Improvision

The human brain is immensely adaptable and impressionable. People's interests change, as does what they find 'fun', for a wide variety of reasons, none of which are evolutionary, but rather psychological.

 

However, I should add a serious caveat - loss of interest in things you formerly enjoyed can be a symptom of depression. If so, this is in no way your fault, and is merely a chemical imbalance in your brain. There should be plenty of pages on the topic online, and I'd suggested scheduling an appointment with a local psychologist to discuss this general loss of interest in formerly pleasurable activities. It may just be stress, but it pays to be sure.

As Mokele said, it's something that triggers pleasure. Why it does depends on the person, how you came to it, etc. I might suggest you think of it in more general terms. For example, we're not evolved to work on cars, obviously, but we are evolved to solve problems (and to enjoy doing so), and we're evolved to appreciate the feeling of power that comes with a kickass car. As for why you specifically enjoy the specific activities that you do, nobody can possibly answer that without having witnessed and analyzed every moment of your life so far.

Video games triggered pleasure, but ever since I sold my 360 last year and started spending more time with myself, I find myself being less and less interested in building a gaming PC that I planned on doing.

The things I thought I wanted are not making me happy and they don't have any real meaning to me. I don't know who I am.

How is it hard to understand? Say I have 100 rabbits, who can produce 100 more rabbits a month. If I kill 90 rabbits a month, the total number of rabbits will increase. But if I kill 110 rabbits per months, the total number will decrease until there's none. It doesn't mean they aren't breeding, just that I'm killing more rabbits than are born.

Does it make sense to you that it is possible that I can climb on top of a house and pee off of the roof? Does the possibility mean that this actually happened in the past?

It makes sense. That doesn't mean it is true.

Merged post follows:

Actually, we know a lot about it. But you'd have to ask a paleontologist about that.

 

 

 

If by "transit another species" you mean evolve into something different, then yes. By definition, our "ancestors" didn't go extinct, because we're still here.

 

 

 

That isn't what happened. It was artificial selection. Only the least aggressive foxes of each generation were permitted to breed. Over many generations, they became naturally much friendlier towards humans. The changes in their appearance were unexpected, the result of genes tied to the ones that made them less aggressive.

 

 

 

I don't see how this is related to the rest of this thread. Please explain.

I believe that mutations are not entirely random and evolution is more directed, then current theory suggests.

Why would I not want to have sex with women I have no care for if I like having sex and I find the women attractive? Why do I have to ask questions?

I could just wake up, live my life, and let my brain lead me. Why do I have this feeling that my body and my mind are separate from me? Who am "I"? Why do I feel detached from the material world around me?

No. While humans do have excellent spatial reasoning (probably a result of arboreal ancestors), the desire for a particular career has much more to do with personality and upbringing than anything else.

 

Desire itself is simply the anticipation of reward. In the past, you performed an action (or a version of it), and this triggered the release of dopamine in your brain, resulting in a feeling or reward. Now you seek that again. The original cause likely has to do with psychological effects, such as emulating a role model, or peer pressure, etc.

I was introduced to automobiles by my dad. I didn't get encouragement from anyone and I didn't want to follow in his footsteps. I just wanted to make engines and suspensions do what I wanted them to do, so that I could build automobiles that could kick some ass.

This wasn't something that could increase my survival, so why would I want to do it?

nothing kept them from reproducing, they just died more often than they gave birth.

 

if a population has a birth rate of 100 children per thousand population per year and a death rate of 101 deaths per thousand population per year then they are going to die out.

 

you seems to assume thatthey just stopped reproducing rather than had an excessive death rate.

 

to answer your question, you can't reproduce when you're already dead.

Why do they *all* have to die the same way? Isn't attrition from various sources, including predatory higher Homo Sapiens, sufficient for extinction? I'm not sure why you are being so picky here. Not all extinctions are as "single-source" as the Dodo.

I wanted to know what led to the ultimate extinction. No evidence shows a complete killing off. If they all weren't killed, then something else was involved that would keep them from reproducing.

You don't think a predator superior to Cro-magnon and Neanderthal could have wiped them out, leaving evidence of superior weaponry marks on their crushed bones and skulls? Do you have a better answer than, "Nope"?

 

It was mentioned before and you ignored it. There *is* evidence that Cro-magnons and Neanderthals were often killed by superior weapons, so it's not unlikely they were killed by superior Homo Sapiens.

 

Yes, it would. You said it yourself, it wasn't that they didn't reproduce, they just died at a faster rate than they reproduced. Their have been studies that show that more modern humans killed them.

There is evidence that members have been killed, but no evidence that they all died from being "killed".

Maybe you could give an example of the kind of thing you're looking for? Are you asking why a species becomes extinct? That depends on the species. Less food, more predators, conditions changing faster than the species can evolve - all result in more deaths and fewer surviving offspring, so the population shrinks. If it shrinks too much, it goes extinct. The dinosaurs, for example, probably mostly died off because a large meteor impact radically altered the global climate in a short period of time, and most couldn't survive the new conditions.

