Evolution is nonsense, plainly nonsense, I did not evolve from a creationist, I am from a separate species. They were made by some lunatic god and I wasn´t.
I guess Douglas has his own visual proof of evolution, since he was alive millions of years ago to see it himself. Blah, yet he criticizes people who believe in God.
@davisne "I guess Douglas has his own visual proof of evolution"
You don't need to have observed something taking place for there to be reasonable evidence that it did happen. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about, not even the central theme of evolutionary biology. You're just echoing other very poor and outdated creationist arguments.
@davisne, are you seriously asking that question? Let me ask you this. If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? Because populations consist of lots of individuals and they can diverge. The only way you can make such a stultifyingly ignorant comment is if you have made no effort whatsoever to understand the subject you're criticising. It's like saying gravity isn't real because birds don't fall out of the sky like bricks.
@theinquisitor@malakispanien@davisne All of them are fine, intelligent, provable answers to 'davisne's stultifyingly ignorant question. But if I may interject for a moment, with....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, furthermore...... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
@davisne LOL are you serious. Please view a video on how evolution is explained. Please view the You Tube video on "If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Are There Still Monkeys?" I hope this helps you understan evolution better. And another thing about this video, we are not yet done evolving.
@davisne Example chimpanzees, no one said we evolved from chimpanzees. No scientist would say "We evolved from chimpanzees" ... mealy that we have a common ancestor. It is a fact that your genes come from your parents, some random mutations can occur because DNA isn't perfect at replicating, but even so the majority of DNA>99.99% will have come from your parents. It naturally comes that if a being shares a large quantity of DNA with you, you are related, the more so the closer you are related.
@davisneOne easy fact that you can agree with, all of your relatives had children. Your mother gave birth to you, your mothers mother gave birth to her... etc. All of your ancestors survived and had at least one child, each one of them would have been at least slightly different, providing accumulative benefits down the line, why are their benefits, well in terms of the human line of evolution, it was chosen by the individuals, e.g. I love him because he is kind.
@davisne No one ever said we evolved from a current living animal just that we both evolved from the same ancestor. We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, and they didn't evolve from us. But we both evolved from something that was neither us nor chimp. Think about this, the amount of identical DNA when comparing chimpanzees and humans IS MORE THAN the amount of identical DNA between lions and tigers, and they are interbreedable. DNA comparison is great evidence for ancestry, hence child DNA testing.
@malakispanien, a comprehensive response to the "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument is laid out in lesson 517 of How to Pwn a Young Earth Creationist. Taking pwnership of said YEC will occur in short order. Thank you. The partial link is as follows: watch?v=CodWzZfdMXw
@z3r0t0l3r4ns, yeah I should know better. It's like when you have a loose tooth and you can't help poking it. It's uncomfortable and painful but for some reason I can't help myself.
........but this is the result of a vastly and almost infinitely complex history of the universe, from a beginning (big bang) or from infinity and something that the human mind can not comprehend, despite this...I find life a vastly beautiful way to spend the pathetic number of years that I have on this planet, not just to spread my genes, but a wonderful and gracious gift.
I am perfectly understanding of my place in the universe. It is smaller and lesser than negligible. But....why would I possibly want to live and carry on my life knowing that I am pointless, because I can enjoy myself, find pleasure and feel happiness that I could not without life. These emotions are the result of tiny chemicals involving neurotransmitters in my brian, the neural swelling at the tip of my spinal cord, but this is the result of....
So now he's dead and either really regretting what he said, or not existing in any form. Either of those is depressing. Smart man, yet not smart enough to see the LARGER picture. Humans need to believe in things. He outlines some possible reasons for that but fails to accept it. As if his own brilliant lecture will change the nature of DNA? Atheists are so shortsighted.
@MazeleyFanClub, shortsighted? And yet you view the possibilities in terms of either his damnation or non-existence. There are other possibilities other than Christianity and atheism. Maybe he's with the Great Green Arkelseizure.
Also, yeah he outlines some possible *flawed* reasons to believe in the supernatural and then fails to accept it. Yeah.
And the facts are what they are regardless of whether they are depressing. Ding.
So what is this larger picture? Christianity perhaps? How droll.
@theinquisitor People need to believe in things. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are if you can't even understand that. A worldview that may work for you or I isn't necessarily going to cause a positive change in society if everyone believes it, especially when you look hundreds of years down the road. "Believe in nothing" - sorry, not a valid alternative to faith. Human society can't function without standards of behavior. Invent some and get back to me.
@MazeleyFanClub, I do understand that people need to believe in things, but this is a fact about human psychology, and has nothing to do with the actual truth value of those beliefs.
I don't know what you're responding to when you talk about believing in nothing and standards of behaviour. What has this got to do with this video? Adams is talking about why people believe in the supernatural, not about morality.
And who believes in nothing? Not me, not Adams, not atheists.
@theinquisitor, waste no time with youtube-christians. you'll lose your nerves. no matter how they'll word it, 90% of their arguments boil down to this= they do not understand the concept of having no faith/belief and the freedom it brings.
@theinquisitor It shows that he didn't understand or accept the link between these beliefs and human morality. If I believe there's a pink giraffe living on Neptune, but it causes me to work in soup kitchens to help homeless people, isn't that a good thing? It doesn't matter if what I believe is true, what matters are the results. OFC that was just an example and I don't mean to belittle deity beliefs -- again, no one has seen the whole multiverse. You can't rule out god. That's arrogance.
@MazeleyFanClub, I suppose it is, but religious beliefs are usually more complex than that. Christians can be driven to do good for the same reason that they pervert the teaching of science. Good reasons to do good are available, we don't need to reach for absurd beliefs to justify good work. I think the important aspect is why you believe, not what. If you can believe in one thing on insufficient evidence, you can believe anything on the same poor basis. Including destructive things.
@theinquisitor You have a much higher opinion of humanity's potential than I. Politics is "based on fact" and the media twists and spins the facts however they want. Conservative vs. Liberal, people turn off their minds in favor of belief and loyalism to one group against another group. This failure is inherent in humanity and runs through all aspects of life. In short, people simply can't be 100% rational. So, you have to settle for what works.
@MazeleyFanClub, people don't need to be 100% rational, just as rational as they can be. It's not an all-or-nothing proposal. I just think we'd be better off not believing things on insufficient evidence. That includes the dogmas of political ideologies. People have demonstrated the ability to show great kindness without any religious motivation. Religious morality often just gets in the way as a lot of it is arbitrary rules for pleasing a deity and nothing to do with human well-being.
If I know something, I know it. Right? If I do NOT know something, I just don't know. There is no need for belief. For instance, believing in god makes no sense. We do not know if god exists. That is it. This is all we can say and think. Believing in god does not prove it exists. Hope it makes sense now.
There are fundamental difference between musical pieces and stories.
Rarely can I watch the same movie more than twice a year without becoming bored with it. Meanwhile there is some music which I can listen to a hundred times a year and still love it.
I think it has something to do with the high information density in music as apposed to stories, jokes, etc
RIP Douglas Adams. He was a great man, and did important job undermining religion. Organised supersition remains our planets second biggest problem, hopefully we will shake off shakles of religion soon. Scandinavia did it in just 60 years, all you need is proper schools and proper science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Douggy, you are an incredibly talented comedic author. I'm not bewildered and I know hundreds if not thousand of people who are not bewildered. Only socialists like you think people are bewildered and that is why you think libs like yourself ought to rule the rest of us. Fuck off with your political philosophy and write more books.
@stimpsonjcathoek, I'm sure he would if he was alive. He doesn't want to rule anyone. If you'd listened to The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy (the radio version), you'd know his views on rulership. That anyone who wants to rule necessarily isn't suitable to do it.
Also if you don't think the universe is bewildering, then you aren't paying attention. Adams knew that he didn't know. That is the beginning of true wisdom. Try it.
@theinquisitor, Well said, inquisitor. and to stimpsonjcathoek, as much as i appreciate your tribute to the wonderful Ren and Stimpy, your choice of language infuriates me. you are entitled to your views, and considering your closing statement, you don't seem willing to accept opposing views, or indeed criticism to your own, so i'm aware that there's a distinct possibility you may resort to irrational, reactionary, circular arguments to try and undermine my position. but here goes...
@theinquisitor ...cont. As someone who closes with "Fuck off with your political philosphy", you seem to be awfully patronising at the start when you call Mr Adams an "incredibly talented author". Simply because you have apparently found a position in your life that you are happy with, doesn't mean people aren't bewildered. There is a lot out there, and if everyone understood it all, it would be a pretty boring place. Your use of the word 'socialist', in a seemingly derogatory, pejorative even,
@theinquisitor ...cont. way, in common with, it seems, much of the conservative bloc, is also very self righteous and patronising. "libs" are curiously, on a whole, probably less inclined to want to "rule the rest" of us. i don't count myself in either block. my views tend to be of a socialist tendency, and i favour an egalitarian, eco-conscious and liberal (in the TRUE sense of the word) viewpoint, but i do see the conservative point of view.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons will have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
.
