directly, independent of their meat body. That's where u will find the proof. It's the only way science can show u proof that consciousnes is the basis of reality.
In the end the data will have to be processed by our limited brains. And these devices will also have been made with this limited brain. If we want to know 'reality' only something all-seeing, all-knowing and completely independent and limitless would be able to tell us. We are and always will be restricted by the capacity of our brains.
There will be no data to process. The stimulation will be applied directly to the brain, creating a functional cluster in the frontal lobes, specifically within the thalamocortical system, which will catalyze a direct shift in consciousness. It's the shift in consciousness from the ordinary state to a state outside of time/space that will reveal reality as it exists independent of ur meat body's limited perceptual range.
"If we want to know 'reality' only something all-seeing, all-knowing and completely independent and limitless would be able to tell us."
And since "god" is limitless, as u put it, then its capacity to create a means that can facilitate a direct experience of its reality must also exist, yes?
You cant put any real limits on what is possible and what is not if u believe in a limitless "god".
So ur saying our consciousness is something outside our phisical body? Our body is just a means to experience this world, a tool for our consciousness? (could agree to this)
And that we can create an even better tool to experience our world? (not this :))
I think u have too high an estimation of science and human ingenuity :)
"So ur saying our consciousness is something outside our phisical body?"
In a way but not exactly. Consciousness (from my point-of-consciousness) is not OF the physical but permeates it & everything else u are capable of perceiving. You just can't see this with your human 5 sensory system b/c ur senses are inherently limited to a known spectrum (e.g. a typical human eye will detect wavelengths from abt 380 to 750 nm, the human ear can detect vibrations between 20Hz-20kHz, etc etc).
"but this experiencing the 'ultimate reality' will probably occur in heaven :)"
Thats the biblical version of heaven. The scientific version however reveals that "heaven" is more closely related to states of consciousness than to a location in time-space.
I don't believe heaven is in this 3d physical realm, as new theories point out that there are many more dimensions.
Do you know how a non-physical consciousness (soul :)) interacts with/through our body with this reality? If not we are a long way from developing a better tool for this consciousness to use. And since it does not have a physical manifestation we can examine or a means 2 examine the non-physical we will have 2 wait till our soul leaves our body till we can begin 2 understand :)
That doesnt mean we have 2 stop researching, but in the end I rthink these kinds of researches will have usefull biproducts but will never reach their goal.
btw heaven is a place we enter after we die, and where our soul will receive a body (tool) with better developped and new senses (a theologist wrote this in a book)
I'm not really that interested in theological definitions of heaven or god, they rely too heavily on belief and lack a fine-grain understanding of the scientific principles behind spiritual experience. So what interests me the most is how to reveal the direct experience of consciousness thru science.
There are numerous means (and more to come), but if u havnt found them it's because either u havent looked or ur mental filters hav blocked or discarded them. If u want to change or let go of the limiting belief that only physical death is liberation, then do the research first and get some idea of how belief transformation works, otherwise you will remain a slave to ur limiting beliefs.
The limiting belief transformation is an attempt to rewire/remap the brain so it does not produce negative feelings where it did before.
I think it is powerfull and will have an effect on you if you persist, but it is far from yielding a freedom I tried to picture. (my fault for not being able to fully explain)
If you are a practitioner i'd like to stay in touch with you and through these kinds of conversations see what effect it has on a convinced person, if you dont mind :)
belief transformation is only the starting point for sum1 who holds a limiting belief about what is possible in reality. But if no such belief exists, if youre open to new possibilities and potentials, then u can practice other methods for liberation rather than merely waiting for physical death as ur only means to liberation.
Also the technology ive been alluding to that can reveal conscious directly does not involve belief transformation as a core component.. Instead, the mind (and its beliefs) are rapidly shut down (temporarily) without inducing sleep or unconsciousness. When this happens, u experience consciousness directly, independent of the mind-body.
Exactly, u cant see it with ur eyes, hear it with ur ears or touch it with ur hands, because it's a state of consciousness, like ecstasy, bliss, compassion, or feeling the presence of "god" in all things, being one with the universe... Changes in consciousness, tho non-spatial, can dramatically alter ur experience of reality.
"Do you know how a non-physical consciousness interacts with/through our body with this reality?"
Yes, the same way a driver interacts with a car. Problem with most drivers tho is 1) theyr too focused on the rear-view mirror (past), and 2) they dont know how to stop the car, open the door and get out.
"we will have 2 wait till our soul leaves our body till we can begin 2 understand"
Some may wish to wait for death or perhaps rainy day, but there are also more efficient and more effective ways available for those who are capable of letting go of their limitations.
On the other hand, argue for ur limitations and youll get to keep them. lol
Dude, could you explain the concept of heaven and hell??? i just can help but see that as little sadistic. Not a very brilliant idea from a supreme being...more like something old aged human beings created.
In certain areas nature has a lot to teach us for sure. Take nanotechnology, nature has had solutions to some of our biggest problems in this field for billions of years. I would also say if we want to build intelligent machines we had better take a look at how brains work.
Obviously this is an old idea. I think Janine's, point was just to spread some awareness, and to get people thinking and talking. Which clearly has worked.
I enjoyed most the information on actual projects under taken with private capital. Theres no better way to creat change
She fails horribly with anthropomorphism. Then makes a bunch of assumptions.
Its a cool presentation otherwise but basically she's assuming people haven't allways done this or that we haven't recently aquired the technology to do it. In the end her point is kinda moot, relabeling things after the fact.
She mentions antibacterials, how is the dicovery of penicillum (and all the subsequent antibiotics based on it) not biomimicry?
Well, the I'm guessing that we can now look at and understand and compute so much more than before, and thus we should more carefully and deliberate study nature for our own benefit.
Thats what I'm guessing she might say, and yes it isn't new. Unfortunately I only watched 2 minutes because she's so damned slow and boring it almost killed me to sit here doing so. Wow, what a terribly boring effort.
well if you wanna reveal something we USED TO KNOW....that would be THE MANY USES OF CANNABIS....from making ropes....to sails...PAPER...to the brilliant ideas it generated....to the MEDICINE it was used for....also FOOD, SHELTER *houses* and the CLOTHES we used to wear...most people forgot about that...and sad thing is they don't teach this in schools...education....FAIL!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If there is a design, there had to be a designer.
