🚀 go-pugleaf

John  Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in message news:<rp5g90dk32dlv9l5inkqjeva6e96j571k3@4ax.com>...
> On 4 May 2004 13:02:25 -0700, apocalypse_zero@hotmail.com (Hostman
> Brevis) wrote:
> >Philosophically speaking, there's no
> >such thing as true objectivity simply because there's always a human
> >factor in between, an observation described by humans. 
> 
> So 1 + 1 isn't really = 2 in the decimal system? Suuure fellah...
That's not an observation. This is very deep, but I'll try to explain.
In the true world objectivity exists, but it's how close our
subjective ideas/thoughts are to it that determine its validity,
philosophically speaking. From the moment someone sees something and
tells you about it, it has become subjective.

> >And this is certainly the case for this nice little discussion.
> 
> We are discussing a subjective issue here, but that hardly means there
> are no objective issues.

Exactly, except when I say man are superior and you say not, which is
the case, then the "objective" issues are forgotten.

> >> In other words you just ignore criteria that don't support your
> >> argument.
>  
> >I see you are also good at ignoring criteria that don't support your
> >argument.
> 
> I haven't ignored any criteria. I don't deny that the criteria you
> propose are applicable. My argumnent is that they are insufficient.

Because you say so? 

> >> >Yeast is not man. 
> >> 
> >> But the situation is analagous.
>  
> >Still yeast is not man. 
> 
> Never claimed it was.

Analogous situation? This means man can be compared with yeast! Yeast
is not man, so they can't be compared, but you DO claim it can be.

> >Let's be clear on this: whether or not we die as a species is not a
> >criterion for superiority,
> 
> How long we last as a species sure is.
I don't think so, because it's important to distinguish between HOW
our weak fragile body survived rather than how long. So using superior
techniques like organ transplantation, DNA technology, tissue cloning,
accelerated regeneration, reproductive cloning or even cyber implants
are WAY superior than orthodox evolution's solutions. Without these
intelligent techniques we would be long gone. Whether if psychokiller
nations in the future decide to commit mass genocide by nuclear bombs,
thus our end, doesn't mean we are not superior (or have been). SO it's
far more complex that your yeast 'analogy'.

> >it's the achievement and actions of the
> >species that determine supremacy.
> 
> And if the achievements include the genocide of thousands of other
> species, then extinction for ourselves in less than 5 million years?

Even if we last for only a thousand years we would still be superior,
the peak of human ability is something different than consequences of
some other (stupid) actions. We humans think independently and
sometimes people do something stupid. This doesn't mean we all are
stupid.

 
> >> >Everything that mankind can do MORE than evolutionary possible, is
> >> >superior.
> >> 
> >> That's nothing. Zero, Zip. Nada.
> >> Everything we are is evolution's product.
>  
> >True, but that's not my point. Read again, I said "Everything that
> >mankind CAN DO",
> 
> What we can do is also evolution's product. 
No. We invented new things.

> Evolution has produced a
> species that's smart enough to use sonar. Evolution did the same for
> bats, whales and dolphins.

Get real. We thought of way many different methods. Ever expect an
animal weighting over a ton flying to the moon? Or animals that clone
themselves at will? Creating tools to do the thing FOR them, instead
of doing it 'yourself' (think of sonar)? Using organs of the dead to
replace their failed organs? Using X-ray vision? Lasers? No, even
better, let's "evolve" nuclear bombs! Evolution is limited. We can do
MORE.


> >> > Think of flying to the moon, or creating 'clone' life. I
> >> >think that's a good criterion.
> >> 
> >> I do too, but should it be the sole criterion? 
>  
> >No, the more the better. As long as the criteria don't concern our
> >"physical self" (because we are physically no better)
> 
> Huh? No better than what? We can run faster than turtles. Jump higher
> than elephants. see better than moles.

You asked: "should it be the sole criterion?" I said, no (not the
sole) but "the more" (more criteria) "the better" (underlining the
fact that I'm right). Understand now?


> > and "survival"
> >(how long we can exist is not my idea of superiority).
> 
> I consider it an important factor in judging general superiority.
> Most any species is superior to others in some way. Cockroaches can
> thrive in radiation that would kill us quickly for instance.

This is your problem! Cockroaches, have their own set of features. If
I say 'fish' e.g. than what? I we want to protect ourself from
radiation, ofcourse we could, as if a fish can have THAT option. If I
say fire will kill roaches quickly and we can survive because of
protective suits then what? Get real.

> 
> > I said before that we are not going to be here forever.
> 
> But surviving a respectable length of time is surely an accomplishment
> to be taken into account.
Wrong again. If some maniac in the future drops atombombs so we all
die, doesn't mean we aren't (or have been) superior.

> >Maybe it's because we value our personal life more than survival of
> >our species.
> 
> That attitude is expressed more succinctly in one word. Greed.

Stupid, foolish, ignorant. Ha ha ha. What's this? All the mothers who
love to have kids are greedy? All parents who want to raise a family
greedy? Producing offspring is greedy? Personal life is what drives
us, having enough food, decent, jobs, money, a home, and kids is not
greedy. Nobody is thinking of the future of our species. Think of the
countries with over-population, do think they are greedy for having so
much kids? Do you think the world even cares if someone says: "stop
making kids, don't eat too much food or else we will be extinct, says
John Ings..."

> >> >Man is born with prejudices and dies with prejudices. In between, life
> >> >is a lie.
> >> 
> >> What a cheerful philosophy!
> >
> >Hahaha! The obervation of the world happens in the brain, everything
> >you hear, see, smell and touch are things that are given meaning by
> >our brain dependent on the input. Maybe we all are just 'brains
> >floating in a pool'; the bio content (molecules) are controlled by
> >aliens, to give us the non-existent sensory input, who knows...
> 
> Sophistry.

Sophistry? Don't call sci-fi sophistry, obviously you can't distinct
between a joke and a serious comment. A smiley would have been a
proper response.
 
> >Actually, if everything we think of is subjective,

> Everything obviously isn't.

Wrong, think very deep about it and you know I'm right. Being really
objective is an illusion.