The underlying law of nature is the most important subject any person can investigate and learn about, can proceed to understand, and can then come to personally apply in life.
because they were the important ones and one cannot rely on 'word of mouth' to spread great ideas when others are busy silencing them. You have to repeat repeat repeat and never say to yourself "ok, I think the world gets it now"
@PlanetBongoSan Not all speakers comedians philosphers repeat the same thing over and over again. I went to see George Carlin about 8-9 years ago, and i was worried that i was going to be reciting the stuff with him cause i have seen all of his stuff before.... I had only heard about 10 percent of the stuff he said that night. I also know George Carlin is not the standard :P
@2007ASpaceOdyssey is it worse to tell the same anecdotes again and again, than it is for misicians to play the same song again and again in different concerts/shows? Its a performance.
According to Dawkins himself it could also be 'Human nature/condition as intelligent designer' as he told Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.
Intelligent designer is as good a phrase to describe a single species who have created trillions and trillions of artifacts that together provide the primary source of experience for most human beings, which is quite different from the organic setting in/of nature.
I think that science, critical thinking and knowledge in general can realise the underlying mechanisms and axioms/laws that underpin culture. Understanding the material basis to culture would mean also realising that it operates differently to nature
You can/could understand the difference between culture and nature without 'having to' believe in God. There's a degree of insecurity from neo-Darwinism here
This 'evolved creature' doesn't really say anything and rings hollow
In part, even large part when it comes to Dennett and Dawkins, any new set of laws and imperatives that apply only to humankind and culture threaten to underline some kind of human exceptionalism that they fear religious people will cease on.
*Newsflash* Artificial selection is already an indication of that and evolutionary theory haven't been able to account for culture over the last 151 years now, despite numerous attempts.
Part of Darwin's legacy was his obervation of 'artificial selection' (from which he metaphorised 'natural selection') and this is something neo-Darwinians since have failed to develop more, instead they have tried to shoe-horn the ill-fitting 'natural selection' and reference to 'evolved creature' to account for humankind and culture.
We are the only species with our own selections, surely that must get the critical thinking alarm bells ringing?
If science is to realise a material understanding of humankind and culture then it can never be done by referring on and on to 'an evolved creature' because this says little or nothing about 'meaning' as a dimension of behavioural software that humans engage in.
Animals communicate, but within a seeming finiteness, they don't engage in meaning. The human condition is seemingly infinite (internalising the very cosmos) and grasping 'meaning' is a huge piece of the jigsaw.
I hear (read) you inquisitor but as good as Adams is at writing about weird fictitional galaxies he is out of his depth when it comes to crystallising the differences of dimension that humankind and culture represent to the study of the material world.
This very video is at times a rambling about the social world of humankind only to return to the default 'evolved creature' phrase.
151 years without a Darwinian general theory of culture, so it's not ALL evolvedness.
inquisitor - I mean one minute Adams calls us "incredibly sophisticated urban dwellers" and then a short time after he refers to us all "as five billion cavemen walking around this world in a state of complete bewilderment."
Not slight bewilderment but complete bewilderment. That looks to completely undermine his point about being "incredibly sophisticated urban dwellers".
He then 'arrives' at "evolved creatures" as if that is the logical conclusion of his argument.
I think his point is that our genetic nature has remained largely unchanged since we were living in caves, and the cultural changes are what account for our ability to become sophisticated urban dwellers.
The cultural changes since we were living in caves cannot obliterate the lowly stamp of our origins. We are not blank slates programmed only by culture, our evolutionary heritage plays a significant role in our social and mental states. Forgive me if I missed the point of your objection.
inquisitor - I think what you typed there sounds reasonable but the difficulty it's fairly general and I'm all about reaching more sophisticated levels of understanding. One of the lasting problems is that social scientists have a better handle on culture than evolutionary theorists and vice versa.
I don't think we are cavemen and any understanding of humans would have to be through 'the human condition' and not 'human nature'.
inquisitor - I can see sociological psychology emerging in/through the social sciences and if that approach (encorporating a Sociology of evolutionary theory) had enough biological and/or genetic understanding through its approach it would have far more explanatory capacity that 'evolutionary psychology'.
I do think that the weight of mind and culture in relative concnert is more influential on our thoughts and behaviours than biological considerations.
inquisitor - I'll leave you with this brief, even crude shorthand to highlight a point. Let's say Adams caveman's behaviour was 55% genetic/biological, 25% proto-cultural and 20% emergent through the circulation of both of them.
We could contrast that with 'sophisticated urban dweller' with say 35% genetic/biological factors, 45% culture/mind concert and 20% emergent through the circulation of all three of which culture/mind would have a larger portion
inquisitor - Darwin wrote himself that 'domestication' does TWO things:
(1) it much diminishes the effects of instincts, and
(2) it develops new habits that are culturally rooted in the social world around us.
I think Darwin's theory was/is a significant development for science and wider epistemology. As big as it was/is a general theory of culture would necessarily be more influential in understanding the underlying mechanisms of humankind and culture.
Even if you manage to put meaning into a category of its own, I don't think it has anything to do with evolution, or with us being evolved creatures. But I don't exactly know if you refer to meaning in the way man finds meaning in his existence or like an "ultimate meaning" or purpose for everything that exists and will exist.
As life species unfold and ripple out over evolutionary/geological time so to does complexity and the emergence of sociality in terms of communication/awareness
We can understand that each species experience is located within a range of relevance. The human range of relevance is 'meaning' (not men'ing, or man'ing, but meaning)
Animals communicate and have a range of relevance but they don't engage in/through meaning. Meaning is at the core of cultural causation, and how we experience time.
halo - I think that meaning (culture preserves it on the outside, mind on the inside) is a field phenomenon and we are drawn to things that have enough meaning for us.
'Meaning' is a kind of informational range that comes from human cognitive and emotional depth. We've created trillions and trillions of artifacts (means) which networked together are the primary source of experience in the world around us.
Edward T. Hall called culture 'the hidden dimension', and yet meaning is all around us.
halo -Adams says it himself that we are surrounded by all this information (which we in large part have created ourselves) but it's not random there is a system to it and 'meaning' is the key
A sociological psychology with an understanding of culture, mind and the evolutionary process would have much more explanatory capacity in illuminating the human condition than evolutionary psychology referring to "an evolved creature" which becomes more devalued and meaningless as its asserted as argument
It isn't an argument. We tend to think of ourselves as 'sophisticated urban dwellers' but there is no difference between me and any other homo sapiens sapiens that has lived. Ever since the ice age we have been on evolutionary borrowed time, we saved ourselves through communication and ruthless ingenuity sacrificing many creatures along the way. We have changed the nature of how evolution acts on us by inserting our own meanings into place... we rule the animals, their pelts keep us warm etc...
jack - It is an argument from Adams, Pinker and Co who think that evolutionary psychology in tandem with some other subjects (none that have worked out culture) are the subjects of human nature: that is a fiction.
When lifeless matter (physical dimension) moves into the realm of life (natural dimension) we need to understand the new rules not from lifeless matter but from within/through nature. Likewise the social and cultural dimension have to be understood on their own terms and imperatives.
jack - And that starts by understanding that with the emergence of behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens we have the first species that breaks free of the gene (in a sense) into a new dimension of causation: meaning.
Human expression has created the social world of the urban in which most humans live now, a network of trillions and trillions of artifacts that together are the primary source of experience for most humans. Dynamic, causative, value-laden information: meaning.
@naturalpreservation The notion that we are the only creatures upon the earth which imbue the physical, inanimate world with ethereal meaning is demonstrably false. A very good example of this is Skinner's pigeon within the box, if you were to associate a given occurrence or action with the act of the pigeon receiving food, it is quickly seen that the pigeon will internalize this and repeat it in an attempt to obtain food.
@Ibrautigam cont'd - This action would be repeated by the pigeon even if there was no causal link between the action and the procurement of food. For example, one pigeon within Skinner's box happened to, on multiple occasions, turn its head to the left just before a piece of food randomly was dropped into the box, once this happened enough times, the pigeon would repeat the action in an attempt to set in motion the events which it "believed" would provide it with food, that is "meaning".
You are confusing meaning with just 'learning.' I'm arguing (and I think the wider world of knowledge is moving in this direction) that the human cognitive and behavioural frequency is 'meaning.' So when we 'read' the results of Skinner's pigeon box it has meaning for the human mind, but as I have just said that's the behavioural and cognitive frequency the human condition acts through.
Meaning doesn't just 'appear' in the record, it emerges through an evolution through primordial and proto meaning (and culture) before meaning/culture (proper) emerge. Evolutionary theory has import over 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years because the gene-environment duality is a relatively stable enough one.
When behaviourally modern humans emerge they engage through meaning and have created trillions and trillions of artifacts, all which are means.
So you can't have it all gene-centrism with pigeons on the one hand and then mostly learning on the other. The rubicon that the human condition moves into with our super-learnability is that culture and mind in relative concert are more influential then biological and/or genetic factors.
We're the only species that applies to and understanding this causative transition through natural history in a car bumper sticker (short but kind of sweet) would be 'Geneing to Meaning.'