If Nature is so good at these things, who is Nature?
Scientists have faith - faith in other scientists who are human and thus imperfect. Why not start with a the greatest designer and learn from Him? His design seems to work pretty well!
uh no......just because nature is complex you instantly attribute it to "Him"......have you look at the sky at night? you see those twinkling lights? most of them are stars much like our sun which may have planets like earth....why would the designer be our "God"...that is the height of human arrogance. That belief is so local....so...earthly...compared to the vastness of space and immensity of time.
Ballin - I look at the stars and think "WOW! Something is WAY more knowing and can create an infinite universe (and nano bacteria) I cannot even comprehend." The perfect balance, the perfect design.
But this universe isn't balanced, in fact the matter in it is non-uniformly distributed, and this universe isn't perfect, I have occasional back pain because my back isn't built to handle the constant stress of walking upright, and I get headaches from sinuses that are malformed and prone to weather changes, oh and I'm fat because my body retains calories believing that it might not have a next meal.
I see what you're doing... coming from the teleological argument with a bunch of unfounded assertions.
First that there is a design, second that nature is a being, third that there is such a thing as perfection, fourth that if there is a designer that it is male, and fifth that this design works well.
I'm sure I left a couple out but those were the ones that came to the top of my head.
Actually her talk is about how nature, over millions of years has found the optimal designs (in most cases, not all) through evolutionary algorithms that allow for increasingly complex and intricate designs where at first everything was clunky and through successive generations and mutations bad designs were weeded out and better ones kept. That we are still at that "clunky design" phase and could do well to use those same algorithms to our advantage.
This is not an intelligent design freak, don't worry guys. Get to around 3:45 if you want the scientific questions and answers. What she is saying is fantastic, what better efficient design is there than nature itself. She shows examples of how creatures survive with such minimal resources and how we can copy that.
We have all the resources in the world at our finger tips, some of the things stopping us from doing the right thing is greed and ignorance.
Yes we have all the technology and access to resources, but what we appear to lack is the wisdom to harness that technology in a way that is beneficial to our species and our planet..
Then again, what if greed and ignorance (i.e. behaviors/expressions that are not in our species best interest) are hardwired to our genes?
Yes, but then there's the question of activation, and at the moment it seems that the selfish, greedy gene holds the dominant activation status in the human species.
"how to behave, it's up to us."
Not quite, because if your behaviors are an expression of your physiological processes, and your physiological processes are mainly a result of your genes, then it's not a simple matter of making a decision to be altruistic... ..unless you believe in crazy scientists like Bruce Lipton! lol
a lot of studies and experiments find what makes us so different from chips is that we work together and we dont just care about ourselves. we understand what benifits one can help the whole group aswell.
But generally cooperation among humans is used to manipulate outcomes for the individuals own best interest in favor of shared interests. The reality is that our collective behaviors and global issues reflect selfish motivating factors (genes). Examples range from 85% of the worlds money being owned by less than 15% of the worlds population, favoring of short term monetary benefits over long term sustainability, decisions made to benefit one group or species at the expense of another, etc.
Does this mean that we should just submit to our genes? Of course not! what we need to do is use our collective intelligence to find ways that allow us to alter our gene switches so that we can actively self-manage gene expression and therefore their psycho-physiological and behavioral "byproducts". This will give us an evolutionary advantage, because usually physiological processes (which produce our individual physical behaviors) are not subject to conscious intent.
"what we need to do is use our collective intelligence to find ways that allow us to alter our gene switches"
- So you're saying that to be able to not be controlled by our genes is we need to find a way to "tweak" it so that we can act on favorable outcomes? Interesting.
Nope, not a fan of Bruce Lipton, don't know him. So you're saying that our everyday decisions are affected by our genes that are dominantly activated? Interesting... I thought it was simply a matter of choice. So does that mean that we are not in control of our actions but our dominant genes are?
If it's that easy, why dont people simply choose to use another 20% of their brain capacity, stop indulging bad habits, or be confident in everything they do? The reason they dont is because conscious decisions are virtually incapable of changing deeply rooted physiological patterns. If a conscious decision clashes with subconscious programs (ingrained patterns), 9 times out of 10 the ingrained pattern will win. This is why we need tools and techniques to help us self-manage our physiology.
Lipton is a well known cellular biologist who claims that genes can be regulated by application of two variables. These two variables are environmental (sensory stimuli, current generational) and subjective (thoughts, emotions, beliefs etc). These claims have gotten Lipton labeled as a rogue scientist, because it's general consensus among the biological fraternity that inherited factors carry more weight than environmental, sensory, and subjective influences.
I'm not interested in proving his theory.. I was only giving Hybrid some background info on Lipton because Hybrid believes that conscious choice can override our DNA and the physiological patterns they produce, while Lipton claims that environmental and subjective factors can change the way our genes behave.
"9 times out of 10 the ingrained pattern will win"
neurons that fire together wire together. the next time you try to overcome ur physiological predispositions you be will be more and more successful until ur have 'conditioned' urself to react in a way that you willfully choose to.
Correct, repetition is a technique or tool that can be employed to retrain your neuro-physiology. But research shows that for this to be effective, you need to practice it regularly and with close attention until the neurological pathways that make the new behavior natural are "burnt" into your brain. In other words, making just one [conscious] decision to change a deeply ingrained pattern is not considered an effective strategy for creating behavioral change.
You might be in control of your actions to a limited degree, but what defines what you are capable of actioning? Your genes do. For example, if your genes say that you will have a propensity for more aggressive/dominant behavior or characteristics and less altruistic/compassion traits, then you will, regardless of your conscious wishes. In the same way, if your genes say that you will have blue eyes instead of green eyes, then you will have blue eyes regardless of your conscious decisions.
i totally disagree. by saying we cant control our behaviours is to question the very essense that sets us apart from other animals.