 

Of course, the more literal answer to the question in the title, why did our ancestors go extinct, is that they didn't. They evolved into us.

I assume you mean one species is transit another species.

I saw a tv program a while ago where foxes were being bred in captivity. Outside of their natural habitat, each successive generation of pups were less and less aggressive towards people and they started to have less of a camouflage pattern in their fur. It seemed as if somehow there was an inner consciousness in the animals that had become aware of the environment they were in and influenced the DNA and change in the physical and mental traits in their offspring.

I see myself being aware of my thoughts and being able to control them. I choose what I want to think about and I choose hoow I am going to act.

I was having sex a few years ago with women I didn't even care for. It felt dirty. I decided that I want to stop and find a real relationship. I have sexual urges, but they don't control me anymore and I feel better about it. I don't know exactly why, but I feel my existence in this world is not limited to what is physically attached to me (brain included). I feel that "I" am just attached to my physical existence. Just have to try and find out who I am.

Predators who are more successful in the same niche would.

 

What kind of evidence are you looking for? If we didn't have historical documentation, what kind of evidence would be left behind to tell what killed the Dodo?

Evidence that can show what happened.

Merged post follows:

if you can tell me how there can be fewer of a species later on without the death rate being higher than the birth rate, please let me know. i'd be very interested to know how this can happen.

we know it was greater than birth rate because we find less skeletons later on in their history indicating a declining population

 

 

 

we know what weapons were used to kill them from the marks on their bones. usually more advanced weaponry than the neanderthals had.

 

 

 

a 100 mile diameter crater isn't evidence?

ALL of them show evidence that they were "killed"?

A crater is evidence of an impact. It does not show what has happened during and after the impact.

Luck, basically. Remember, 99.99% of all things that ever lived have died, and true phylogenetic trees of life are littered with dead branches.

 

Hominins (defined as organisms closer to humans than chimps, encompasing what most would call "pre-humans") are a relatively small lineage of a relatively small family in a small order of mammals that only really inhabited a relatively limited area (aside from a few expansions). We're also fairly large organisms, which means we need more food and area to survive, and warm-blooded, which means we need still more food and area, meaning a given area of land can only support a few of us. We're also highly versatile, not prone to specialization, making competition likely. Taken together, you'd expect any lineage with this combination of characters to show a relatively limited diversity of extant members, including being a single-member subfamily.

 

It's also worth noting that the times there were more than one hominin are when hominins violated some of the above, chiefly by migrating out of Africa to new regions.

Merged post follows:

they didn't, the death rate was greater than the birth rate untill there weren't enough left to give birth to more.

 

 

 

there's plenty, we killed neanderthals and a big meteorite wiped out the food that supported the dinosaurs.

How do you know we killed the neanderthals?

They haven't found evidence of a meteorite being responsible for the mass extinction of dinosaurs.

various reasons i'd imagine. much like humans today dies of various reasons.

 

predators, old-age, disease etc etc.

There is no evidence explaining why cro-magnuns or neanderthals are gone. Nothing to explain why the dinosaurs are gone.

Note title

Also, what is "desire" and how did it come to be?

because they died.

Note title

Note title.

Sorry, but anyone with any life experience and forsight should be able to see that this will just result in gang land. Details, such as money, transportation, public services, foreign relations/disputes, etc are not provided. It reminds me of communism - simple ideals that sound good, but result in disaster. I can see where you may want to make that the ideal and strive for smaller government, but to eliminate it all together - well, good luck.

That is how it worked in the anarchic nations that survived up to a historically recorded 1000 years.

People today have been brainwashed into thinking we need a government/state to decide things for us. We think we need people to do everything for us and that is why our economy is going down hill by people spending money while not producing anything to make money. Most corporations' manufacturing jobs have have been exported to foreign workers, which is eliminating American jobs. Banks and the government are mismanaging tax that it steals from our hard work. We have no say over it. We just sit on our asses and let things go bad for us as politicians are playing golf, kicking back, and sipping whiskey. They know that the people will not dare to take back control of their own lives.

That is incorrect. I provided the definition of anarchy in post 13, but to repeat it here:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

 

 

 

"Law" and "rules" are synonyms; therefore I believe anarchy is the correct usage for meaning "no rules".

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synonym

 

 

 

FYI, anomie means the following:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomie

 

 

 

I really do not understand your point for this thread (using the correct words would certainly help me). Are you advocating anarchy as a superior form of "government"? If so, then you need to address the "warlord" problems in the earlier posts. Are you advocating democracy (which you have used interchangably with anarchy) as a superior form of government?

 

I haven't looked at the links; I am not convinced that I should do so. I am cautious about spyware, spam, viruses, NSFW, etc., and I haven't been given a compelling reason to do so.

The definition of anarchy you provided was written by someone who thinks government needs to be there to make law and assume that lack of government is also lack of law.

In anarchy, social norms and values are what make the law.

We elect representatives, and they make the laws. Run for office, or vote for someone who shares your views. That's what "representative democracy" means.