Meaning is the causative, relative informational range humans engage in. Vedral's book on quantum information refers to 'mutual information' and Tooby & Cosmides (evolutionary psychologists) refer to the peculiarity of human 'contingently true information.'
It's more than learning and facilitates this transfer of capacity/power from the natural world to the cultural, to be a human being is to be a 'human believing.' Not intermittently, but at the heart of the human condition.
To be a human being is to be a 'human believing'. The sheer scale and scope of the human range of relevance is such that Dawkins wrote in 'A Devil's Chaplain' that humans have "the gift of internalising the very cosmos."
The range that humans engage in is not information, it is 'meaning' which can be stored as external knowledge and fedback as material and content but rather blandly referred to as information. It is profoundly relative and is central to understanding humankind and culture.
Human super-learning from this primary source of experience that our own single species have constructed and reconstructed 'feedsback' as behavioural software influencing our thoughts and behaviours to a more influential level than our genetic/biological heritage.
Different cultures have different values, customs, traditions, laws and conventions. As a consequence the 'behavioural software' differs from culture to culture, over time and place.
In terms of understanding 'kinds' of information we can use (with vigilance) the metaphor of 'behavioural software' to convey the difference between computer code (data) and the informational range of relevance that the human species engages in.
As a consequence of human cognitive and emotional depth they have constructed a social world (not an organic environment) constructed of trillions of artifacts that is the primary source of experience for most humans across the world.
Evolution as the theory of explaining the diversity of life's species over geological time in the nature setting is secure, however it remains well short of a general theory of nature as long as there is no worked out theory of time(s), environment(s) and information(s)
We're into year 151 of evolutionary theory's failure to account for culture and Pinker and Co (and Adams above) can go on and on about humans being an evolved creature but they can't theorise culture to the required standard
IK - Adams says we are a bunch of cavemen, he couldn't be more wrong. As Dawkins has conceded we are the only known intelligent designers in the observable Universe.
A single species have created trillions of artifacts and they all have something crucial in common, they were 'meaningful' enough to stick around in culture: they mattered.
While they matter they can influence other minds as both cause and effect. Meaning can be tricky and I think you are too stubborn, even lazy at this time IK.
No, not at all. Your problem is that you wrap up a simple idea with reams and reams of unncessary words, most likely to try adn show how intelligent you are. The problem is, it's patently obvious that beyond the basic premise, you have little understanding; on top of that, you are poor at articulating your ideas, so you pad your statements with excess words, and say a lot of nothing.
IK - We can say we are evolved creatures, or have evolved psychologies until we are blue in the face, but that says little or nothing. It certainly doesn't get to a realisation of how culture works.
Time is non-corporeal and real. Natural selection as a force is non-corporeal and although metaphorical a real process. When you communicate with someone you are exchanging meaning, non-corporeal, real, causative and once understood fully you can get it - it's the second gravity.
"We can say we are evolved creatures, or have evolved psychologies until we are blue in the face, but that says little or nothing. It certainly doesn't get to a realisation of how culture works."
Without that evolution, culture would not have existed.
Douglas Adams can go on and on about all this information around us, Michael Shermer refers to "a sea of information" but they are missing the point. It's a sea of relative meaning, it is causative, generated by humans (just one species) and networked together makes up our primary source of experience in the urban world around us.
Sitting in a room in front of a laptop/PC typing away is pretty different from Darwin's organic environments.
It's a difference of dimension. Meaning is the key.
You still have not defined what "Embrace culture" means.
"It's a sea of relative meaning, it is causative, generated by humans (just one species) and networked together makes up our primary source of experience in the urban world around us."
Ductape- I'd check out 'The Purpose of Purpose' on you tube where after decades of thinking/arguing/saying that culture was a Darwinian phenomenon Dawkins now says that culture is an entirely new kind of evolution, a million times faster than Darwinian evolution
Welcome to culture Richard, oh and by the way its 'Expression' from 'Evolution' not another kind of evolution - we can do without confusion from those ill-qualified to comment, no matter how welcome we are to their conversion to culture
natural- Just so long as you understand that all culture is a direct expression of the technology available at the time. Tool manufacture and utilization is a direct expression of natural selection. If a culture embraces a new technology it must immediately adapt to the "new environment" created by this technology for its perceived best chances of survival or risk no longer being able to compete. I'd check out 'The Gods Must Be Crazy.
ductape - It's clear you could never reach newer levels of sophistication with your overly general use of words, a familiar technique of 'clumping' from the neo-Darwinian perspective when dealing with culture.
Culture is more 'adoption' than adaptation. An expression in the form of a new artifact into the social world of humankind is maintained not by biology, but by 'expressed' interest.
The adaptation you refer to is more learning, that's Lamarckian not Darwinian.
Ductape said - Tool manufacture and utilization is a direct expression of natural selection.
(back to me) It's difficult to find a more ridiculous statement throughout you tube. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was about domestication, 'artificial selection' and/or 'man's methodical selection'.
Your misunderstanding of culture and the social world of humankind is even deeper than I feared.
Remember, artificial 'selection' is a cast iron fact, natural 'selection' is a metaphor. Remember.
Ductape - You seem to be confusing 'natural' as in the organic with the outcome from a scenario of interwoven phenomena. Such a confusion can argue that it was 'natural' for WWII to start.
You are retreating into a position of stating that natural selection is indeed causation, which is powerfully misplaced.
How do you account for element 93 - Neptunium, the first synthetic, human created chemical element?
The artificial is not the organic. They can be understood, but it's not all selection
"How do you account for element 93 - Neptunium, the first synthetic, human created chemical element? "
What do you mean by "account for"?
We know, generally speaking, how atoms work, although that knowledge is not complete. Using that knowledge (in the areas of chemistry and physics), we produced it using nuclear reactions.
And actually, you are incorrect.... It can also be found in trace quantities in uranium ores.
Everything in the universe is not defined by natural selection
ik - humans have to use some form of conversational medium to convey meaning.
This can be done by articulation, talking, typing, TV, radio, newspapers, blogging, etc. Media. Expressions are conveyed in/through artifacts (or 'means') and these are what bind the social world of humankind together.
I'm not pretending it's easy it's tricky stuff but I have tried to lower my level to come down and help you but it doesn't seem like you are trying.
And it wouldn't be built on the sand of metaphor, it would have to have law(s), a body of theory, as well as bridging into physics, and necessarily improving our current understanding of evolutionary theory, even providing the template for a general theory of nature, as shown by a general theory of culture.
As important as evolutionary theory is, it's well short of a general theory of nature. Some will 'settle' while others will keep on wanting to discover not rest on the comfort of dogma.
ik - Thank you for raising the issue of 'value'. Understanding the causative force of 'meaning' is a beginning to understanding the transition from 'geneing to meaning' (even you can get that).
The copying and continuity that defines the gene-centric snapshot of nature's complexity cannot, and never can explain the dynamic construction of culture and the social world of humankind
The fact that you are unable/unwilling to read what I am typing only underlines culture's relativity
"The copying and continuity that defines the gene-centric snapshot of nature's complexity cannot, and never can explain the dynamic construction of culture and the social world of humankind"
Never said it did. My response: SO WHAT?
"
The fact that you are unable/unwilling to read what I am typing"
ik - I'm not saying that you are not getting 'a' reading from what I am releasing.....but you are not reading.
We have a theory of the organic world of nature (evolution) that explains biological and botanical change over geological time and yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind/culture.
That is a profound problem for science and knowledge. Unless that is (as you seem to be good at) if you just shrug your shoulders and say "So what".
ik - poor typist, poor understanding of culture, poor grasp of evolutionary attempts to account for culture, poor understanding of 'universal Darwinism', inability to ponder on the idea that meaning has an invisible weight...
You can take some comfort that in your poverty there is at least consistency.
"poor grasp of evolutionary attempts to account for culture"
1st
No such thing as an "evolutinary attempt to account for culture". Evolution is an explanation of the natural process of biological changes over time. It doesn't attempt anything. The theory doesn't address culture.
There have been misguided attempts to shoe-horn culture into the model of evolution, usually by those with a poltical agenda, or those with a poor understanding of science (or both)
ik - Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett are perhaps the most prominent neo-Darwinian thinkers of this generation and they all believe (that's all it is, a belief) that culture is a Darwinian process.
You are under-read there. Dawkins and Dennett are adherents to 'Universal Darwinism', so yet again you are wrong.
There is a history, a catalogue of neo-Darwinian attempts to account for culture, and you deny it with a few words.
That is the power of meaning that it can override the real world, or try to.
Douglas Adam says it in this video, that 99% of homo genus were hunter-gatherer. If we take behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens (approx 40,000 years) over the 3.7 billion years of life on earth we are talking about 1/100,000th of life on earth.
We have the emergence of art, articulate language, artificual settings towards the urban and trillions of artifacts which make up our primary source of experience. 'Nature' it's not, but it can be materially worked out.
These are intelligent people but they make the lasting confusion that 'their' science (natural sciences) are in fact 'all' of science. Physicists work through physical laws, Darwin and Wallace were both naturalists, it makes perfect science sense that culture and mind come from the social sciences.
