Unnatural versus Natural

[s1eep]

 

How does that make it unnatural? Giraffes uses a long neck to a greater extent than any other animal. Is that unnatural?

 

Is our development of tool use unnatural, even if we ignore the fact that other animals use tools? Was tool use bestowed upon us by some unnatural means? (magic? aliens?). When did Homo sapiens (or our ancestors) cease to be natural?

 

This arbitrary distinction seems disingenuous.

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional. It's stupid to compare it to a giraffes long neck. No tool should be the dominant factor of someone's life, unless you are seeking a profession, a hammer is a dominant part of the blacksmith's life, a word is a dominant part of the word-mammals life; and the tool is too destructive, so much so that in under a thousand years the Earth will be a desolate wasteland, or at least too unhealthy to live in stability. We cease to be natural when we start using words, a tool which we let dictate our lives. It is not part of our evolution, it's something teachers invented and taught through rote-education to the populous. Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young, or in school, but our parents were educated, so the source is education. Why do we let education dominate our lives instead of the purest natural world with a natural untouched mind? Animals bark, or grunt, or send messages that relate to prey, food, or things which are important for survival. A human can, and will, become obese, waste lots, and many other stupidities, primarily because of civilization, and the word and what it allows us to accomplish. Do we really accomplish anything if the accomplishment kills us? I don't think so. You are unwise to think the word is not deadly, you are too lost in pseudo-science to care about the world falling apart around you because of the education you support-- so highly.

Edited March 10, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

It's obviously nothing like "I'm looking forward to dinner guys", be accurate. And I wouldn't convey this idea, I would be doing other things like surviving in a competitive world.

 

If there isn't already, there should be a name for this syndrome, where modern humans somehow get it in their heads that we were meant to stay in the trees, or not develop agriculture or animal husbandry and just roam as hunter/gatherers forever. It seems like it's just because other animals don't do the things we do. I don't understand why our exceptional intelligence doesn't get factored in, why other animals get to use their natural talents but we don't.

 

This is an extremely intellectually dishonest stance, if you think about it. Anyone who feels this way but sits on a computer in their home demonizing humanity instead of going out to live off the land and survive "in a competitive world" is in a failed loop. You're basically saying, "The world is all messed up and I refuse to see it any differently, but I'm unwilling to live the way I think it should be until you change it all for me, so I'm just going to be negative and miserable. Oh, and for some reason, words are bad".

 

Why is using our high intelligence and communicative skills considered unnatural? I guess because it makes things seem unfair, like an adult gambling with a kid for his allowance. I suppose that's the topic of another thread though.

[s1eep]

 

If there isn't already, there should be a name for this syndrome, where modern humans somehow get it in their heads that we were meant to stay in the trees, or not develop agriculture or animal husbandry and just roam as hunter/gatherers forever. It seems like it's just because other animals don't do the things we do. I don't understand why our exceptional intelligence doesn't get factored in, why other animals get to use their natural talents but we don't.

 

This is an extremely intellectually dishonest stance, if you think about it. Anyone who feels this way but sits on a computer in their home demonizing humanity instead of going out to live off the land and survive "in a competitive world" is in a failed loop. You're basically saying, "The world is all messed up and I refuse to see it any differently, but I'm unwilling to live the way I think it should be until you change it all for me, so I'm just going to be negative and miserable. Oh, and for some reason, words are bad".

 

Why is using our high intelligence and communicative skills considered unnatural? I guess because it makes things seem unfair, like an adult gambling with a kid for his allowance. I suppose that's the topic of another thread though.

It's not only unnatural, it's also anti-nature with waste output. We only waste as much as we do because we adapted so much with the word. I imagine it was dragged along by the rich and people were educated stupid to be social androids who hold the word, and education, in high regard. We don't have the resource to live in this luxury, and it's unfair to enslave humans under the enmity between the rich and the poor just to satisfy wants. You're wrong by thinking words are part of the self, and that it's natural to use them, because I'm sure they have to be forced through human effort into the mind-- it does not come from thin air, and it began at some point, it hasn't been around since the beginning of time. I assert that your idea of a high-intelligence is diminished by your love for the word and egotistical hate for the natural world.