ALL behavioural traits can be induced or supressed by concious will. physical traits of course are determined by genetics. but behaviour is not. even if you are predisposed to be shy, for example, u can voluntarily choose not to.
it is via technology that we overcome pysical barriers. and it is via our minds that we overcome behavioural barriers.
"ALL behavioural traits can be induced or supressed by concious will."
Yes, but only by using a specific process or method. What usually happens tho is that people encounter a behavior about themselves that they dont like (or would like to change/improve) and instead of changing it, they resign to the fact that it cant be changed. This is because theyve been conditioned into believing that theyre subject to the dictates of their genetics.
"it is via technology that we overcome pysical barriers. and it is via our minds that we overcome behavioural barriers."
I believe that it's also possible to overcome many of our physical limitations by application of consciousness. Recent research seems to suggest that we can alter gene expression by repetition of certain types of sensory stimuli, and even more significantly, repetition of certain types of thoughts and emotions. I find this aspect of epigenetics totally fascinating.
if thought can control emotions you are essentially controlling gene expression. and if thought can control gene expression i think it would be safe to say that the only limit to what one can experience psychologically and physically is linked to the richness of functional genes in ones genome. imagine wut unexperienced emotions and abilitys lie out there in combinations of nucleotides we have not yet experienced!
The Wright brothers were successful because they didn't mimic birds in their transfer of power to the air. They did use principles of lift that birds use to get off the ground. Before the brothers the attempts to create flight involved a flapping motion, or lighter than air devices such as balloons.
But important factor: There is no humanly way to mimic birds in that case (or there wasn't at the time). Some aircraft have since had design modifications that attempt to mimic birds more closely in wing capabilities.
Good talk. Why on earth are people giving this less than 5 stars?? i don't get it. I enjoyed it and she's right, nature already has answers to most of our questions.
Good question. The only thing I can criticize is it comes off a bit faith based. Yes nature has done a lot and it is a good idea to learn from nature, but she is presenting it kind of like a religion. Just because it is natural does not make it good, right, moral, or even better. What does it mean to have cities provide the same level of ecosystem services? That is not the function of a city. This common notion that natural is better just because it is natural is not valid.
Yeah, but she sounds like she is coming from an unproven axiom that "natural is best". As a scientist, that kind of flaw turns me off when the proposition is somewhat based on that axiom. We can learn from nature, but to say we should mimic nature BECAUSE it is natural is weak. She is not even strongly saying that, it just kind of sounds that way.
Kind of like someone arguing intelligent design, but then saying it has nothing to do with religion.
Well, nature is subject to evolution. And evolution is always set on making everything in nature just perfect at what it does. I think shes only saying we should look to nature to give us easy answers. We dont have to mimic all of it. Just the stuff that we find useful. And not because its natural, because it works.
2. // Kind of like someone arguing intelligent design, but then saying it has nothing to do with religion. //
I agree that IDiots have a poorly-hidden socio-religious agenda when they deny (lie) that IDiocy is religion.
However, I think that this situation is a poor analogy for the suggestion that it might be expedient to look for inspiration in the functional designs that evolution has provided. Why ignore tens of millions of years of beta testing?
Axiom is a logic term, and I deal with proof. But why she sounds that way specifically (other then the the talk of brilliants and design) is that she defines Biomimicry partly as 'sustainable'. That is one of those organic feel good terms that has nothing to do with an efficient design. Second is that she supports a group that says 'cities [should] provide the same level of ecosystem services'. as (I presume) a non-developed area. Cities are good for the environment as is(see Charter Cities)
Yes, and "proof" only applies to mathematics, subsets of syllogisms, and hard liquor. Scientists do not legitimately talk of proof --- except when discussing those.
How does her saying "sustainable" support your argument? As far as I can see, you are merely projecting from your own prejudices about certain "buzzwords".
How are cities "good for the environment"?? Which environment? I assume that you are aware that there is no single ecosystem.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes... we can't stand for any scientist coming off sounding faith-based. How can anyone look at nature and deny an intelligent designer? I think it takes FAR more faith to think something as complex as DNA somehow formed on its own.
"Why on earth are people giving this less than 5 stars?? i don't get it."
Because they are religious and don't realize that they are being religious fanatics in the name of science. It would never occur to them, in fact because they are exactly that way.
Thank you Janine Benyus. I am amazed in tears knowing that God is not a person that he should like when He invited us to "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" in Gen 1:28
gracesabarus 1 week ago
Inspiring... and I'm not very easily inspired anymore; I was made dull and complacent and learned taking everything for granted, growing up. But for the last couple of years I've been trying to unlearn the misinformation, lies and blindness!
Thanks to inspirational people like her - Janine Benyus - and others, for instance Carl Sagan, I've been re-learning how to appreciate all this wonder that is our existence! It's easy to notice just the ugliness, but to see the beauty... is spectacular!
Diddmund 1 month ago
cool stuff
jasonspnd 7 months ago
I may just be emotional. I may just be swayed by Benyus's wonderful, contagious, childlike enthusiasm. I may be completely forgetting or ignorant of the powers of natural selection and the like. I may be simply projecting our natural psychological tendency on the world, but somehow...
...It just seems real stupid to suggest that their isn't some kind of incredible intelligence behind this genius.
Hypergalactica 11 months ago
@Hypergalactica I like how self depricating you are but this is the conclusion billions of our ancestors have come to in one way or another since forever! As an atheist I want to remind you that simple things can produce complexity given enourmous lengths of time but as an environmental, psychedelic type I also want to say something profound about how nature's pattern intelligence IS the genius, Gaia, metamind you allude to but I seem to have run out of characters and blown it... Drats.
danfromabove 10 months ago
what is the difference between the terms "biomimicry" and "biomimetics"?
thesnobsupreme 11 months ago
Hell to the yeah. Permaculture design + biomimicry = the future
danfromabove 1 year ago 2
FANTASTIC TALK!!!
eruditadellanatura 1 year ago
Within every cell of all of life, there exists an interactive receiver/transmitter system, with quantum characteristics which has the capability of interpreting the encoded signature which is transmitted from sources that have only been realized by some as of late.