No other life can write but if they could the only book they could write would be 'Hitchhikers Guide to my Localised Environment'. Metaphor and evolutionary wording can't fill that Galactic gap.
ik - You ask a very potent question, "What does that mean in human?"
As life unfolds over geological time, as life becomes more complex socially so to does the range of communication/awareness. Each range can be understood as a kind of information, with humans that range is 'meaning'.
Animals communicate but they don't do meaning. Society releases and people read. Culture is the sum total (and field) of all those releases and readings ebbing and flowing all around us.
ik - Cultural phenomenon works through and around humans but is itself not a biological phenomenon. We're now into year 151 since Darwin and no Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian general theory of culture. The reason for that is simple, there can't be one.
Social Darwinism, eugenics, cultural ethology, sociobiology, memetics, evolutionary psychology and not one of them understands culture.
Culture is the 'business' of the social sciences and they'll work it out, and it's demanding stuff.
ik - No, you are mistaken. It has almost nothing at all to do with culture, which is what they tried to do.
I did say Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian. Perhaps you weren't reading. The truth hurts.
It's a catalogue of historical failure to unlock culture, that's for sure. Certainly there is nothing you can say that can disguise that lasting, fairly deep historical fact.
"I did say Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian. Perhaps you weren't reading"
I was. You are jsut using the label incorrectly.
"Social Darwism" is a made up construct that has NOTHING to do with Darwinian evolution. Rather, a wholesale misunderstanding (or worse yet, an out and out deception) of it.
You still haven't said anything other than to babble.
ik - Okay work through the rest of the list then....eugenics....cultural ethology....sociobiology.....memetics....evolutionary psychology.
You are on to a massive loser there. Whatever area of knowledge you think you know about, you are out of your depth here.
Douglas Adams says "and we need to understand that". The social world of humankind is our primary source of experience, a construction of trillions of artifacts all networked together.
A nebulous statement with no value. Define what you mean. In what way should one "embrace culture"? How does that manifest into thoughts and actions that an individual can execute? Explain how it's not an hollow platitude, or some airy-fairy new ages bullshit slogan.
ik - As life unfolds over evolution so to do each species 'range of relevance' in terms of communication/awareness. The human 'range of relevance' is meaning and no other animal engages in meaning.
Humans create art and can't stop constructing artifacts and technology which knitted together make up the fabric of society, our primary source of experience - for most humans.
Meaning is causative, indeed it is the second gravitation, it has a weight that can't be seen, but we can feel it.
ik - You are out of your depth here. You were funny, now you are just irritating.
If you can manage to snap out of knee-jerk mode and ruminate on it the idea that 'meaning' as a weight and an unfolding effect makes perfect and rather elegant sense.
It comes from human expression, the law/axiom would be:
'A cultural expression is equal to the sum total of all unfolding impressions.'
You keep mentioning 'new age' and I want to seek the underlying laws of culture.
ik - You mention matter, this is good. You are following culture and meaning well now.
Cultural 'matters' are conducted through/over the mediums of culture. They come in two forms:
1. Matters of (football, internet, politics, etc), and
2. Matters to (how relevant and important that 'matter' is for you)
When we say something 'matters' we are always saying that it is 'meaningful' and the weight of meaning is equal to the sum total of all unfolding impressions.
ik - Unless you are an adherent of telepathy, humans have to engage in some kind of conversational meaning to convey meaning.
Stringing words together can/does convey meaning although this is relative but in 'thIte sum total of all unfolding impressions' we can understand meaning's weight.
Darwin had weight, Shakespeare has weight. They had gravitas. The awareness that humans have their own gravity is pretty major stuff, history is full of 'ik's.
ik - I'll ask you a question, what does it mean to say that Darwin had gravitas?
I think it means that he had influence, not of biology but by the expression of his work, which was substantial. The substance of his work, the material/matter of his work is meaning.
Meaning is the communicative/awareness range of humans. Not man-ing, or men-ing but meaning.
And when you say non-sense, you are referring to the sense of human mind, the preserver of meaning.
The puddle evaporated to soon.
henryporter101 1 month ago
thumbs up if you READ the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy......
jimmy12312322 2 months ago
Comment removed
jimmy12312322 2 months ago
Evolution is nonsense, plainly nonsense, I did not evolve from a creationist, I am from a separate species. They were made by some lunatic god and I wasn´t.
yatter1 2 months ago
i miss douglas. he had a profound influence on my idea of humor and the world around me. he left far too soon.
TheDeadmike31 4 months ago
If the world was made for me, why are there tigers, lightning, and disease?
ORCA4312 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most popular Asian girls wait for you oneman4u.info
454815775646n 8 months ago
Is there a better quality version of this clip?
ogrish84 10 months ago
Ah.... Douglas, miss you.
fatcat2939 10 months ago 4
I think davisne got all the attention they were after there... if they wanted evidence and the truth - believe me, they would have found it by now
AcroStigma 1 year ago 2
I guess Douglas has his own visual proof of evolution, since he was alive millions of years ago to see it himself. Blah, yet he criticizes people who believe in God.
davisne 1 year ago
@davisne "I guess Douglas has his own visual proof of evolution"
You don't need to have observed something taking place for there to be reasonable evidence that it did happen. I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about, not even the central theme of evolutionary biology. You're just echoing other very poor and outdated creationist arguments.
hectixx 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is brain dead, If man evolved from monkeys.....why are there still monkeys?
davisne 1 year ago
@davisne, are you seriously asking that question? Let me ask you this. If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? Because populations consist of lots of individuals and they can diverge. The only way you can make such a stultifyingly ignorant comment is if you have made no effort whatsoever to understand the subject you're criticising. It's like saying gravity isn't real because birds don't fall out of the sky like bricks.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 37
@theinquisitor Such a great comment...Well done.
Dwslassls 7 months ago
@theinquisitor @malakispanien @davisne All of them are fine, intelligent, provable answers to 'davisne's stultifyingly ignorant question. But if I may interject for a moment, with....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, furthermore...... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
comanchio1976 5 months ago
@davisne
Actually, monkeys and humans have same ancestor - humans did NOT evolve from monkeys. Does it make sense now?
Nomels 1 year ago
@davisne LOL are you serious. Please view a video on how evolution is explained. Please view the You Tube video on "If Man Evolved From Monkeys Why Are There Still Monkeys?" I hope this helps you understan evolution better. And another thing about this video, we are not yet done evolving.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
@davisne Example chimpanzees, no one said we evolved from chimpanzees. No scientist would say "We evolved from chimpanzees" ... mealy that we have a common ancestor. It is a fact that your genes come from your parents, some random mutations can occur because DNA isn't perfect at replicating, but even so the majority of DNA>99.99% will have come from your parents. It naturally comes that if a being shares a large quantity of DNA with you, you are related, the more so the closer you are related.
bradkey98765 1 year ago
@davisneOne easy fact that you can agree with, all of your relatives had children. Your mother gave birth to you, your mothers mother gave birth to her... etc. All of your ancestors survived and had at least one child, each one of them would have been at least slightly different, providing accumulative benefits down the line, why are their benefits, well in terms of the human line of evolution, it was chosen by the individuals, e.g. I love him because he is kind.
bradkey98765 1 year ago
@davisne No one ever said we evolved from a current living animal just that we both evolved from the same ancestor. We didn't evolve from chimpanzees, and they didn't evolve from us. But we both evolved from something that was neither us nor chimp. Think about this, the amount of identical DNA when comparing chimpanzees and humans IS MORE THAN the amount of identical DNA between lions and tigers, and they are interbreedable. DNA comparison is great evidence for ancestry, hence child DNA testing.
bradkey98765 1 year ago
@davisne If you are the child of your parents, why do you still have cousins? Try to understand evolution before you attack it.
eltorten 1 year ago
@davisne Apparently...not ALL of those monkeys evolved.
PeteTheCreeper 1 year ago
@davisne - are you another christian idiot or something?
malakispanien 1 year ago
@davisne ...besides, man hasn't evolved from monkeys but man and monkeys have a common ancestor.
It is time you turn off the TV and open a good book...
malakispanien 1 year ago 14
@malakispanien, a comprehensive response to the "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument is laid out in lesson 517 of How to Pwn a Young Earth Creationist. Taking pwnership of said YEC will occur in short order. Thank you. The partial link is as follows: watch?v=CodWzZfdMXw
theinquisitor 1 year ago 2
@theinquisitor
you should never feed trolls especially on your own videos
z3r0t0l3r4ns 11 months ago 3
@z3r0t0l3r4ns, yeah I should know better. It's like when you have a loose tooth and you can't help poking it. It's uncomfortable and painful but for some reason I can't help myself.
theinquisitor 11 months ago 4
@malakispanien A good point! No one seems to understand this fundamental aspect of evolution.
Nothing alive now ever evolved from anything else alive now, apart from you "evolving" from your mother and father.
What WE came from is no longer around because, well, it became US.
baillou2 11 months ago 3
@malakispanien well said
skepticspace 9 months ago
@davisne nope we re primate not monkeys
mystisme 11 months ago
Comment removed
R18111983 10 months ago
@davisne You don't know who Douglas Adams is (was)?! You've pegged the wrong chap as 'brain dead'.
ziegegeist 6 months ago
@davisne If nice people evolved from Christians, why are there still nut-cases?