[Arete]

It is not part of our evolution

 

Peer reviewed evidence unequivocally supports the development of language as integral in human evolution. Being able to speak required the evolution of species - specific supralaryngeal vocal tract - a trait which emerged un the upper Paleolithic - at approximately the same time as human groups started to increase in size. http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman%20P.%202007.%20The%20evolution%20of%20human%20speech,%20Its%20anatom.pdf

 

Speech, and therefore words is an integral trait in human evolution. Stating that it isn't is straightforwardly incorrect.

 

I imagine it was dragged along by the rich and people were educated stupid to be social androids who hold the word

 

Language evolved before material society in the upper Paleolithic - see previously cited material, so what you're imagining is in opposition to the evidence at hand.

 

Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young,

 

Humans are very far from the only organisms which display learned behaviors, or even the teaching of behavior, or even the teaching of vocal language. So are the animals which also display learning, teaching and the teaching of language also unnatural, or is there a case os special pleading which you apply to humans?

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WO5BoHhUow0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=learned+behaviour+evolution&ots=W8wJ_HE-OO&sig=8F6vaRM39GBblFWlYx3dfoP4zAE#v=onepage&q=learned%20behaviour%20evolution&f=false

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2011/05/12/is-pedagogy-specific-to-humans/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635977

 

I also asked you a number of questions in post #23 - is it possible to answer them, please?

[s1eep]

 

Peer reviewed evidence unequivocally supports the development of language as integral in human evolution. Being able to speak required the evolution of species - specific supralaryngeal vocal tract - a trait which emerged un the upper Paleolithic - at approximately the same time as human groups started to increase in size. http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman%20P.%202007.%20The%20evolution%20of%20human%20speech,%20Its%20anatom.pdf

 

Speech, and therefore words is an integral trait in human evolution. Stating that it isn't is straightforwardly incorrect.

 

 

Language evolved before material society in the upper Paleolithic - see previously cited material, so what you're imagining is in opposition to the evidence at hand.

 

 

Humans are very far from the only organisms which display learned behaviors, or even the teaching of behavior, or even the teaching of vocal language. So are the animals which also display learning, teaching and the teaching of language also unnatural, or is there a case os special pleading which you apply to humans?

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WO5BoHhUow0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=learned+behaviour+evolution&ots=W8wJ_HE-OO&sig=8F6vaRM39GBblFWlYx3dfoP4zAE#v=onepage&q=learned%20behaviour%20evolution&f=false

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2011/05/12/is-pedagogy-specific-to-humans/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635977

 

I also asked you a number of questions in post #23 - is it possible to answer them, please?

You didn't address all of my post, and I disagree with your evidence-- because we can be vocal doesn't mean we had to convey complex ideas with words, and anything we do evolve is for our survival, and probably meant to be used tactically. Teaching of language is unnatural because it's done through rote-education; no other animal teaches by rote-education, they teach by example. Our general intelligence is only classed as intelligence because it is supported by the word. In all fairness, it is word-intelligence-- what do you know apart from strings of words or numbers? Stop comparing us to other animals because we are way too different and we live much eviller lifestyles. The words the first speaking humans used were grunts, and we should still be grunting now if we want to live a long life as a species, and prevent inevitable suffering.

[swansont]

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional. It's stupid to compare it to a giraffes long neck. No tool should be the dominant factor of someone's life, unless you are seeking a profession, a hammer is a dominant part of the blacksmith's life, a word is a dominant part of the word-mammals life; and the tool is too destructive, so much so that in under a thousand years the Earth will be a desolate wasteland, or at least too unhealthy to live in stability. We cease to be natural when we start using words, a tool which we let dictate our lives. It is not part of our evolution, it's something teachers invented and taught through rote-education to the populous. Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young, or in school, but our parents were educated, so the source is education.

yes, words are taught. Where did the first words come from? Were these teachers aliens? Robots of some sort? Because I don't see how this is somehow unnatural. Don't other animals teach their young? Or is it your contention that all animal behavior is instinctual, except in humans?

 

Why do we let education dominate our lives instead of the purest natural world with a natural untouched mind? Animals bark, or grunt, or send messages that relate to prey, food, or things which are important for survival.

What is the unnatural component that allowed us to expand our communication beyond barks and/or grunts? Surgery of some sort to modify our vocal system, performed by … someone? How do these traits get unnaturally passed down if not by genetics?