 

 

 

I don't know who the "they" is in this sentence.

 

 

 

And with anarchy, peace exists only to the extent that I like you, or that you personally can defend yourself. Of course, if I'm stronger than you, I can kill you and take your stuff without consequence.

 

 

 

No, if there is law, that's not anarchy. That's government.

 

 

 

You mean.... "Immigration, not out of free choice, but simply to escape someone who is ruling over your life and go to another person/group with the same power?"

 

 

 

And what if people are harmed? The rule is enforced by force, correct? THAT'S GOVERNMENT.

 

And why only if people are harmed? What if people want laws that make victimless crimes?

 

What you're describing is a small democracy, not anarchy. And ironically, you're ruling it with an iron fist, by only letting people make certain kinds of laws.

"They", referring to those who disregard a law. Whatever law it may be.

If you tried kill me in anarchy, me and my own people will be fighting against you. If you cause trouble, assuming you can manage to do it to another person without being stopped by that person or their people, other people are going to deal with you as they see you are a proven and obvious threat. There will be consequences.

Anarchic cooperation leads to AGREED upon law. Not law that is dictated from an exclusive authority, which would be forced/government law. There is a difference.

If people are harmed, the one(s) responsible will have to deal with other people who will do something about the situation. Without the need of command from an exclusive high-up unto mindless robots.

People left to themselves make common law, only for protection. A law that serves no obvious purpose wouldn't even come into existence.

Law is not limited to centralized and exclusively forced governance.

Merged post follows:

And once a dispute arises (murder, theft, proving guilt), separations occur as people naturally take sides. Instead of an objective government court system being entrusted to handle justice, it could easily result in a more unfair way of consequences dealt out.

 

I agree that people might live in harmony without national laws too, but you can't have much growth without a system in place. And that means government.

 

 

It all depends on the kind of government. We do need to make leaders more accountable, not get rid of laws.

 

 

Not quite anarchy then, huh?

Merged post follows:

Anarchy means no ruler. It doesn't mean "no rules". If there are no rules, then that would be "anomie".

yes. In theory, yes. In practice, I would say no. Not true. In a democracy, people have the option to vote. There is also always the option of immigrating to where there is a different government. Rebellion is also an option.

True. See the definition of democracy above. But aren't you seeking a form of government that provides peace? Both a democracy and a dictatorship can (in theory) provide peace. As can anarchy (in theory). In practice, peace is much more difficult (especially under anarchy) to obtain as touched upon earlier in this thread.

Immigration, not out of free choice, but simply to escape someone who is ruling over your life and go to another person/group with the same power?

Rebellion against those who will lock you up in prison or kill you if you try to resist their authority?

With government, peace exists only to the extent that people obey (peaceful) law and submit to those who are enforcing it.

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws with equal power amongst themselves. Those who do not agree with one groups laws can choose another group to join or get off the grid without protection of being with other people or form a new group of their own with others who decide to follow. Law can be peacefully and equally created and can also be peacefully disobeyed to the extent that other people are not harmed.

Ruling with force just simply forces those who are ruled to retaliate with more force. Violent force breeds more violent force.

Yes, you have correctly stated the definition of government and provided an example of how government working.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government

It can pass any law, regardless of how harmless a private person's activities are that happen to be banned.

People have no power over government, when the government can enforce rule on other people and people can't enforce rule on it.

A centralized/self-ruling government is naturally not apart of any democracy at all. Any democracy in such a case is an illusion for those who are ruled.

True, in a democracy, the people has the power over the government.

 

What you are describing is somethin akin to a dictatorship

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship

 

 

or perhaps a monarchy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

 

 

You can read about various forms of government here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

The people voted against gay marriage and it was government itself that actually writes down and enforces the law. The government has exclusive law making power. Before the law made it illegal, there was no one to stop homosexuals from getting married.

No, a democracy is when everyone is the governing body.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

 

 

In the United States and Europe, people actually live in a republic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

 

 

Anarchy, dy definition, has no governing at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

Yes, anarchy and stability do not go together. I agree there has to be some centralized governing body to maintain order.

America has a centralized governing body, ruling and enforcing law on its own accord, and our economy and society is deteriorating at the same time. Like many state governed countries in the past, where the people have little or no power.

But this hearkens back to a question of identity. Your repetition works so long as you have a workable definition for "YOU" -- which you do not. Is a person the mental construct which dictates their actions? Or is a person just a bunch of cells? In the former case, an argument can be made for free will, whereas in the latter no such argument is tenable. Further, the mental construct which dictates an individual's actions is an emergent result of the physical and chemical structure of the cells which make up the individual. As such, while YOU (your 'mind', let's say) decide(s) whether or not to direct your body to do an action, if the process which leads to that decision is unconscious then there is no free will. Or would you say that every computer program that encounters and resolves an if-else statement has free will?

You don't have control of who you are and how you think, but it is YOU regardless. You can control your thoughts anyways, that is how we learn from mistakes. You do something you think is good, and when it turns out bad you change your thinking.