HENJAM48 3 months ago
......(See below comment)......
........but this is the result of a vastly and almost infinitely complex history of the universe, from a beginning (big bang) or from infinity and something that the human mind can not comprehend, despite this...I find life a vastly beautiful way to spend the pathetic number of years that I have on this planet, not just to spread my genes, but a wonderful and gracious gift.
journeyisseperate 1 year ago
Sorry, why do I need to believe in things???
I am perfectly understanding of my place in the universe. It is smaller and lesser than negligible. But....why would I possibly want to live and carry on my life knowing that I am pointless, because I can enjoy myself, find pleasure and feel happiness that I could not without life. These emotions are the result of tiny chemicals involving neurotransmitters in my brian, the neural swelling at the tip of my spinal cord, but this is the result of....
journeyisseperate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
naneedj.infoI am very easygoing and I like nature
surangiable 1 year ago
So now he's dead and either really regretting what he said, or not existing in any form. Either of those is depressing. Smart man, yet not smart enough to see the LARGER picture. Humans need to believe in things. He outlines some possible reasons for that but fails to accept it. As if his own brilliant lecture will change the nature of DNA? Atheists are so shortsighted.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub, shortsighted? And yet you view the possibilities in terms of either his damnation or non-existence. There are other possibilities other than Christianity and atheism. Maybe he's with the Great Green Arkelseizure.
Also, yeah he outlines some possible *flawed* reasons to believe in the supernatural and then fails to accept it. Yeah.
And the facts are what they are regardless of whether they are depressing. Ding.
So what is this larger picture? Christianity perhaps? How droll.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 4
@theinquisitor People need to believe in things. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are if you can't even understand that. A worldview that may work for you or I isn't necessarily going to cause a positive change in society if everyone believes it, especially when you look hundreds of years down the road. "Believe in nothing" - sorry, not a valid alternative to faith. Human society can't function without standards of behavior. Invent some and get back to me.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub, I do understand that people need to believe in things, but this is a fact about human psychology, and has nothing to do with the actual truth value of those beliefs.
I don't know what you're responding to when you talk about believing in nothing and standards of behaviour. What has this got to do with this video? Adams is talking about why people believe in the supernatural, not about morality.
And who believes in nothing? Not me, not Adams, not atheists.
I don't understand.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor, waste no time with youtube-christians. you'll lose your nerves. no matter how they'll word it, 90% of their arguments boil down to this= they do not understand the concept of having no faith/belief and the freedom it brings.
somberlight 1 year ago
@theinquisitor It shows that he didn't understand or accept the link between these beliefs and human morality. If I believe there's a pink giraffe living on Neptune, but it causes me to work in soup kitchens to help homeless people, isn't that a good thing? It doesn't matter if what I believe is true, what matters are the results. OFC that was just an example and I don't mean to belittle deity beliefs -- again, no one has seen the whole multiverse. You can't rule out god. That's arrogance.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub, I suppose it is, but religious beliefs are usually more complex than that. Christians can be driven to do good for the same reason that they pervert the teaching of science. Good reasons to do good are available, we don't need to reach for absurd beliefs to justify good work. I think the important aspect is why you believe, not what. If you can believe in one thing on insufficient evidence, you can believe anything on the same poor basis. Including destructive things.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor You have a much higher opinion of humanity's potential than I. Politics is "based on fact" and the media twists and spins the facts however they want. Conservative vs. Liberal, people turn off their minds in favor of belief and loyalism to one group against another group. This failure is inherent in humanity and runs through all aspects of life. In short, people simply can't be 100% rational. So, you have to settle for what works.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub, people don't need to be 100% rational, just as rational as they can be. It's not an all-or-nothing proposal. I just think we'd be better off not believing things on insufficient evidence. That includes the dogmas of political ideologies. People have demonstrated the ability to show great kindness without any religious motivation. Religious morality often just gets in the way as a lot of it is arbitrary rules for pleasing a deity and nothing to do with human well-being.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub I do not need to believe in "things". I either know things or don't.
Nomels 1 year ago
@Nomels This comment makes NO SENSE???
davisne 1 year ago
@davisne
If I know something, I know it. Right? If I do NOT know something, I just don't know. There is no need for belief. For instance, believing in god makes no sense. We do not know if god exists. That is it. This is all we can say and think. Believing in god does not prove it exists. Hope it makes sense now.
Nomels 1 year ago
mi a faszom van
csatimaci 1 year ago
4 people cant make tools!
VarykGerai 1 year ago
This stupid was speaking in the dark... Maybe he thought he was alone lol...it seamed that science didn't help him a lot...monkey ass
Freemason2020 1 year ago
There are fundamental difference between musical pieces and stories.
Rarely can I watch the same movie more than twice a year without becoming bored with it. Meanwhile there is some music which I can listen to a hundred times a year and still love it.
I think it has something to do with the high information density in music as apposed to stories, jokes, etc
2007ASpaceOdyssey 1 year ago
Douglas Adams For God!
dsdougharty 1 year ago
@dsdougharty Did got die?
screamwriter1 1 year ago
@screamwriter1 Short answer YES!. Long answer God never was but if you have to worship something how about someone who makes sense.
dsdougharty 1 year ago
RIP Douglas Adams. He was a great man, and did important job undermining religion. Organised supersition remains our planets second biggest problem, hopefully we will shake off shakles of religion soon. Scandinavia did it in just 60 years, all you need is proper schools and proper science.
bary1234 1 year ago
Greatest man who ever lived.
crocswsocks 1 year ago 8
when he died i didn't know he ever existed, now the more i know him the more i miss him
he was a great and unique personality
skurvenykokoti 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Douggy, you are an incredibly talented comedic author. I'm not bewildered and I know hundreds if not thousand of people who are not bewildered. Only socialists like you think people are bewildered and that is why you think libs like yourself ought to rule the rest of us. Fuck off with your political philosophy and write more books.
stimpsonjcathoek 1 year ago
@stimpsonjcathoek, I'm sure he would if he was alive. He doesn't want to rule anyone. If you'd listened to The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy (the radio version), you'd know his views on rulership. That anyone who wants to rule necessarily isn't suitable to do it.
Also if you don't think the universe is bewildering, then you aren't paying attention. Adams knew that he didn't know. That is the beginning of true wisdom. Try it.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 31
@theinquisitor, Well said, inquisitor. and to stimpsonjcathoek, as much as i appreciate your tribute to the wonderful Ren and Stimpy, your choice of language infuriates me. you are entitled to your views, and considering your closing statement, you don't seem willing to accept opposing views, or indeed criticism to your own, so i'm aware that there's a distinct possibility you may resort to irrational, reactionary, circular arguments to try and undermine my position. but here goes...
evilshy66 1 year ago
@theinquisitor ...cont. As someone who closes with "Fuck off with your political philosphy", you seem to be awfully patronising at the start when you call Mr Adams an "incredibly talented author". Simply because you have apparently found a position in your life that you are happy with, doesn't mean people aren't bewildered. There is a lot out there, and if everyone understood it all, it would be a pretty boring place. Your use of the word 'socialist', in a seemingly derogatory, pejorative even,
evilshy66 1 year ago
@theinquisitor ...cont. way, in common with, it seems, much of the conservative bloc, is also very self righteous and patronising. "libs" are curiously, on a whole, probably less inclined to want to "rule the rest" of us. i don't count myself in either block. my views tend to be of a socialist tendency, and i favour an egalitarian, eco-conscious and liberal (in the TRUE sense of the word) viewpoint, but i do see the conservative point of view.
evilshy66 1 year ago
@theinquisitor In the footsteps of Socrates and many other great thinkers.
CataKlysmiC 6 months ago
@stimpsonjcathoek He can't, he's dead. You fail.
raegoat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF ALL:
.
What is the underlying law of nature.
.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons will have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
.
The underlying law of nature is the most important subject any person can investigate and learn about, can proceed to understand, and can then come to personally apply in life.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
"And he's caught a mammoth!"
That sounds like a Monty Python sketch titled "Caveman Olympics."
TomMSTie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dauglas you are just confused....
darkobul1 1 year ago
Dauglas you are just confused....
darkobul1 1 year ago
Anyone else find it ironic that Douglas Adams loved great technology, and yet this video is of inferior quality?
QueenSlartibartfast 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Adams was a tremendously creative and clever man... why did he tell the same jokes, stories, and antidotes over and over and over again?
2007ASpaceOdyssey 1 year ago
Antidotes? You mean anecdotes don't you? An antidote is a remedy for a poison.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 14
Correct.
2007ASpaceOdyssey 1 year ago
because they were the important ones and one cannot rely on 'word of mouth' to spread great ideas when others are busy silencing them. You have to repeat repeat repeat and never say to yourself "ok, I think the world gets it now"
McPrfctday 1 year ago 6
I think so anyway.