 

A human can, and will, become obese, waste lots, and many other stupidities, primarily because of civilization, and the word and what it allows us to accomplish. Do we really accomplish anything if the accomplishment kills us? I don't think so. You are unwise to think the word is not deadly, you are too lost in pseudo-science to care about the world falling apart around you because of the education you support-- so highly.

 

I don't think I've mentioned what I think about these matters, aside from my previous posts, so as to your speculation on such topics as my engagement with pseudo-science or my general wisdom: don't go down that path. There be dragons.

[Phi for All]

The words the first speaking humans used were grunts, and we should still be grunting now if we want to live a long life as a species, and prevent inevitable suffering.

 

Grunt grunt grunt grunt TROLL grunt?

[Arete]

You didn't address all of my post, and I disagree with your evidence.

 

You still haven't answered the questions I asked in post 23.

 

What exactly do you disagree with? The point is that speech requires a species-specific superlaryngeal anatomy, and the trait that this specific anatomy allows for is speech. In order for that to become a fixed trait in a species - as it has, evolution requires it to increase fitness. I don't really see where there is any room for disagreement there - they are observable facts.

 

 

because we can be vocal doesn't mean we had to convey complex ideas with words

 

 

I've already asked you to provide an example of how you would do this, and you were unable to.

 

 

and anything we do evolve is for our survival, and probably meant to be used tactically.

 

 

This contradicts basic evolutionary theory. All that is required for trait to fix in a population is for that trait to increase fecundity - not survival. There is no directed way in a trait is "meant" to be used, in the context of evolution.

 

 

Teaching of language is unnatural because it's done through rote-education; no other animal teaches by rote-education, they teach by example.

 

 

I disagree, as does the evidence. Children have been shown to learn language by listening to the people around them speak i.e. by example.

http://tesl-ej.org/ej03/r19.html

 

 

Our general intelligence is only classed as intelligence because it is supported by the word.

 

 

So the ability to solve problems, analyze complex data, engineer tools, etc doesn't factor at all in your model general intelligence? I would say that your definition of intelligence is comprehensively flawed, if that is the case.

 

 

In all fairness, it is word-intelligence-- what do you know apart from strings of words or numbers?

 

 

 

Plenty of things. Language is simply a conduit of information, rarely is language the information itself.

 

 

Stop comparing us to other animals because we are way too different and we live much eviller lifestyles.

 

 

Your'e going to have to provide an objective reason that human behavior and vocal communication is fundamentally different from other organisms. Your own, personal, subjective values don't cut it in a logical argument.

 

 

 

 

The words the first speaking humans used were grunts

 

 

Again the evidence disagrees with you - the anatomy of early hominids indicates that they had a wide vocal repertoire, as do primates, our closest evolutionary relatives.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661300014947?np=y

http://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/21717

 

 

and we should still be grunting now if we want to live a long life as a species, and prevent inevitable suffering

 

 

 

Could you explicitly state how the ability to speak limits human lifespans and creates suffering? I can think of numerous examples of how the opposite is true - for example the teaching o f modern medicine - directly responsible for doubling human life expectancy and reducing infant mortality by more than an order of magnitude is reliant on communication via words.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Arete

[s1eep]

 

You still haven't answered the questions I asked in post 23.

 

What exactly do you disagree with? The point is that speech requires a species-specific superlaryngeal anatomy, and the trait that this specific anatomy allows for is speech. In order for that to become a fixed trait in a species - as it has, evolution requires it to increase fitness. I don't really see where there is any room for disagreement there - they are observable facts.

 

 

 

 

I've already asked you to provide an example of how you would do this, and you were unable to.

 

 

 

 

This contradicts basic evolutionary theory. All that is required for trait to fix in a population is for that trait to increase fecundity - not survival. There is no directed way in a trait is "meant" to be used, in the context of evolution.

 

 

 

 

I disagree, as does the evidence. Children have been shown to learn language by listening to the people around them speak i.e. by example.

http://tesl-ej.org/ej03/r19.html

 

 

 

 

So the ability to solve problems, analyze complex data, engineer tools, etc doesn't factor at all in your model general intelligence? I would say that your definition of intelligence is comprehensively flawed, if that is the case.

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of things. Language is simply a conduit of information, rarely is language the information itself.

