wellbeing

ghosty wrote: i refuse to belabor this point with you any further.

Which one? There's a number of them, considering different parts of what you said, elaborating on ways you could have meant them, general ponderings in response and in objection, a few queries for clarification... In a word, engagement, the thing I'm apparently doing such a poor job of.

its [sic] clear that you only want to contradict, and intellectually unable [sic] to consider what i am saying.

If I only wanted to contradict, then all I'd do is contradict. Instead I agreed to some extents, proposed objections to others, and inquired for elaborations. I don't know if I'm "intellectually able" to consider what you are saying or not - I leave it entirely up to you to question my intelligence or to insult it to any extent you see fit - but I made my attempt, for better or for worse. What substantive part of my post did you make any effort to engage with?

as to your pompous (sic) correction, id [sic] like to point out that you could do with learning the difference between "then" and "than."
..."even eating with forks. If that is all the difference we can point to, than little difference there is indeed"....

Thanks. I must have had a lapse in concentration at that point... It happens. I try not to feel too much shame over it and do better next time.

additonally, my status as a rocket scientist is unknown to you.

Perhaps I should have waited to see what you meant by statistics being guesses before I leapt to that conclusion. Point taken. My apologies.

as is my knowledge of the term simian.

Fair enough. I guess the lesson for me to learn here is not to try so hard to explain where I'm coming from next time and just cut to the 'yay' or 'nay' straight away. Perhaps that would have been the kind of deeper, more thoughtful kind of consideration you were hoping for.

our conversation is ended.

Alright. Sad that you feel this way. I'll carry on having it with whom ever else wishes, then. Be well.

I think the differences afforded by that 1% are huge, and that nature is just reactionary distraction from the potential syngeries of our various faculties as afforded by that 1% to look beyond being slaves chained to environmental stimulus, to an experience of inner imagination and creative embedding in that environmental stimulus. I think most animals have the faculty to some extent, but are 'inflicted' with tighter chains by virtue of their architecture and freedom (restricted, lack thereof) within the environment enough to look beyond nature (even if they can). Which is why scared people act like animals, and dominant people tend to act like predators.
I think the child mind experience often attributed to some spiritual experiences is akin to this bare reactivity but without the minds potential, when embued with both functional understanding and fullness in connection; ignorance yet knowledge.

This is a thought provoking thread. Like Ghosty's initial post, this one is just stream of consciousness - a hodgepodge of loosely related thoughts that arose with me by the inspiration of the previous discussion. There's no advocacy here, and this probably isn't my best-organized post ... it's just a set of points for consideration.

For starters, I wonder if that 1% difference between humans and chimpanzees represents an evolutionary advance or just a neutral difference between species. Some creatures not possessing our capacity for technological innovation or creative use of language - among the things that we typically point to as signifying our superior merit - have their own different capabilities that we cannot match. For example, I recall the writing of an author from the 1970's using the pseudonym Adam Smith, documented in his book "Powers Of Mind" this paraphrased conversation between himself and his six-year--old daughter:

Daughter: "Daddy, when birds fly south for the winter, how do they find there way back?"

Father: "Oh, I suppose they know what general direction to go, and use landmarks and the stars to navigate."

Daughter: "But, how can a bird fly four thousand miles over landscape that looks different in the spring than in the fall, when the stars are in different positions, and find the very nest they left the year before? Even a Pan Am PI-lot can't do that!" (Pan Am being a major airline in that era)

Father: <puzzled silence>

Proportionate to their size, ants are far stronger than us. Dolphins may be as intelligent, though their thinking is expressed in different channels. Dogs may be generally more loyal, and some - along with some cats - seem to have an ability to locate their owners after being lost, when their owners have moved hundreds of miles away into unfamiliar territory. Bonobo monkeys, bison, and lionesses have mastered the art of intra-species peace better than we have (though they can be brutal to other forms of life). Maybe the segment of their DNA that makes them unique is just as good as ours -- it's just different.

Then again, there are some remarkable traits related to our 1% difference. As far as we can tell, we are the only known species (again perhaps excepting dolphins) that prays, philosophizes, and likes stories. We are aware of the need to correct our deficiencies even as we often feel trapped by them. We leave records of our lives. We invent methods to travel in ways that our need to survive does not demand. We put great value on shiny metals and stones. We wear clothes, climb mountains for no apparent purpose, and every January many millions of us gather in our homes to simultaneously watch 22 men run around the grass in a mock battle over a piece of leather.

I don't know whether we are an advanced species. But we sure are a distinctive, curious one.

Well actually homosapiens' closest (relatives ) speaking in this matter is chimpanzees and bonobos . These are no ordinary monkeys , these monkeys have very complex social structure and can even feel feelings . The difference between us and them just happened because of mere genetic circumstance .These circumstance happened a few hundred thousand years ago . Well water level was a bit more up then . So I would guess since we have a better upright posture , we lived near water . To get food out of water our ancestors adapted to have an upright posture . Since our ancestors was getting fatty foods they developed a better fat layer which allowed them to lose much of their hair . Now since they lost their hair , and they had such nutrient rich food like fish and small game . They developed larger brains and better bone structure . After they have that larger brain , they began build tools and rudimentary houses . This leads us to around the end of the ice age around 10,000 years ago . Which we know little about because the largest library that had all that information got burned down . This leads us to speculate about back then , it also explains why we have a subconscious connection with the moon , the sun , and other planets . Why we look beyond what was there . Curiosity is a odd think isn't it ? It's what drove our species to what it has become . I think once a species has curiosity they can do anything .

Malicious wrote: The difference between us and [chimps and bonobos] just happened because of mere genetic circumstance .These circumstance happened a few hundred thousand years ago .

Do you happen to have a citation on this? Any place I look seems to claim that the evidence points to the youngest common ancestor living more like six or so million years ago. If this is what you meant by a few thousand, fair enough. I just intuitively expect less than some three orders of magnitude when I hear "few".

Well water level was a bit more up then . So I would guess since we have a better upright posture , we lived near water . To get food out of water our ancestors adapted to have an upright posture .

Chimps and bonobos have their nostrils point vaguely upwards. Or at least they are on the top of their snout, for what little that counts. If our upright posture is an adaptation for treading through water, why is it that our breathing holes point downwards, where they are more easily blocked by water and more cumbersome and awkward to raise above the water's surface? Don't get me wrong, this is certainly possible, I'm just wondering what kind of selection pressure would have pushed that development in spite of a lifestyle that was so richly aquaeus as to straighten out our body posture.

[The ice age twilight] we know little about because the largest library that had all that information got burned down .

The library did, though I wouldn't say it is clear at all how much it contained about the late ice age years. Artifacts and cave paintings from that time give us a rough pictures of what humans were like around that time, in any case. Written word is by no means the only way we track history, especially history this deep. Besides, there were other cultures at the time of the library fire that kept written records. India and China come to mind, and the Mayan civilization of Middle America went through in something of a golden age at the time. Though, the fact that not a single culture recorded anything about other human species (or subspecies) that lived besides sapiens during the ice age - Neanderthals come to mind - tells me one of three things: Maybe our ancestors couldn't tell that these fellow humans were in fact a different (sub)species than their own. Maybe written records did not survive to this day. Or maybe, they didn't have writing so early already or at any time soon enough for word of mouth to have bridged the gap.

... [This] explains why we have a subconscious connection with the moon , the sun , and other planets .

What do you mean by "subconscious connection" here? It sounds like you mean something non-trivial, profound, but if it's just curiosity, then there is hardly a thing we don't have a subconscious connection to. Also how is the destruction of Alexandria's library an explanation as to why we would have subconscious connections with the moon, the sun, or other planets? What part of that historic event... being a thing... leads us to predict that we would develop any such connection? Again, even if it is curiosity I think this is a bit of a stretch. Surely you don't mean to say that we'd be less curious if only Aurelius hadn't burned the Broucheion quarter. Cats are curious, and they never (to our knowledge) built any libraries for the burning to begin with. So what other subconscious connection might you mean and what does it have to do with the Aurelian conquest?

Altered Carbon wrote: Peace is an illusion.
And no matter how tranquil the world seems peace doesn't last long.
Peace is a struggle against our very nature.
A skin we stretch over the bone, muscle, and sinew of our own innate savagery.

Replace 'our' with 'their' to displace self, and retreat to the hallucination of morality

as the original post stated, it was more or less an observation that i thought could be important.
it was not meant to be a discussion about animal or human (we are animals as well) superiority.
it appears i succeeded in starting a conversation to be sure!
some i find silly, a very few nearing the offensive (to me).
99 percent of it, i find very interesting. much learning.
i really like what an apprentice said...his view that 1 percent of a day is about 15 minutes.
this somewhat goes against my postulate that time itself exists only within our own minds.
but, it is useful, as is the fake concept of time that we invented.
so, i spend about 40-50 minutes per day studying international morse code.
i have many reasons for this, which will be revealed over time i spose.
but this i can tell ya...it WILL help with learning patience, and focus.
and how only perfect practice truly makes perfect.
please continue on!
i feel ... happy that my silly little rambling has created such thoughts!
and may the CODE be with you!

cats are curious because that is their nature, as we understand it to be.
dogs are curious, as are skunks...whatever.
there are proven links to our study of the stars that predates the sacking of alexandria.
no other creature has shown this ability to not only read, but to record.
i pride my scientific mind, but there are things that we simply do not know.
however that one percent seems to be key...
to what, i dont know.
monkeys are quite intelligent. but in ...earth living things terms?
they are far far behind us. as are dolphins.
having said this, i can see where our intelligence as a specie could outstrip our understanding..
the whole thread was meant as a thought exercise.
what it becomes is not up to me.

i would add that if peace is an illusion, then so is war. one cannot exist without the other.
poetic, but useless i think, in any logical manner.

ghosty wrote: i would add that if peace is an illusion, then so is war. one cannot exist without the other.
poetic, but useless i think, in any logical manner.

Peace as the absence of war is literally existing without it.. but I get what you might mean that as concepts they'd have no meaning without the other concept. Concepts are fun because they are harmless so long as they stay concepts, but reality is more then just concepts. And not many pursue war compared to those who pursue peace, so in terms of practical import I think the point might best lie in not slipping onto a dream world where the inside of our bubbles shapes our understanding of what is actually going on outside it. Illusion is one thing, delusion is another. What we tell ourselves to sleep well in the dark night won't protect us from what might actually creep in.