McPrfctday 1 year ago
I think this is a stock lecture which he gave at many places.
t795 1 year ago
@2007ASpaceOdyssey
all speakers, comedians, philosphers
and pundits do this
PlanetBongoSan 1 year ago
@PlanetBongoSan Not all speakers comedians philosphers repeat the same thing over and over again. I went to see George Carlin about 8-9 years ago, and i was worried that i was going to be reciting the stuff with him cause i have seen all of his stuff before.... I had only heard about 10 percent of the stuff he said that night. I also know George Carlin is not the standard :P
Jason29n 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2007ASpaceOdyssey: "why did he tell the same jokes, stories, and antidotes over and over and over again?"
He didn't know things were going to be so rewatchable and accessible in the future. Plus, he knew they'd work if they worked every time before.
LordCustard 1 year ago
@2007ASpaceOdyssey is it worse to tell the same anecdotes again and again, than it is for misicians to play the same song again and again in different concerts/shows? Its a performance.
PracticalTheorist 1 year ago
According to Dawkins himself it could also be 'Human nature/condition as intelligent designer' as he told Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.
Intelligent designer is as good a phrase to describe a single species who have created trillions and trillions of artifacts that together provide the primary source of experience for most human beings, which is quite different from the organic setting in/of nature.
Accultured indeed.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
I think that science, critical thinking and knowledge in general can realise the underlying mechanisms and axioms/laws that underpin culture. Understanding the material basis to culture would mean also realising that it operates differently to nature
You can/could understand the difference between culture and nature without 'having to' believe in God. There's a degree of insecurity from neo-Darwinism here
This 'evolved creature' doesn't really say anything and rings hollow
Accultured creature
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
In part, even large part when it comes to Dennett and Dawkins, any new set of laws and imperatives that apply only to humankind and culture threaten to underline some kind of human exceptionalism that they fear religious people will cease on.
*Newsflash* Artificial selection is already an indication of that and evolutionary theory haven't been able to account for culture over the last 151 years now, despite numerous attempts.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Part of Darwin's legacy was his obervation of 'artificial selection' (from which he metaphorised 'natural selection') and this is something neo-Darwinians since have failed to develop more, instead they have tried to shoe-horn the ill-fitting 'natural selection' and reference to 'evolved creature' to account for humankind and culture.
We are the only species with our own selections, surely that must get the critical thinking alarm bells ringing?
Clearly not.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
If science is to realise a material understanding of humankind and culture then it can never be done by referring on and on to 'an evolved creature' because this says little or nothing about 'meaning' as a dimension of behavioural software that humans engage in.
Animals communicate, but within a seeming finiteness, they don't engage in meaning. The human condition is seemingly infinite (internalising the very cosmos) and grasping 'meaning' is a huge piece of the jigsaw.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation, I wish I understood what you were saying so I could argue with you.
Perhaps thoughts of this depth are more suited to a video response.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
I hear (read) you inquisitor but as good as Adams is at writing about weird fictitional galaxies he is out of his depth when it comes to crystallising the differences of dimension that humankind and culture represent to the study of the material world.
This very video is at times a rambling about the social world of humankind only to return to the default 'evolved creature' phrase.
151 years without a Darwinian general theory of culture, so it's not ALL evolvedness.
The key is 'meaning'.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
inquisitor - I mean one minute Adams calls us "incredibly sophisticated urban dwellers" and then a short time after he refers to us all "as five billion cavemen walking around this world in a state of complete bewilderment."
Not slight bewilderment but complete bewilderment. That looks to completely undermine his point about being "incredibly sophisticated urban dwellers".
He then 'arrives' at "evolved creatures" as if that is the logical conclusion of his argument.
It's not. He's reaching.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
I think his point is that our genetic nature has remained largely unchanged since we were living in caves, and the cultural changes are what account for our ability to become sophisticated urban dwellers.
The cultural changes since we were living in caves cannot obliterate the lowly stamp of our origins. We are not blank slates programmed only by culture, our evolutionary heritage plays a significant role in our social and mental states. Forgive me if I missed the point of your objection.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 6
inquisitor - I think what you typed there sounds reasonable but the difficulty it's fairly general and I'm all about reaching more sophisticated levels of understanding. One of the lasting problems is that social scientists have a better handle on culture than evolutionary theorists and vice versa.
I don't think we are cavemen and any understanding of humans would have to be through 'the human condition' and not 'human nature'.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
inquisitor - I can see sociological psychology emerging in/through the social sciences and if that approach (encorporating a Sociology of evolutionary theory) had enough biological and/or genetic understanding through its approach it would have far more explanatory capacity that 'evolutionary psychology'.
I do think that the weight of mind and culture in relative concnert is more influential on our thoughts and behaviours than biological considerations.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
inquisitor - I'll leave you with this brief, even crude shorthand to highlight a point. Let's say Adams caveman's behaviour was 55% genetic/biological, 25% proto-cultural and 20% emergent through the circulation of both of them.
We could contrast that with 'sophisticated urban dweller' with say 35% genetic/biological factors, 45% culture/mind concert and 20% emergent through the circulation of all three of which culture/mind would have a larger portion
This is rough, but where I am coming from
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
inquisitor - Darwin wrote himself that 'domestication' does TWO things:
(1) it much diminishes the effects of instincts, and
(2) it develops new habits that are culturally rooted in the social world around us.
I think Darwin's theory was/is a significant development for science and wider epistemology. As big as it was/is a general theory of culture would necessarily be more influential in understanding the underlying mechanisms of humankind and culture.
It's complex, but knowable....with time.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Even if you manage to put meaning into a category of its own, I don't think it has anything to do with evolution, or with us being evolved creatures. But I don't exactly know if you refer to meaning in the way man finds meaning in his existence or like an "ultimate meaning" or purpose for everything that exists and will exist.
halonone 1 year ago
As life species unfold and ripple out over evolutionary/geological time so to does complexity and the emergence of sociality in terms of communication/awareness
We can understand that each species experience is located within a range of relevance. The human range of relevance is 'meaning' (not men'ing, or man'ing, but meaning)
Animals communicate and have a range of relevance but they don't engage in/through meaning. Meaning is at the core of cultural causation, and how we experience time.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
halo - I think that meaning (culture preserves it on the outside, mind on the inside) is a field phenomenon and we are drawn to things that have enough meaning for us.
'Meaning' is a kind of informational range that comes from human cognitive and emotional depth. We've created trillions and trillions of artifacts (means) which networked together are the primary source of experience in the world around us.
Edward T. Hall called culture 'the hidden dimension', and yet meaning is all around us.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
halo -Adams says it himself that we are surrounded by all this information (which we in large part have created ourselves) but it's not random there is a system to it and 'meaning' is the key
A sociological psychology with an understanding of culture, mind and the evolutionary process would have much more explanatory capacity in illuminating the human condition than evolutionary psychology referring to "an evolved creature" which becomes more devalued and meaningless as its asserted as argument
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
It isn't an argument. We tend to think of ourselves as 'sophisticated urban dwellers' but there is no difference between me and any other homo sapiens sapiens that has lived. Ever since the ice age we have been on evolutionary borrowed time, we saved ourselves through communication and ruthless ingenuity sacrificing many creatures along the way. We have changed the nature of how evolution acts on us by inserting our own meanings into place... we rule the animals, their pelts keep us warm etc...
jacksawild 1 year ago
jack - It is an argument from Adams, Pinker and Co who think that evolutionary psychology in tandem with some other subjects (none that have worked out culture) are the subjects of human nature: that is a fiction.
When lifeless matter (physical dimension) moves into the realm of life (natural dimension) we need to understand the new rules not from lifeless matter but from within/through nature. Likewise the social and cultural dimension have to be understood on their own terms and imperatives.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
jack - And that starts by understanding that with the emergence of behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens we have the first species that breaks free of the gene (in a sense) into a new dimension of causation: meaning.
Human expression has created the social world of the urban in which most humans live now, a network of trillions and trillions of artifacts that together are the primary source of experience for most humans. Dynamic, causative, value-laden information: meaning.
It's all around
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation The notion that we are the only creatures upon the earth which imbue the physical, inanimate world with ethereal meaning is demonstrably false. A very good example of this is Skinner's pigeon within the box, if you were to associate a given occurrence or action with the act of the pigeon receiving food, it is quickly seen that the pigeon will internalize this and repeat it in an attempt to obtain food.
Ibrautigam 1 year ago
@Ibrautigam cont'd - This action would be repeated by the pigeon even if there was no causal link between the action and the procurement of food. For example, one pigeon within Skinner's box happened to, on multiple occasions, turn its head to the left just before a piece of food randomly was dropped into the box, once this happened enough times, the pigeon would repeat the action in an attempt to set in motion the events which it "believed" would provide it with food, that is "meaning".
Ibrautigam 1 year ago
@Ibrautigam
You are confusing meaning with just 'learning.' I'm arguing (and I think the wider world of knowledge is moving in this direction) that the human cognitive and behavioural frequency is 'meaning.' So when we 'read' the results of Skinner's pigeon box it has meaning for the human mind, but as I have just said that's the behavioural and cognitive frequency the human condition acts through.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Ibrautigam
Meaning doesn't just 'appear' in the record, it emerges through an evolution through primordial and proto meaning (and culture) before meaning/culture (proper) emerge. Evolutionary theory has import over 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years because the gene-environment duality is a relatively stable enough one.
