Good

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

bigger entity's at play within our universe

Where?

We are not on a shit level of perception. From all we can tell, we are it - the most intelligent life in the fuckin universe. Not a good look on the universe, but it's not our fault it hasn't shat out something smarter. It is up to us to rise up from the shit on our own, not to wait for an extraterrestrial Santa Claus to rescue us from it.

I consider planets as a whole, bigger entity's that are alive.

By that logic, the earth is alive and we are but its nerve system.

Our lack of creativity when it comes to defining intelligence is nothing but our own loss i think.

Similarly "live" is a therm we utilize that defines certain things, yet is not limited to that definition.

In other words live is but a placeholder for a therm we have not yet discovered and limits our understanding until a new definition is formatted and proved useful. Or in reverse new understanding of how things work will provoke a new definition and word to justify that mind-set.

Just like every-time it has so before.

tl;dr blah blah

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : btw as is obvious by this post, i don't promote waiting for a ubber santa clause from outer space to save us.(lel)
If anything i promote embracing the shit we live in and rolling with what is given to use and comes naturally instead of trying to pretend its not actually shit. Insect's enjoy there place in live, no reason why humans shouldn't either.

Also saying we are the most intelligent thing to happen to this planet seems like a hubris logic(if that's a word). For me intelligence coexist's with simplicity, i am pretty sure more simple designs exist on this planet then humans. Nature naturally strives to efficiency, i don't consider humans to be the most efficient and as such don't consider them the most intelligent.

Then again i'm a weirdo given current society. So ignore me :).

"

Boem wrote:

the earth is alive and we are but its

motherfucking cerebrum.

Face it, pal - when it comes to planet earth, we have a pretty dominating marketshare when it comes to conscious thought.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

the earth is alive and we are but its

motherfucking cerebrum.

Face it, pal - when it comes to planet earth, we have a pretty dominating marketshare when it comes to conscious thought.

I don't refute that, what i don't get is why you link conscious thought with intelligence or intelligent design/actions for that mater.

I mean look at the world lol. For all that conscious thought we make some retarded decisions and get hung up on the most dumbfounded idea's imaginable.

I pose that once humans perish, the earth will probably still be alive. In that sense, the earth is more intelligent a construct since it endures time better then humans.

Isn't the core function of anything to "endure time" as best as it can. And isn't the one that accomplishes this the "smartest" or "most intelligent" at the end of all.

I don't see a reason why conscious thought is actually beneficial in the grander scale of things, if anything it's a problem since it consumes energy. It's fun to have and it makes the passage of time interesting, nothing more. Arguably the absence of conscious thought is more beneficial to an entity.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

I pose that once humans perish, the earth will probably still be alive. In that sense, the earth is more intelligent a construct since it endures time better then humans.

No. It would still be as dumb as the rock which it is.

You can't just ascribe whatever adjective you want to an entity because you admire it. I get it; this planet is durable. You admire that. It's still not intelligent. In fact, the whole poignant irony of the earth outliving humanity rests on the idea that intelligence might be overrated..

Plus, the jury is still out on whether humans or the earth perishes first.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I pose that once humans perish, the earth will probably still be alive. In that sense, the earth is more intelligent a construct since it endures time better then humans.

No. It would still be as dumb as the rock which it is.

You can't just ascribe whatever adjective you want to an entity because you admire it. I get it; this planet is durable. You admire that. It's still not intelligent. In fact, the whole poignant irony of the earth outliving humanity rests on the idea that intelligence might be overrated..

Plus, the jury is still out on whether humans or the earth perishes first.

* slow clap for scrotie. beautiful man.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I pose that once humans perish, the earth will probably still be alive. In that sense, the earth is more intelligent a construct since it endures time better then humans.

No. It would still be as dumb as the rock which it is.

You can't just ascribe whatever adjective you want to an entity because you admire it. I get it; this planet is durable. You admire that. It's still not intelligent. In fact, the whole poignant irony of the earth outliving humanity rests on the idea that intelligence might be overrated..