The medium used to send and receive information between all of life on the planet and the sentient design system is earth’s magnetic field and through varying frequencies which stimulates oxygen molecules
Scienje 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Make your order now # lushfmlk.info #
shinaley 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Date a naughty woman online benaughtyman.info
laquandafreelklm 1 year ago
the part about the water compared to the volume of the earth is bullshit , one bcoz the earth is around 75 percent water and to when we look at a globe the majority is blue which = water
Socarbon 1 year ago
@Socarbon on the surface yeah it looks like it's mostly water, but it's not like that water goes all the way to the core or anything....
ilovesergei91 1 year ago
@ilovesergei91 very good point, but the ocean go's pretty far down so far down that nobodys ever been there lol
Socarbon 1 year ago
all praises due to the most high
Socarbon 1 year ago
i am curious who these 128 mentally retarded people that voted the video down are.
sashazindel 1 year ago 4
Brilliant
098anne 1 year ago
Shes coming to Abbott to give a presentation
ke422azn 1 year ago
Excellent. Thanks for the wisdom.
emmanuelgarciaCV 1 year ago
their new 7 series looks like a Volvo s class :)
nelson3300 1 year ago
flower at 2:18 looks like a vagina ;D
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
very interesting stuff, but it keeps stopping at 9:24 for me :(
Vendetta983 1 year ago
found this by accident, loved it! found the two websites she mentions, gonna devour them later.
franl155 1 year ago
This was fucking awesome well not really but made me giggle so it's ok
Havana4life 1 year ago
I AM SO LOVING THIS!
TheGoddessNetworks 2 years ago
Thank you very much!
SophosVII 2 years ago
fantastic talk and subject
mrlowdangle 2 years ago 11
yea...they kill way too much time...
WOLVESVIDS 2 years ago
God i hate when they spend first five minutes on shi't like motivational pictures, "i live here", love, old sayings, meaningless personal stories and other crap. Get to the point. Amazing otherwise.
Stiffmeisteer 2 years ago 2
I agree. The real conference starts at around 5:20.
amenzix 2 years ago
thx
DifrentInAPrferedWay 2 years ago
Wow, way to complain about humans being human. Well Done!!
bentothetenthpower 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok, i am banging your mum.
DifrentInAPrferedWay 2 years ago
"I live here."
hahahahaha
I disagree with you, but you made me laugh really hard. It takes quite a lot to inspire the average Joe to take an interest in science and that personal touch is usually what sells it.
ehhhhhhhhhh 2 years ago
1 word: American. Personal stories and shit. trying not just to reach out, but to Reach Out.
theroyalewithcheese 2 years ago
Interesting talk but I don't like the speaker. It's not a miracle that the electric eel doesn't fry itself with 600V because volts aren't electric flow. She didn't mention the current because it's probably an underwhemling number.
cuallito 2 years ago
The intensity of the electric flow is the potential difference divided by the resistance (Ohm's Law). So a larger potential difference does imply a larger current. The question she was asking was how does the eel insulate itself, which means how does it create a large electrical resistance. So yes, the current is an underwhelming number, the question is, why is it such a low number, when compared to the potential difference?
amenzix 2 years ago
Comment removed
regresseur 2 years ago
People, nominate Jacque Fresco for TED Talks!
thevenusproject (dot) com/jacque-fresco/resume
To nominate a candidate, email:
fellows @ ted (dot) com
Boolze 2 years ago
YES! nominate Jacque Fresco! He would be a brilliant presenter!
paradigm667 2 years ago 17
Best job ever.
SmileyWhiplash 2 years ago
thank you God for creating all this
dtolab 2 years ago
god has no place in science
Lazerjo2000 2 years ago
science is boring without genious creations of god
dtolab 2 years ago
you spelt genius wrong
/end conversation
Lazerjo2000 2 years ago
hahahahaha yes yes
Dorian090 2 years ago
Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So what started all this?
Dorian090 2 years ago
people have misconceptions that science has anything to do with religon,
god does not cause chemical reactions
god did not make people invent something
god has no place in science
Lazerjo2000 2 years ago
actually, science was first concieved as a way of proving that the world is so complex that only god could have created it.
bmed19 2 years ago
"god does not cause chemical reactions"
Who needs god when you've got consciousness? consciousness can cause chemical reactions :)
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
lol exactly. CONCIOUSNESS IS GOD!!!!!
bmed19 2 years ago
lol You can't just conclude that, you first have to demonstrate through the lens of science that consciousness is the basis of reality. But even then, whether people will equate it as being proof of the existence of a particular god (concept) is another matter.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
ok there genius. y dont u emperically define conciousness for me then?
bmed19 2 years ago
Consciousness does not conform well to the limited confines of language. It escapes definition. Even if i attempt to define it in words for u -which is impossible- u would have to assimilate those words via ur own personal cns, memory, lexicon, emotional database with all its preferences, dominant sensory modality, etc, and it wouldn't reveal anything to u, it would convince u of nothing.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
So not thru description... what's going to happen is that science will procure a means (in the form of a technology/process) which will enable anyone to experience consciousness directly, independent of their meat body. That's where u will find the proof. It's the only way science can show u proof that consciousnes is the basis of reality.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
In the end the data will have to be processed by our limited brains. And these devices will also have been made with this limited brain. If we want to know 'reality' only something all-seeing, all-knowing and completely independent and limitless would be able to tell us. We are and always will be restricted by the capacity of our brains.
HaMzA66li 2 years ago
There will be no data to process. The stimulation will be applied directly to the brain, creating a functional cluster in the frontal lobes, specifically within the thalamocortical system, which will catalyze a direct shift in consciousness. It's the shift in consciousness from the ordinary state to a state outside of time/space that will reveal reality as it exists independent of ur meat body's limited perceptual range.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"If we want to know 'reality' only something all-seeing, all-knowing and completely independent and limitless would be able to tell us."