When behaviourally modern humans emerge they engage through meaning and have created trillions and trillions of artifacts, all which are means.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Ibrautigam
So you can't have it all gene-centrism with pigeons on the one hand and then mostly learning on the other. The rubicon that the human condition moves into with our super-learnability is that culture and mind in relative concert are more influential then biological and/or genetic factors.
We're the only species that applies to and understanding this causative transition through natural history in a car bumper sticker (short but kind of sweet) would be 'Geneing to Meaning.'
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Ibrautigam
Meaning is the causative, relative informational range humans engage in. Vedral's book on quantum information refers to 'mutual information' and Tooby & Cosmides (evolutionary psychologists) refer to the peculiarity of human 'contingently true information.'
It's more than learning and facilitates this transfer of capacity/power from the natural world to the cultural, to be a human being is to be a 'human believing.' Not intermittently, but at the heart of the human condition.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
To be a human being is to be a 'human believing'. The sheer scale and scope of the human range of relevance is such that Dawkins wrote in 'A Devil's Chaplain' that humans have "the gift of internalising the very cosmos."
The range that humans engage in is not information, it is 'meaning' which can be stored as external knowledge and fedback as material and content but rather blandly referred to as information. It is profoundly relative and is central to understanding humankind and culture.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Human super-learning from this primary source of experience that our own single species have constructed and reconstructed 'feedsback' as behavioural software influencing our thoughts and behaviours to a more influential level than our genetic/biological heritage.
Different cultures have different values, customs, traditions, laws and conventions. As a consequence the 'behavioural software' differs from culture to culture, over time and place.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
In terms of understanding 'kinds' of information we can use (with vigilance) the metaphor of 'behavioural software' to convey the difference between computer code (data) and the informational range of relevance that the human species engages in.
As a consequence of human cognitive and emotional depth they have constructed a social world (not an organic environment) constructed of trillions of artifacts that is the primary source of experience for most humans across the world.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
Evolution as the theory of explaining the diversity of life's species over geological time in the nature setting is secure, however it remains well short of a general theory of nature as long as there is no worked out theory of time(s), environment(s) and information(s)
We're into year 151 of evolutionary theory's failure to account for culture and Pinker and Co (and Adams above) can go on and on about humans being an evolved creature but they can't theorise culture to the required standard
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
IK - Adams says we are a bunch of cavemen, he couldn't be more wrong. As Dawkins has conceded we are the only known intelligent designers in the observable Universe.
A single species have created trillions of artifacts and they all have something crucial in common, they were 'meaningful' enough to stick around in culture: they mattered.
While they matter they can influence other minds as both cause and effect. Meaning can be tricky and I think you are too stubborn, even lazy at this time IK.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
Known, being the operative word.......
"and I think you are too stubborn"
No, not at all. Your problem is that you wrap up a simple idea with reams and reams of unncessary words, most likely to try adn show how intelligent you are. The problem is, it's patently obvious that beyond the basic premise, you have little understanding; on top of that, you are poor at articulating your ideas, so you pad your statements with excess words, and say a lot of nothing.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - I'm bored with you now.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
I was bored with you a day ago, but you kept talking...
your favorite pasttime
ikvsabre 2 years ago
IK - We can say we are evolved creatures, or have evolved psychologies until we are blue in the face, but that says little or nothing. It certainly doesn't get to a realisation of how culture works.
Time is non-corporeal and real. Natural selection as a force is non-corporeal and although metaphorical a real process. When you communicate with someone you are exchanging meaning, non-corporeal, real, causative and once understood fully you can get it - it's the second gravity.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"We can say we are evolved creatures, or have evolved psychologies until we are blue in the face, but that says little or nothing. It certainly doesn't get to a realisation of how culture works."
Without that evolution, culture would not have existed.
"it's the second gravity."
More bullshit.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
Douglas Adams can go on and on about all this information around us, Michael Shermer refers to "a sea of information" but they are missing the point. It's a sea of relative meaning, it is causative, generated by humans (just one species) and networked together makes up our primary source of experience in the urban world around us.
Sitting in a room in front of a laptop/PC typing away is pretty different from Darwin's organic environments.
It's a difference of dimension. Meaning is the key.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
You still have not defined what "Embrace culture" means.
"It's a sea of relative meaning, it is causative, generated by humans (just one species) and networked together makes up our primary source of experience in the urban world around us."
A lot of words, saying nothing.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
natural-p....your not drinking again are you?
and on a Thursday morning none the less.
Love and Rockets' "You can not go against nature, because when you do, go against nature, it's part of nature too"-1987
Richard Dawkins' "A Devil's Chaplain"-2003
Silly Goose
theDuctapeUnion 2 years ago
Ductape- I'd check out 'The Purpose of Purpose' on you tube where after decades of thinking/arguing/saying that culture was a Darwinian phenomenon Dawkins now says that culture is an entirely new kind of evolution, a million times faster than Darwinian evolution
Welcome to culture Richard, oh and by the way its 'Expression' from 'Evolution' not another kind of evolution - we can do without confusion from those ill-qualified to comment, no matter how welcome we are to their conversion to culture
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
natural- Just so long as you understand that all culture is a direct expression of the technology available at the time. Tool manufacture and utilization is a direct expression of natural selection. If a culture embraces a new technology it must immediately adapt to the "new environment" created by this technology for its perceived best chances of survival or risk no longer being able to compete. I'd check out 'The Gods Must Be Crazy.
theDuctapeUnion 2 years ago
ductape - It's clear you could never reach newer levels of sophistication with your overly general use of words, a familiar technique of 'clumping' from the neo-Darwinian perspective when dealing with culture.
Culture is more 'adoption' than adaptation. An expression in the form of a new artifact into the social world of humankind is maintained not by biology, but by 'expressed' interest.
The adaptation you refer to is more learning, that's Lamarckian not Darwinian.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
Ductape said - Tool manufacture and utilization is a direct expression of natural selection.
(back to me) It's difficult to find a more ridiculous statement throughout you tube. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was about domestication, 'artificial selection' and/or 'man's methodical selection'.
Your misunderstanding of culture and the social world of humankind is even deeper than I feared.
Remember, artificial 'selection' is a cast iron fact, natural 'selection' is a metaphor. Remember.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
Ductape - You seem to be confusing 'natural' as in the organic with the outcome from a scenario of interwoven phenomena. Such a confusion can argue that it was 'natural' for WWII to start.
You are retreating into a position of stating that natural selection is indeed causation, which is powerfully misplaced.
How do you account for element 93 - Neptunium, the first synthetic, human created chemical element?
The artificial is not the organic. They can be understood, but it's not all selection
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"How do you account for element 93 - Neptunium, the first synthetic, human created chemical element? "
What do you mean by "account for"?
We know, generally speaking, how atoms work, although that knowledge is not complete. Using that knowledge (in the areas of chemistry and physics), we produced it using nuclear reactions.
And actually, you are incorrect.... It can also be found in trace quantities in uranium ores.
Everything in the universe is not defined by natural selection
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - humans have to use some form of conversational medium to convey meaning.
This can be done by articulation, talking, typing, TV, radio, newspapers, blogging, etc. Media. Expressions are conveyed in/through artifacts (or 'means') and these are what bind the social world of humankind together.
I'm not pretending it's easy it's tricky stuff but I have tried to lower my level to come down and help you but it doesn't seem like you are trying.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"humans have to use some form of conversational medium to convey meaning."
Yes.
"This can be done by articulation, talking, typing, TV, radio, newspapers, blogging, etc. Media"
Yes. Two relevent statements in a row! A new record for you, it seems.
"but it doesn't seem like you are trying. "
Until this post, you didn't string together two sentences in a row that weren't self-absorbed drivel.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
And it wouldn't be built on the sand of metaphor, it would have to have law(s), a body of theory, as well as bridging into physics, and necessarily improving our current understanding of evolutionary theory, even providing the template for a general theory of nature, as shown by a general theory of culture.
As important as evolutionary theory is, it's well short of a general theory of nature. Some will 'settle' while others will keep on wanting to discover not rest on the comfort of dogma.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
" Some will 'settle' while others will keep on wanting to discover not rest on the comfort of dogma. "
And others will yammer on inscensantly, saying absolutely nothing of value....
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Thank you for raising the issue of 'value'. Understanding the causative force of 'meaning' is a beginning to understanding the transition from 'geneing to meaning' (even you can get that).
The copying and continuity that defines the gene-centric snapshot of nature's complexity cannot, and never can explain the dynamic construction of culture and the social world of humankind
The fact that you are unable/unwilling to read what I am typing only underlines culture's relativity
Keep blocking
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"The copying and continuity that defines the gene-centric snapshot of nature's complexity cannot, and never can explain the dynamic construction of culture and the social world of humankind"
Never said it did. My response: SO WHAT?
"
The fact that you are unable/unwilling to read what I am typing"
I am reading it. It's drivel.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - I'm not saying that you are not getting 'a' reading from what I am releasing.....but you are not reading.
We have a theory of the organic world of nature (evolution) that explains biological and botanical change over geological time and yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind/culture.