Plus, the jury is still out on whether humans or the earth perishes first.

Made me laugh :D, thanks for that.(it's not a contest where a side wins, ya know? :p )

On your other points.

1) Sure i can, nothing prevents me from ascribing whatever adjective i want to whatever i want. Clearly you understood me so i don't see what the problem is. In fact it demonstrated we value different things and utilize "intelligent" in different ways, like it should be. If it wasn't really clear by now, i don't really give a rats ass for definition of words, not like some other folks on these forums.

2) i admire everything, since i believe live is a gift and a beautiful one at that. Admiration and gratitude are a norm for me. Life is full of wonder, at least from where i am looking.

3) If humans where truly intelligent they wouldn't be wasting time with trivial shit like they are currently doing. Instead they would take lessons from the past. All i see is the reoccurring of things already past.
Is intelligence a gift, is it beneficial to see people make mistake after mistake without improving on the existing knowledge? Or is it a burden to acknowledge people fall for the same errors continually?
If it's intelligence, then i pose it is extremely limited and a rock might be better of, at least he doesn't have the ability to contemplate why the other rocks are wasting there live laying around like all the other rocks instead of trying to do a flip.

I also attribute kindness to the earth, so we have that going for us, selfless kindness to boot.

I will concede that the earth is not intelligent in the way your definition allows. But you must know by now, i don't really care about that.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : typo

"

Upandatem wrote:

A lie is still a lie even if some believe it to be true, and useless information does not become useful because some would overestimate it's validity.

That's a nice axiomatic statement you've got over there. People are inherently subjectivist creatures. You will convince a lot of them with your idea but there will always be some humans that no matter how many "factual facts" you rub in their faces they will shrug them off and go on with their living. And no, saying that they are objectively wrong is not gonna do jackshit.

"

For example, I don't need to understand fluid dynamics to plan my next meal. It is useless information in the context of making dinner and (falsely) assuming otherwise is going to seriously halt my progress towards that goal.

You have just perfectly described modern science, by the way.

"

Or if somebody claims the earth, the universe and everything is a mere 6k years old then we can look at nature wich has kindly provided us with an aswer sheet and say with certainty, the person is lying.

No, he's not lying. He's most likely your average religious repeater. He and you are both making the same mistake - perceiving the Bible literally. Bible is a giant allegory container. Everything about it is subjective and open for interpretations because it was initially an esoteric literature.

"

Even if he believes his own lie.

If a slave belives that he's free then he IS free. And if he's belief is strong enough you won't prove anything to him. That's how belief system works with humans.

"

The whole point of the pursuit of an objective moral compass is to have one such answer sheet to wich we can compare various claims to see if they are indeed truths or lies, useful or useless.

There's no objective moral compass unless people think that there is one. If you can convince every single human individual that your "future freedom" is the truth then you will succeed. It will create a totalitarianism. But it won't last very long because everything changes. People will eventually get bored of it and stop supporting it UNLESS you renovate it with additional ideas. If you succeed at that then your society will continue to exist but it will no longer be the original idea you came up with. If you fail then it will crumble and become another of those failed "isms".

"

SkyCore wrote:

I almost feel like crying. I found the ultimate good in the world. Tried to share it only to be shot down at every turn. Without a single person whom understands what im saying.

Is it my failing? I dont think so, but i cant rule it out.

At least i wont have to suffer much longer.

The problem is not with you or your idea. It's that humans will misinterpret any idea no matter how carefully and mathematically you formulate it. They WILL misinterpret and twist it and, probably, will conduct crusades and the proverbial witch-hunts for the sake of "future freedom". They will take your idea to the extreme, go all fanatical and apeshit about it and do alot of nasty shit. Granted in our modern society it won't take such extreme forms, but still...