And since "god" is limitless, as u put it, then its capacity to create a means that can facilitate a direct experience of its reality must also exist, yes?
You cant put any real limits on what is possible and what is not if u believe in a limitless "god".
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
So ur saying our consciousness is something outside our phisical body? Our body is just a means to experience this world, a tool for our consciousness? (could agree to this)
And that we can create an even better tool to experience our world? (not this :))
I think u have too high an estimation of science and human ingenuity :)
ecalik 2 years ago
"So ur saying our consciousness is something outside our phisical body?"
In a way but not exactly. Consciousness (from my point-of-consciousness) is not OF the physical but permeates it & everything else u are capable of perceiving. You just can't see this with your human 5 sensory system b/c ur senses are inherently limited to a known spectrum (e.g. a typical human eye will detect wavelengths from abt 380 to 750 nm, the human ear can detect vibrations between 20Hz-20kHz, etc etc).
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"I think u have too high an estimation of science and human ingenuity :)"
Perhaps... or maybe i just know something u dont yet understand.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
Consciousness is so much finer than the coarse vibrations of the material world.. that's why it has remained so elusive all this time.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
I agree, but this experiencing the 'ultimate reality' will probably occur in heaven :)
ecalik 2 years ago
"but this experiencing the 'ultimate reality' will probably occur in heaven :)"
Thats the biblical version of heaven. The scientific version however reveals that "heaven" is more closely related to states of consciousness than to a location in time-space.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
I don't believe heaven is in this 3d physical realm, as new theories point out that there are many more dimensions.
Do you know how a non-physical consciousness (soul :)) interacts with/through our body with this reality? If not we are a long way from developing a better tool for this consciousness to use. And since it does not have a physical manifestation we can examine or a means 2 examine the non-physical we will have 2 wait till our soul leaves our body till we can begin 2 understand :)
ecalik 2 years ago
That doesnt mean we have 2 stop researching, but in the end I rthink these kinds of researches will have usefull biproducts but will never reach their goal.
btw heaven is a place we enter after we die, and where our soul will receive a body (tool) with better developped and new senses (a theologist wrote this in a book)
ecalik 2 years ago
I'm not really that interested in theological definitions of heaven or god, they rely too heavily on belief and lack a fine-grain understanding of the scientific principles behind spiritual experience. So what interests me the most is how to reveal the direct experience of consciousness thru science.
Science.. accept no substitutes ;)
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago 3
How do u let go of ur limitations?
1 is death
u know another way? tell me :)))
I posted a comment with religious content because your description of consciousness is the definition of a soul in islamic literature :)
ecalik 2 years ago
There are numerous means (and more to come), but if u havnt found them it's because either u havent looked or ur mental filters hav blocked or discarded them. If u want to change or let go of the limiting belief that only physical death is liberation, then do the research first and get some idea of how belief transformation works, otherwise you will remain a slave to ur limiting beliefs.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
The limiting belief transformation is an attempt to rewire/remap the brain so it does not produce negative feelings where it did before.
I think it is powerfull and will have an effect on you if you persist, but it is far from yielding a freedom I tried to picture. (my fault for not being able to fully explain)
If you are a practitioner i'd like to stay in touch with you and through these kinds of conversations see what effect it has on a convinced person, if you dont mind :)
hope 2 hear from ya
ecalik 2 years ago
belief transformation is only the starting point for sum1 who holds a limiting belief about what is possible in reality. But if no such belief exists, if youre open to new possibilities and potentials, then u can practice other methods for liberation rather than merely waiting for physical death as ur only means to liberation.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
Also the technology ive been alluding to that can reveal conscious directly does not involve belief transformation as a core component.. Instead, the mind (and its beliefs) are rapidly shut down (temporarily) without inducing sleep or unconsciousness. When this happens, u experience consciousness directly, independent of the mind-body.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
A kind of hypnotic/trance state?
And how do you induce such a state?
A fryingpan on the head ?:P
ecalik 2 years ago
ur already in a hypnotic trance.. wat u need a way to get urself out of it lol
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"I dnt believ heaven is in this 3d dimension,"
Exactly, u cant see it with ur eyes, hear it with ur ears or touch it with ur hands, because it's a state of consciousness, like ecstasy, bliss, compassion, or feeling the presence of "god" in all things, being one with the universe... Changes in consciousness, tho non-spatial, can dramatically alter ur experience of reality.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"Do you know how a non-physical consciousness interacts with/through our body with this reality?"
Yes, the same way a driver interacts with a car. Problem with most drivers tho is 1) theyr too focused on the rear-view mirror (past), and 2) they dont know how to stop the car, open the door and get out.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"we are a long way from developing a better tool for this consciousness to use"
We dont need a better tool for consciousness, just the means to reveal consciousness as it is (i.e. minus the "car") is enough.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"we will have 2 wait till our soul leaves our body till we can begin 2 understand"
Some may wish to wait for death or perhaps rainy day, but there are also more efficient and more effective ways available for those who are capable of letting go of their limitations.
On the other hand, argue for ur limitations and youll get to keep them. lol
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
This is impossible because our consciousness is our only means of testing this reality.
The only way 2 learn about reality is by the information provided by an all-conscious being.
God :)
ecalik 2 years ago
What seems impossible today can rapidly evolve if the proper conditions are created... history proves this.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
sry i responded with someoneelses account, he forgot to logout :P
ecalik 2 years ago
Dude, could you explain the concept of heaven and hell??? i just can help but see that as little sadistic. Not a very brilliant idea from a supreme being...more like something old aged human beings created.
ShareefPhantom 2 years ago
this is RYAN FROM ROOM 7 TNIS
SO HI!
SirRyan8888 2 years ago
The science part starts at 5:00
anotherelvis 2 years ago 3
In certain areas nature has a lot to teach us for sure. Take nanotechnology, nature has had solutions to some of our biggest problems in this field for billions of years. I would also say if we want to build intelligent machines we had better take a look at how brains work.
Glass2007 2 years ago
that was brilliant. I knew we had looked at birds for flight and sharks for hydrodynamics but I didn't appreciate just how much nature had to offer.
mooxim 2 years ago
I see the comments about genius and intelligence have been deleted - on a forum about the open exchange of ideas.