 

 

 

 

Your'e going to have to provide an objective reason that human behavior and vocal communication is fundamentally different from other organisms. Your own, personal, subjective values don't cut it in a logical argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again the evidence disagrees with you - the anatomy of early hominids indicates that they had a wide vocal repertoire, as do primates, our closest evolutionary relatives.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661300014947?np=y

http://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/21717

 

 

 

 

 

Could you explicitly state how the ability to speak limits human lifespans and creates suffering? I can think of numerous examples of how the opposite is true - for example the teaching o f modern medicine - directly responsible for doubling human life expectancy and reducing infant mortality by more than an order of magnitude is reliant on communication via words.

You care too much about human life and too little about the life of the planet. If you were wise, you would know the two are combined, and if the planet becomes unhealthy, we will suffer. Words glorify the individual, but truly the family or village is the strongest principle. We should be worshipping ourselves-- we wouldn't be somebody because we had cameras around us or if we were good speakers like politicians, we would be somebody working for the family or village, with the same ultimate objective. Increasing human life expectancy doesn't address a significant amount of our future concerns, and humans are living dangerously. Nature intended for some of these people to die; keeping them alive for longer only reduces the health of the planet. Humans waste far more than other animals. Maybe population reduction would be in order to halt waste output and change humanity's current path. In other words, them not having died does not mean you are doing a good job, that depends on how much you value human life over the life of the family or village, including Earth on occasions. I guess our relationship with Earth is not mutual, our behaviour is to plunder our environment, but we are related to Earth, and we should be kinder.

 

Speaking is the same as rote-education, you repeat yourselves, so the first word system that traps the humans tongue into a particular dialect causes everyone to become word teachers, it's like a virus (it could be called a word virus). Our minds are more intelligent than the word, and our intelligence would be based on our wisdom and understanding, what we knew and produced. A good and healthy family, excellent hunting skills, and anything else that related to our character that was ultimately good for the family or village. Word intelligence, being self based, does not have any relation to the family and family cannot be properly conveyed when inside a word system. We are trapped by the word, it's not free speech because words are truly perverse and unfair, although they can be fun at the same time, and the fun factor in life I don't think outweighs the competitive and youthful factor of life. I definitely think living in the wild would be fun, especially if everyone did it. Are words really complex words? Can't we make simple grunt noises at certain times to convey a wider picture? Aren't we animals meant to compete to survive, and isn't our vocal ability meant to be used for this?

 

I'll contradict any theory I want, because theories are written by humans, and humans pursue education which is self based (because of the word), and it doesn't coincide with the family or village.

[Fuzzwood]

The spacerok impacting the supposed yucatan area 65 million years ago made life hell according to the dinosaurs. Completely natural, but not sure I'd classify that state under 'healthy'. I'm sure the planet, were it actually alive and not a ball of silicon rotating around a molten iron core, didn't enjoy being punched in the face either.

 

 

I'll contradict any theory I want, because theories are written by humans, and humans pursue education which is self based (because of the word), and it doesn't coincide with the family or village.

You can find similar behavior at the kindergarten. *LALALA I can't hear you!!!*

Edited March 10, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[Arete]

I'll contradict any theory I want, because theories are written by humans...

 

 

Well then there's not a lot of point in engaging with you on the topic - an argument rejecting the evidence at hand and based on unsubstantiated facts you made up along the way as it suits you is logically worthless.

[s1eep]

 

 

Well then there's not a lot of point in engaging with you on the topic - an argument rejecting the evidence at hand and based on unsubstantiated facts you made up along the way as it suits you is logically worthless.

The family or village should be the perspective of the theory. We are on Earth, not in space or back in time, more pressing issues lie ahead... Sorry.

Edited March 10, 2014 by s1eep

[Arete]

The family or village should be the perspective of the theory. We are on Earth, not in space or back in time, more pressing issues lie ahead... Sorry.

 

So just to confirm, you're intending to dismiss any and all empirical evidence which might contradict your point of view?

[Fuzzwood]

The family or village should be the perspective of the theory. We are on Earth, not in space or back in time, more pressing issues lie ahead... Sorry.

So any plans for tomorrow?

[s1eep]

So any plans for tomorrow?

Yes but I'm in a word system. Take dogs for example, they don't live naturally, well those who are caught in reality.

[Fuzzwood]

Oh how should they live? In the wilds where they wouldn't survive even a single month?

[s1eep]

Oh how should they live? In the wilds where they wouldn't survive even a single month?

Not true, we could be peaceful, we can follow a greater good. And even if we were more wrathful at times, it would be for a greater good like for food or again, family or village.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

s1eep,

You do not get to ignore the evidence that others have presented to you because you don't like it. Stop soapboxing, stop trolling and start participating in this thread.

[s1eep]

!

Moderator Note

s1eep,

 

You do not get to ignore the evidence that others have presented to you because you don't like it. Stop soapboxing, stop trolling and start participating in this thread.

I don't think it is evidence to say we were meant to use words, maybe it's evidence to say we were meant to speak, but not using words, using our instincts.

[Fuzzwood]

Meant? So there is a conscienct purpose behind evolution now?

[Arete]

Meant? So there is a conscienct purpose behind evolution now?

 

Well since you haven't explained the theory or evolution in grunts and interpretive dance, it appears to be invalid .

[Phi for All]

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional.

 

Where did you read this? Did you read some author who made sense about one thing so you chose to take this to some absurd degree and suggest that it's OK for animals to invent sounds for communication, but if we do it it's unnatural?

 

I don't know why you've chosen such a harsh, unequivocal denunciation of human talent and evolutionary capacity. I honestly find your stance to be unimaginative, untenable and uninteresting. You won't be happy unless we're all roaming naked and killing things with our teeth, fated to do so until the sun expands to burn us all away. Meh.

[s1eep]

 

Where did you read this? Did you read some author who made sense about one thing so you chose to take this to some absurd degree and suggest that it's OK for animals to invent sounds for communication, but if we do it it's unnatural?

 

I don't know why you've chosen such a harsh, unequivocal denunciation of human talent and evolutionary capacity. I honestly find your stance to be unimaginative, untenable and uninteresting. You won't be happy unless we're all roaming naked and killing things with our teeth, fated to do so until the sun expands to burn us all away. Meh.

Sound may be a part of our evolution, but as I said earlier, words are a product of rote-education. Is Xbox One part of our evolution? We evolved opposable thumbs, clearly to hold the controller.

Edited March 11, 2014 by s1eep

[Arete]

Sound may be a part of our evolution, but as I said earlier, words are a product of rote-education. Is Xbox One part of our evolution? We evolved opposable thumbs, clearly to hold the controller.

 

The ability to speak required the evolution of specific anatomical features which have no other function but to allow sounds associated with speech to be made. Speech is a trait intrinsically tied to human evolution - it's really rather impossible to make a claim that has any merit to the contrary, and doing so makes your entire argument trivially dismissable.

[s1eep]

 

The ability to speak required the evolution of specific anatomical features which have no other function but to allow sounds associated with speech to be made. Speech is a trait intrinsically tied to human evolution - it's really rather impossible to make a claim that has any merit to the contrary, and doing so makes your entire argument trivially dismissable.

Words and speech are not the same, words are defined, whereas speech can be undefined. Interpretive dance is a good example, as is grunts, I could simply grunt at the correct time to convey a picture that tells a thousand words. We could create speech that was only understood by a family, like with certain tribes. The point of the matter is that we use words to an extent greater than any other known being. And I'll repeat one more time, speech may be part of our evolution, but the reason you speak using words is because of rote education. If we cut out education, there would be no words, but speech would remain. I remember the film Jurassic Park when the Rapters talked to each other using high pitched sounds, and that's the type of speech I think you're suggesting we evolved to have.

 

 

Where did you read this? Did you read some author who made sense about one thing so you chose to take this to some absurd degree and suggest that it's OK for animals to invent sounds for communication, but if we do it it's unnatural?

 

I don't know why you've chosen such a harsh, unequivocal denunciation of human talent and evolutionary capacity. I honestly find your stance to be unimaginative, untenable and uninteresting. You won't be happy unless we're all roaming naked and killing things with our teeth, fated to do so until the sun expands to burn us all away. Meh.

Other animals kill things with their teeth, and live happily. Your opinion is, again, egotistical. You are obsessed with the human ego, you love the fake character you put on and you love to upper-converge. You like human reality, and I don't think your opinion is just when we are comparing the natural to the unnatural.

Edited March 11, 2014 by s1eep