"

Veracocha wrote:

Spoiler

That's a nice axiomatic statement you've got over there. People are inherently subjectivist creatures. You will convince a lot of them with your idea but there will always be some humans that no matter how many "factual facts" you rub in their faces they will shrug them off and go on with their living. And no, saying that they are objectively wrong is not gonna do jackshit.

For the record, the idea of using Wissner-Gross' intelligence equation as the foundation of a moral framework was ScyCores idea, not mine.

"

Veracocha wrote:

You have just perfectly described modern science, by the way.

Naturally. Now, are you going to try to explain for me how I can't make dinner without a deep understanding of fluid dynamics or are we in agreement here?

"

Veracocha wrote:

Spoiler

No, he's not lying. He's most likely your average religious repeater. He and you are both making the same mistake - perceiving the Bible literally. Bible is a giant allegory container. Everything about it is subjective and open for interpretations because it was initially an esoteric literature.

This (bolded) statement just doesn't make any sense at all. None. I'm not talking about how one would go about interpreting the contents of mythological scripture, I'm talking about a real thing here, Earth. Wich as it turns out has an age. This age is completly independant of what we believe it to be.

If you for example would believe that I'm 15 years old, I wouldn't turn into a teenager. You would simple be factually incorrect, and if you would set out to convince the world of your claim you would be spreading misinformation and lies. End of story.

"

Veracocha wrote:

Spoiler

If a slave belives that he's free then he IS free. And if he's belief is strong enough you won't prove anything to him. That's how belief system works with humans.

Why don't you go down to Congo and tell some of the enslaved pygmy tribes over there that all they need to do to escape the clutches of their slave masters and win the freedom of their people is to believe it? See how it works out for them.

The problem with this statement of yours is that we can take it to these forgotten parts of the world where slavery is still a reality and there we can test it. And I can guarantee you it would fail spectacularly.

"

Veracocha wrote:

Spoiler

There's no objective moral compass unless people think that there is one. If you can convince every single human individual that your "future freedom" is the truth then you will succeed. It will create a totalitarianism. But it won't last very long because everything changes. People will eventually get bored of it and stop supporting it UNLESS you renovate it with additional ideas. If you succeed at that then your society will continue to exist but it will no longer be the original idea you came up with. If you fail then it will crumble and become another of those failed "isms".

I don't actually believe in objective moral values either. Morality is simply not a scientific question at the present time. ScyCore wants to believe he has found the way to make it into one and I think he's jumping the gun (likely out of excitement).

But it can be fun to talk about, wich is all I'm doing here.

In order to talk about morality, I need to first talk about how I feel about "objective" and "subjective." Specifically, I feel we do the concepts a disservice.

Our senses are distinctly ours. What you see, what you hear, is personal to you and exists in your mind. However, it is simultaneously free of personal bias or belief, because raw sense data is, well, raw, as yet unprocessed by thought, occuring before free will enters the picture. (Closing your eyes doesn't stop the stream, you just look at the back of your eyelid.)

The notion of reality is established inductively through sense data. As we do this, we usually determine, again through induction, that it is a shared reality and not a strictly personal one. The nature of how we observe reality means we have disagreements with each other, or even within ourselves, about what is where or which rules govern, but we accept rather easily, based on large amounts of inductive evidence, that it is the same reality for everyone, attributing variations in sense data mostly to the variance of the sensors.

I feel the words "objective" and "cruciferous," as defined, both apply to the situations above. I think there is something insidious in the way we've defined these words such that we consider these two things opposites. Why does subjective have an implication of bias, when there is data in our minds, inaccessible to anyone else, over which we have no power to pervert its truth, no free will to unsee or unhear but only, at best, to forget? Why is objective associated with truth, real and meaningful, and then held to an inhuman standard, one which we'd have to escape our consciences to achieve?

I don't view morality much differently than I view reality. I'm very troubled to read comments saying morality is subjective, because I view its determination as a science, troubled as all sciences are with establishing facts in a way which stands the test of extensive, evidence-based inquiry. It shouldn't be something where you just shrug and allow personal whim to rule the day.