What are you afraid of?
houseguy4 2 years ago
Obviously this is an old idea. I think Janine's, point was just to spread some awareness, and to get people thinking and talking. Which clearly has worked.
I enjoyed most the information on actual projects under taken with private capital. Theres no better way to creat change
rlclaveau 2 years ago 2
An old idea but a good one. Great overview of some new products I look forward to seeing, good video.
sdaciuk 2 years ago
old idea. VERY old idea.
1schwererziehbar1 2 years ago
She fails horribly with anthropomorphism. Then makes a bunch of assumptions.
Its a cool presentation otherwise but basically she's assuming people haven't allways done this or that we haven't recently aquired the technology to do it. In the end her point is kinda moot, relabeling things after the fact.
She mentions antibacterials, how is the dicovery of penicillum (and all the subsequent antibiotics based on it) not biomimicry?
phookadude 2 years ago
Nice commercials at the end.
ErichoTTA 2 years ago
That "Opal" car she was talking about, there's a vid showing how the program works.
Pretty interesting stuff.
(skip over the 17 second ad at the start)
watch?v=kTUlyYWNgFQ
roidroid 2 years ago 2
If you Google for the exact phrase "How does nature remove salt from water", you actually get zero results.
:(
roidroid 2 years ago
Comment removed
Inupiatun 2 years ago
Actually one already ;)
tbilisi45 2 years ago
must take google a little while to collect the result, coz i'm still seeing zero.
roidroid 2 years ago
This presentation warms my heart.. it seems there might be a future for us on this planet after all.
ehhhhhhhhhh 2 years ago
This was a really good TED video! Kudos!
Marqo7 2 years ago
I don't see any meat in this, science by definition comes from the observation of nature, technology comes from science.
The only thing you need to turn observation into technology is for someone to make the connection, but those people are rare.
How many people saw the lid rattling on a boiling pot before James Watts came along and thought - "I can use that to make a steam engine".
The flip side of this is once someone like James pointsout the connection, it seems obvious to everyone.
Tapecutter59 2 years ago
Well, the I'm guessing that we can now look at and understand and compute so much more than before, and thus we should more carefully and deliberate study nature for our own benefit.
Thats what I'm guessing she might say, and yes it isn't new. Unfortunately I only watched 2 minutes because she's so damned slow and boring it almost killed me to sit here doing so. Wow, what a terribly boring effort.
jezzur 2 years ago
The whole film was about "meat".
SmileyWhiplash 2 years ago
Do anyone know who have got 80 minutes of standing ovation??????????????
ravishethwala 2 years ago
On June 30, 1991 Placido Domingo received an 80 min standing ovation including 101 curtain calls after singing Otello in Vienna.
risbo3000 2 years ago
Wow, I like where these biomimicry ideas are going!!!
Bring it on!
normskis69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Designing after the ultimate designer, God, is smart!
theaggravator 2 years ago
Designing inspired by that which can not be proven is irresponsible.
Maybe we could engineer something that is like the smallpox your "grand designer" supposedly made?
justanotherface123 2 years ago 8
Indeed, the Flying Spagetti Monster has designed the universe very well.
Let us pray to him right now.
roidroid 2 years ago 3
RAmen!
BGenerous 2 years ago 2
I love my planet!
popaddict 2 years ago
Wow, it's really incredible to imagine where technology will eventually lead when considering all the things we could learn from nonhuman life.
theshredator 2 years ago 2
This is all good, so long as these companies don't claim rights/pattent to certain aspects of nature.
hiphopsocnroc 2 years ago 6
Intellectual property is theft!
UnhealthySalad 2 years ago
well if you wanna reveal something we USED TO KNOW....that would be THE MANY USES OF CANNABIS....from making ropes....to sails...PAPER...to the brilliant ideas it generated....to the MEDICINE it was used for....also FOOD, SHELTER *houses* and the CLOTHES we used to wear...most people forgot about that...and sad thing is they don't teach this in schools...education....FAIL!
BallinTrollin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If there is a design, there had to be a designer.
If Nature is so good at these things, who is Nature?
Scientists have faith - faith in other scientists who are human and thus imperfect. Why not start with a the greatest designer and learn from Him? His design seems to work pretty well!
houseguy4 2 years ago
uh no......just because nature is complex you instantly attribute it to "Him"......have you look at the sky at night? you see those twinkling lights? most of them are stars much like our sun which may have planets like earth....why would the designer be our "God"...that is the height of human arrogance. That belief is so local....so...earthly...compared to the vastness of space and immensity of time.
BallinTrollin 2 years ago 3
Ballin - I look at the stars and think "WOW! Something is WAY more knowing and can create an infinite universe (and nano bacteria) I cannot even comprehend." The perfect balance, the perfect design.
houseguy4 2 years ago 2
But this universe isn't balanced, in fact the matter in it is non-uniformly distributed, and this universe isn't perfect, I have occasional back pain because my back isn't built to handle the constant stress of walking upright, and I get headaches from sinuses that are malformed and prone to weather changes, oh and I'm fat because my body retains calories believing that it might not have a next meal.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
I see what you're doing... coming from the teleological argument with a bunch of unfounded assertions.
First that there is a design, second that nature is a being, third that there is such a thing as perfection, fourth that if there is a designer that it is male, and fifth that this design works well.
I'm sure I left a couple out but those were the ones that came to the top of my head.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago 2
Isn't her whole talk about how there is genius (intelligence) in Nature and we should learn from it?
houseguy4 2 years ago 2
Actually her talk is about how nature, over millions of years has found the optimal designs (in most cases, not all) through evolutionary algorithms that allow for increasingly complex and intricate designs where at first everything was clunky and through successive generations and mutations bad designs were weeded out and better ones kept. That we are still at that "clunky design" phase and could do well to use those same algorithms to our advantage.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
This is not an intelligent design freak, don't worry guys. Get to around 3:45 if you want the scientific questions and answers. What she is saying is fantastic, what better efficient design is there than nature itself. She shows examples of how creatures survive with such minimal resources and how we can copy that.