That is a profound problem for science and knowledge. Unless that is (as you seem to be good at) if you just shrug your shoulders and say "So what".
I can't understand that.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"but you are not reading."
I am. You are just not saying anything relevent, coherent, or intelligent.
"and yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind/culture."
It doesn't break down. It isn't meant to explain or definte everything.
If you ACTUALLY understood evolution, you'd understand that.
"and yet breaks down when it comes to the social world of humankind/culture."
Not for those that understand science, or have any knowledge.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
Evolution tells us nothing about physics, either. Does that invalidate either?
You are an inbecile of epic proportions.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Imbecile, or inbecile?
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
Imbecile. I'm a bad typist.
What a great victory for you. You have nothing else.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - poor typist, poor understanding of culture, poor grasp of evolutionary attempts to account for culture, poor understanding of 'universal Darwinism', inability to ponder on the idea that meaning has an invisible weight...
You can take some comfort that in your poverty there is at least consistency.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"poor grasp of evolutionary attempts to account for culture"
1st
No such thing as an "evolutinary attempt to account for culture". Evolution is an explanation of the natural process of biological changes over time. It doesn't attempt anything. The theory doesn't address culture.
There have been misguided attempts to shoe-horn culture into the model of evolution, usually by those with a poltical agenda, or those with a poor understanding of science (or both)
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett are perhaps the most prominent neo-Darwinian thinkers of this generation and they all believe (that's all it is, a belief) that culture is a Darwinian process.
You are under-read there. Dawkins and Dennett are adherents to 'Universal Darwinism', so yet again you are wrong.
There is a history, a catalogue of neo-Darwinian attempts to account for culture, and you deny it with a few words.
That is the power of meaning that it can override the real world, or try to.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
You seem to think that you can just throw words together, and that gives them meaning. It doesn't
ikvsabre 2 years ago
Douglas Adam says it in this video, that 99% of homo genus were hunter-gatherer. If we take behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens (approx 40,000 years) over the 3.7 billion years of life on earth we are talking about 1/100,000th of life on earth.
We have the emergence of art, articulate language, artificual settings towards the urban and trillions of artifacts which make up our primary source of experience. 'Nature' it's not, but it can be materially worked out.
By the social sciences.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
I warned you Christians, the kingdom of God is about to take over this world, prepare yourself, be holy, be like Christ.
.
conceil8 2 years ago
Remember the secret to evolution-'Bang the rocks together guys!"
mattyk722 2 years ago
You can not escape the biological relevance of any of it. Call it "History of Social Sciences 101" since you are so fond of specialization.
theDuctapeUnion 2 years ago
These are intelligent people but they make the lasting confusion that 'their' science (natural sciences) are in fact 'all' of science. Physicists work through physical laws, Darwin and Wallace were both naturalists, it makes perfect science sense that culture and mind come from the social sciences.
No other life can write but if they could the only book they could write would be 'Hitchhikers Guide to my Localised Environment'. Metaphor and evolutionary wording can't fill that Galactic gap.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"Metaphor and evolutionary wording can't fill that Galactic gap. "
What does that mean in human?
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - You ask a very potent question, "What does that mean in human?"
As life unfolds over geological time, as life becomes more complex socially so to does the range of communication/awareness. Each range can be understood as a kind of information, with humans that range is 'meaning'.
Animals communicate but they don't do meaning. Society releases and people read. Culture is the sum total (and field) of all those releases and readings ebbing and flowing all around us.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
You missed the point that I was getting at:
The prior post was incoherent babble.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Cultural phenomenon works through and around humans but is itself not a biological phenomenon. We're now into year 151 since Darwin and no Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian general theory of culture. The reason for that is simple, there can't be one.
Social Darwinism, eugenics, cultural ethology, sociobiology, memetics, evolutionary psychology and not one of them understands culture.
Culture is the 'business' of the social sciences and they'll work it out, and it's demanding stuff.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"Social Darwinism, eugenics, cultural ethology, sociobiology, memetics, evolutionary psychology and not one of them understands culture.
"
And none of that has to do with Darwin AT ALL.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - No, you are mistaken. It has almost nothing at all to do with culture, which is what they tried to do.
I did say Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian. Perhaps you weren't reading. The truth hurts.
It's a catalogue of historical failure to unlock culture, that's for sure. Certainly there is nothing you can say that can disguise that lasting, fairly deep historical fact.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"I did say Darwinian and/or neo-Darwinian. Perhaps you weren't reading"
I was. You are jsut using the label incorrectly.
"Social Darwism" is a made up construct that has NOTHING to do with Darwinian evolution. Rather, a wholesale misunderstanding (or worse yet, an out and out deception) of it.
You still haven't said anything other than to babble.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Okay work through the rest of the list then....eugenics....cultural ethology....sociobiology.....memetics....evolutionary psychology.
You are on to a massive loser there. Whatever area of knowledge you think you know about, you are out of your depth here.
Douglas Adams says "and we need to understand that". The social world of humankind is our primary source of experience, a construction of trillions of artifacts all networked together.
You can't escape from it ik.
Embrace culture.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"eugenics...." - Nothing to do with Darwn
"cultural ethology" - Nothing to do with Darwn
"Embrace culture. "
A nebulous statement with no value. Define what you mean. In what way should one "embrace culture"? How does that manifest into thoughts and actions that an individual can execute? Explain how it's not an hollow platitude, or some airy-fairy new ages bullshit slogan.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Dawkins has conceded the last 2 times he has been on The Colbert Report that humans are the only intelligent designers in the known Universe.
In comparison to 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years that is an almost incomprehensible difference.
If that doesn't fit in with your world view then fine, but let's not re-write history just because you don't want to do the work/reading
Like I said 151 years of trying and sustained failing
It's a problem for critical thought
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"Dawkins has conceded the last 2 times he has been on The Colbert Report that humans are the only intelligent designers in the known Universe."
I don't dispute that. Again, so what?
"If that doesn't fit in with your world view then fine,"
It has nothign to do with my world view. You haven't said anything that isnt' babble.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - As life unfolds over evolution so to do each species 'range of relevance' in terms of communication/awareness. The human 'range of relevance' is meaning and no other animal engages in meaning.
Humans create art and can't stop constructing artifacts and technology which knitted together make up the fabric of society, our primary source of experience - for most humans.
Meaning is causative, indeed it is the second gravitation, it has a weight that can't be seen, but we can feel it.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
Ah, back to the utterly meaningless new age rambling.
for instance:
"the second gravitation"
is absolute bollocks.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - You are out of your depth here. You were funny, now you are just irritating.
If you can manage to snap out of knee-jerk mode and ruminate on it the idea that 'meaning' as a weight and an unfolding effect makes perfect and rather elegant sense.
It comes from human expression, the law/axiom would be:
'A cultural expression is equal to the sum total of all unfolding impressions.'
You keep mentioning 'new age' and I want to seek the underlying laws of culture.
You are well short of that.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"You are out of your depth here."
Buddy, you're standing in a VERY shallow trough.
"'meaning' as a weight and an unfolding effect makes perfect and rather elegant sense."
It's a bullshit concept, made up by a bullshit artist.
as an 'unfolding", while very artsy, means NOTHING.
"I want to seek the underlying laws of culture"
And yet, you continue to babble on, saying nothing.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - If the trough I am in is shallow because there are not a lot of 'ik's then I'm happy to be here live from this trough.
You say it 'means' nothing, that would be meanings resultant unfolding, meanings effect.
To say it 'means' (causes....causation) NOTHING, you are only underlining my assertion that meaning has a weight, is causative yet invisible.
Keep typing words, creating meaning with a weight. All that weight points to you be not knowing what you are talking about, hence the derision
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
You words are weightless.
It my be due to the helium between your ears. No dense matter at all.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - You mention matter, this is good. You are following culture and meaning well now.
Cultural 'matters' are conducted through/over the mediums of culture. They come in two forms:
1. Matters of (football, internet, politics, etc), and
2. Matters to (how relevant and important that 'matter' is for you)
When we say something 'matters' we are always saying that it is 'meaningful' and the weight of meaning is equal to the sum total of all unfolding impressions.
Words matter.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
"Words matter. "
One's specific use of words is relevent to its meaning. But just stringing words together does not in itself create meaning.
Which is why most of yoru rambling is meaningless non-sense.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
ik - Unless you are an adherent of telepathy, humans have to engage in some kind of conversational meaning to convey meaning.
Stringing words together can/does convey meaning although this is relative but in 'thIte sum total of all unfolding impressions' we can understand meaning's weight.
Darwin had weight, Shakespeare has weight. They had gravitas. The awareness that humans have their own gravity is pretty major stuff, history is full of 'ik's.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
ik - I'll ask you a question, what does it mean to say that Darwin had gravitas?
I think it means that he had influence, not of biology but by the expression of his work, which was substantial. The substance of his work, the material/matter of his work is meaning.
Meaning is the communicative/awareness range of humans. Not man-ing, or men-ing but meaning.
And when you say non-sense, you are referring to the sense of human mind, the preserver of meaning.
Keep digging ik.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago