🚀 go-pugleaf

John  Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<9j2890dshgkgrv0qnpenptd3e5dv7ta0nu@4ax.com>...
> On 1 May 2004 11:59:52 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
> Brevis) wrote:

> >> Not 'somehow'. We trained them.
>  
> >'Somehow' means we don't know how the adaptationprocess of the
> >bacteria has worked in this 'training'.
> 
> Sure we do.
Evolution (molecular) ofcourse, but that's an observation not an
explanation:)

> 
> >No. But my point was that we can overcome disease that could be fatal
> >to many by using intelligence.
> 
> Sometimes. But is that a proper criterion for judging superiority?
> The bacterium, with NO intelligence, manages to kill us sometimes.
I thought we agreed that killing one another isn't a criterion.

>  
> >> Bipedal locomotion, an opposable thumb, and a large brain.
> >> Many species have evolved one or two of these. We lucked out and got
> >> all three.
>  
> >Yes heard of those, good, but large brain isn't complete. Complex
> >should be added: think of the fable of the 'smart dolphins'. Their
> >brainsize is equal to ours, but they are probably the dumbest animals
> >alive because of the homogeneous brain mass.
> 
> Dumb by whose standards?
Many neuroscientists. Based on facts. One can't argue that for
intelligence, a complex (multi-layered) cortex is needed and not a
homogeneous brain mass. What are you trying to prove?

> 
> >> >Choose between higher
> >> >or lower organisms. I just don't look into the (completely absent)
> >> >mind of worms.
> >> 
> >> Yes, but what are the criteria for determining 'superiority'?
> >> You want to use dominance. But what about population size? 
> >> Or longevity of the species? Or contribution to the ecology?
>  
> >No one but us decides, it is subjective,
> 
> And a matter of ego. My point sir!
Call it egoism, but the truth is, we all are born as egoists. Can you
think of a baby not being selfish when it wants attention? Thinking of
ourselves, to survive, as a species, is a normal aspect of nature. On
a basic level, all animals are egoists.

> 
> >but the major thing is:
> >there's no one else to object to our decisions.
> 
> And no one, so far as we know, to affirm our opinion of ourselves.
There IS no one else, so it doesn't need to be affirmed. We can say
anything we want.

> 
> >Awareness is major criterion.
> 
> And conceit a major factor.
Don't pretend to have all the answers, I meant that we are in fact the
only ones with awareness and intelligence to rank ourselves superior.
"Ranking" has to be done by intelligent beings, who are aware of the
environment. It is subjective but based on factors which we think are
are very important. So the bacteria can't think, are single celled,
zero intelligence, zero awareness, are part of this mudball and can
kill us too. But they aren't 'aware' to observe the greater whole of
species and their place between those. To 'exist' and to be 'aware of
existing' are two different things, not subjective, but different. We
can manipulate pretty much everything what we want, like 'gods',
because we know...

> >DNA technology will let be able to grow new organs, treat degenerative
> >diseases and slow down the aging process. These aren't opinions.
> 
> At the moment, yes they are. Probably valid opinions, but still just
> opinions.
Huh? Don't be ridiculous. What kind of anti-biblistic thought is
backing this up? These aren't opinions, but things that are really
going to happen (soon).

> >> And there are a good number of other species, including even simpler
> >> single-celled life forms, on whom all life on earth depends. Yes we're
> >> at the top of the food chain, but we're still dependent on what's
> >> under us.
>  
> >Don't defend the theologists with the "animals serve us" theory.
> 
> That's not their intent, nor their planned purpose, but that's what
> happens.
Agreed.

> Atoms.
> Try string theory.
> 
> ## Tits like watermelons. Sparrows like bacon rinds.
Strings, tits like watermelons? ;-)