We have all the resources in the world at our finger tips, some of the things stopping us from doing the right thing is greed and ignorance.
kidmecha 2 years ago 2
Yes we have all the technology and access to resources, but what we appear to lack is the wisdom to harness that technology in a way that is beneficial to our species and our planet..
Then again, what if greed and ignorance (i.e. behaviors/expressions that are not in our species best interest) are hardwired to our genes?
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago 3
what if greed and ignorance are hardwired to our genes?
- then altruism & compassion must be hardwired as well.
how to behave, it's up to us.
hybridstar08 2 years ago 2
Yes, but then there's the question of activation, and at the moment it seems that the selfish, greedy gene holds the dominant activation status in the human species.
"how to behave, it's up to us."
Not quite, because if your behaviors are an expression of your physiological processes, and your physiological processes are mainly a result of your genes, then it's not a simple matter of making a decision to be altruistic... ..unless you believe in crazy scientists like Bruce Lipton! lol
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
a lot of studies and experiments find what makes us so different from chips is that we work together and we dont just care about ourselves. we understand what benifits one can help the whole group aswell.
keggerous 2 years ago
Comment removed
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
But generally cooperation among humans is used to manipulate outcomes for the individuals own best interest in favor of shared interests. The reality is that our collective behaviors and global issues reflect selfish motivating factors (genes). Examples range from 85% of the worlds money being owned by less than 15% of the worlds population, favoring of short term monetary benefits over long term sustainability, decisions made to benefit one group or species at the expense of another, etc.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
Does this mean that we should just submit to our genes? Of course not! what we need to do is use our collective intelligence to find ways that allow us to alter our gene switches so that we can actively self-manage gene expression and therefore their psycho-physiological and behavioral "byproducts". This will give us an evolutionary advantage, because usually physiological processes (which produce our individual physical behaviors) are not subject to conscious intent.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"what we need to do is use our collective intelligence to find ways that allow us to alter our gene switches"
- So you're saying that to be able to not be controlled by our genes is we need to find a way to "tweak" it so that we can act on favorable outcomes? Interesting.
hybridstar08 2 years ago
Nope, not a fan of Bruce Lipton, don't know him. So you're saying that our everyday decisions are affected by our genes that are dominantly activated? Interesting... I thought it was simply a matter of choice. So does that mean that we are not in control of our actions but our dominant genes are?
hybridstar08 2 years ago
If it's that easy, why dont people simply choose to use another 20% of their brain capacity, stop indulging bad habits, or be confident in everything they do? The reason they dont is because conscious decisions are virtually incapable of changing deeply rooted physiological patterns. If a conscious decision clashes with subconscious programs (ingrained patterns), 9 times out of 10 the ingrained pattern will win. This is why we need tools and techniques to help us self-manage our physiology.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago 2
Lipton is a well known cellular biologist who claims that genes can be regulated by application of two variables. These two variables are environmental (sensory stimuli, current generational) and subjective (thoughts, emotions, beliefs etc). These claims have gotten Lipton labeled as a rogue scientist, because it's general consensus among the biological fraternity that inherited factors carry more weight than environmental, sensory, and subjective influences.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
You have any suggested sites or videos that proves his theory?
columbo1988 2 years ago
I'm not interested in proving his theory.. I was only giving Hybrid some background info on Lipton because Hybrid believes that conscious choice can override our DNA and the physiological patterns they produce, while Lipton claims that environmental and subjective factors can change the way our genes behave.
The research is interesting. Check your inbox.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"9 times out of 10 the ingrained pattern will win"
neurons that fire together wire together. the next time you try to overcome ur physiological predispositions you be will be more and more successful until ur have 'conditioned' urself to react in a way that you willfully choose to.
bmed19 2 years ago
Correct, repetition is a technique or tool that can be employed to retrain your neuro-physiology. But research shows that for this to be effective, you need to practice it regularly and with close attention until the neurological pathways that make the new behavior natural are "burnt" into your brain. In other words, making just one [conscious] decision to change a deeply ingrained pattern is not considered an effective strategy for creating behavioral change.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
making just one [conscious] decision to change a deeply ingrained pattern IS considered an effective strategy for creating behavioral change.
by being able to change ur pattern of behaviour you have proven that tought and concious will can overpower any genetic predispositions
bmed19 2 years ago
You might be in control of your actions to a limited degree, but what defines what you are capable of actioning? Your genes do. For example, if your genes say that you will have a propensity for more aggressive/dominant behavior or characteristics and less altruistic/compassion traits, then you will, regardless of your conscious wishes. In the same way, if your genes say that you will have blue eyes instead of green eyes, then you will have blue eyes regardless of your conscious decisions.
youlikemyusername 2 years ago
i totally disagree. by saying we cant control our behaviours is to question the very essense that sets us apart from other animals.
ALL behavioural traits can be induced or supressed by concious will. physical traits of course are determined by genetics. but behaviour is not. even if you are predisposed to be shy, for example, u can voluntarily choose not to.
it is via technology that we overcome pysical barriers. and it is via our minds that we overcome behavioural barriers.
bmed19 2 years ago
"ALL behavioural traits can be induced or supressed by concious will."
Yes, but only by using a specific process or method. What usually happens tho is that people encounter a behavior about themselves that they dont like (or would like to change/improve) and instead of changing it, they resign to the fact that it cant be changed. This is because theyve been conditioned into believing that theyre subject to the dictates of their genetics.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
"it is via technology that we overcome pysical barriers. and it is via our minds that we overcome behavioural barriers."
I believe that it's also possible to overcome many of our physical limitations by application of consciousness. Recent research seems to suggest that we can alter gene expression by repetition of certain types of sensory stimuli, and even more significantly, repetition of certain types of thoughts and emotions. I find this aspect of epigenetics totally fascinating.
mermadeinheaven 2 years ago
I agree, once again.
if thought can control emotions you are essentially controlling gene expression. and if thought can control gene expression i think it would be safe to say that the only limit to what one can experience psychologically and physically is linked to the richness of functional genes in ones genome. imagine wut unexperienced emotions and abilitys lie out there in combinations of nucleotides we have not yet experienced!
bmed19 2 years ago
Slut?
fuckgodfuckyou 2 years ago
with a user name like that, one can only expect great insight
boblulz 2 years ago 2
5*'s Brilliant Presentation.
ifxman 2 years ago 2
i don't like the speaker she keeps sounding like she's in bliss
darklight436 2 years ago
How incredibly cool. The upcoming videogame 'Brink' also mentions the coral cement.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
This is a lesson for the future.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
Great Job! I LOVE EVERYONE WHO IS ON THIS CHANNEL! THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US ALIVE!
TakeTheGreenPill 2 years ago
5*s. Heavy
and interesting
Information.
Thanks,
Airave 2 years ago
Nice video.
Did the Wright brothers mimic birds?
inquisitive871 2 years ago
Sadly, no.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
The Wright brothers were successful because they didn't mimic birds in their transfer of power to the air. They did use principles of lift that birds use to get off the ground. Before the brothers the attempts to create flight involved a flapping motion, or lighter than air devices such as balloons.
btwbrand 2 years ago
But important factor: There is no humanly way to mimic birds in that case (or there wasn't at the time). Some aircraft have since had design modifications that attempt to mimic birds more closely in wing capabilities.
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
// Did the Wright brothers mimic birds? //
Some did try that idea:
watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM
Hilarious!
saliental 2 years ago
She is right... that is all.
HDDDR18 2 years ago 2
Good talk. Why on earth are people giving this less than 5 stars?? i don't get it. I enjoyed it and she's right, nature already has answers to most of our questions.
libanlibanliban 2 years ago 3
Good question. The only thing I can criticize is it comes off a bit faith based. Yes nature has done a lot and it is a good idea to learn from nature, but she is presenting it kind of like a religion. Just because it is natural does not make it good, right, moral, or even better. What does it mean to have cities provide the same level of ecosystem services? That is not the function of a city. This common notion that natural is better just because it is natural is not valid.
TheVigilante2000 2 years ago
Yes because big cities do a hell of a lot more good for the environment than say forests. -_-
TherianthropeAndrewH 2 years ago
// Just because it is natural does not make it good, right, moral, or even better.//
She's talking about *functional design*. Biology invented sewage systems, for example, long before humans did.
saliental 2 years ago 4
Yeah, but she sounds like she is coming from an unproven axiom that "natural is best". As a scientist, that kind of flaw turns me off when the proposition is somewhat based on that axiom. We can learn from nature, but to say we should mimic nature BECAUSE it is natural is weak. She is not even strongly saying that, it just kind of sounds that way.
Kind of like someone arguing intelligent design, but then saying it has nothing to do with religion.
TheVigilante2000 2 years ago
Well, nature is subject to evolution. And evolution is always set on making everything in nature just perfect at what it does. I think shes only saying we should look to nature to give us easy answers. We dont have to mimic all of it. Just the stuff that we find useful. And not because its natural, because it works.
xinlo 2 years ago
Why does it turn you off?
She is not saying definitely, that we should copy nature, Because, of it being nature, but because Nature has very useful and practical designs.
I dont think your understanding her properly.
fuckgodfuckyou 2 years ago
// Yeah, but she sounds like she is coming from ... //
When, in the lecture, does she actually say "natural is best"? Even you admit that it's only a case of "sounds like".
"Unproven axiom"? First, scientists do not talk of proof. Second, natural systems have been *demonstrated* to have evolved functional designs.
Admittedly, not all of nature displays good design (the vermiform appendix, recurrent laryngeal nerve, creationists, etc).
She did not make a universal statement.
saliental 2 years ago
2. // Kind of like someone arguing intelligent design, but then saying it has nothing to do with religion. //
I agree that IDiots have a poorly-hidden socio-religious agenda when they deny (lie) that IDiocy is religion.
However, I think that this situation is a poor analogy for the suggestion that it might be expedient to look for inspiration in the functional designs that evolution has provided. Why ignore tens of millions of years of beta testing?
saliental 2 years ago
Axiom is a logic term, and I deal with proof. But why she sounds that way specifically (other then the the talk of brilliants and design) is that she defines Biomimicry partly as 'sustainable'. That is one of those organic feel good terms that has nothing to do with an efficient design. Second is that she supports a group that says 'cities [should] provide the same level of ecosystem services'. as (I presume) a non-developed area. Cities are good for the environment as is(see Charter Cities)
TheVigilante2000 2 years ago
// Axiom is a logic term ... proof //
Yes, and "proof" only applies to mathematics, subsets of syllogisms, and hard liquor. Scientists do not legitimately talk of proof --- except when discussing those.
How does her saying "sustainable" support your argument? As far as I can see, you are merely projecting from your own prejudices about certain "buzzwords".
How are cities "good for the environment"?? Which environment? I assume that you are aware that there is no single ecosystem.
saliental 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes... we can't stand for any scientist coming off sounding faith-based. How can anyone look at nature and deny an intelligent designer? I think it takes FAR more faith to think something as complex as DNA somehow formed on its own.
AndySchinitz 2 years ago
If you say the intelligent designer is evolution, like many do, then i understand. As for a god-like designer, what evidence is there of it?
We actually have some understanding to how a primitive DNA structure could come about.
Scientists do not use faith.
xinlo 2 years ago 3
I agree, but the idea is that there is an equilibrium. We may see the lion killing cubs as "morally" bad, but the net effect is stronger genetics.
Just as we may see bacteria and virus as bad, yet in reality these were meant to cull the heard.
mattghtpa 2 years ago
@libanliban
"Why on earth are people giving this less than 5 stars?? i don't get it."
Because they are religious and don't realize that they are being religious fanatics in the name of science. It would never occur to them, in fact because they are exactly that way.
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only God is the final authority
TURNTOCHRIST 2 years ago
Things that don't exist can't be authorities.
Solthiel 2 years ago 2