So you believe unicellular organisms are self aware and capable of thought? That's what I mean by consciousness, not some biochemical reaction triggered by outside stimulus.

Maybe God is a cup of Orange juice.

youre preaching from the pulp-it....

*shoots self*

Why does the little spider try to run from me when I go to kill it? Does it have awareness or is it just reacting to instincts?

if you see for example another animal, an elephant and he has a note where it sez there is a life after this life

do you believe that animal?

i personally don't care what language or talk comes out of an animal
the human world is a difficult thing because of all people that want to upload you their brain
and then there is no more freedom

what i see is that when life is born is that here in europe
there is a pushed up school system that disturbes the sleeprythm of childeren
remember their brains are growing and need this sleep

then maybe a religion is pushed down on the person
who can dictate the person how to live and who to love or get married with

so all is pushed up drilled into the brain
is that good for childeren?

aren't you then experimenting with another life then yours?

you people can't leave people alone
i believe that nature grows best when you leave it alone

don't found the human specie is alive and awake

i see it as a medieval spell from witches that have piosond their minds

Instinct is evolved. The best example is the fact that loads of people are afraid of Spiders, Snakes and Rats despite never having encountered a poisonous one in their lives.

Or it could simply be that human culture has ingrained this apprehension from birth, and we mimic what we see adults doing from the state of our subconscious absorption of these behaviors that were modeled to us by example. Instinct is a myth, animals have culture and teach their young. The only instinct is fight or flight, everything else is a matter of individual intelligence and an agency and capacity to learn.


Evolution is a theory, its better to try to base ontological interpretations from the realm of observed fact, and nurture is easily observable phenom, where as nature is speculative because it is naturally beyond the scope and magnitude of our limited perspective

Its a cross-cultural phenomena, you see similar reactions from people in different parts of the world whether theyve encountered those species or not because fear of these things is innate in our brains.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. If youre not past this point then you have little of value to add to any conversation about human psychology.

If you feel that way then (A) you have a very shallow understanding of science and (B) you are disregarding what would otherwise be a rather interesting conversation.


To be sure, I agree with several aspects of the theory of Evolution, but I would never be so naive as to call even such well thought out theories fact in any concrete sense. Looking at fossils or DNA and constructing wonderful fables is classic humanity, we have always done this from all the fables we have constructed around all of our observations, but Aesop didn't try to pretend his stories were as factual as the Dawkins crowd has lately. At least I have the balls to accept my beliefs as a matter of faith, where as these fool themselves into forgetting their theories as much a matter of faith as anything else.

again, when you equate Aesop's fables with scientifically verifiable facts, theres just no point even trying with you. I refer you to my point about there never being enough evidence that will change the religious mindset.

edit: for anyone who's interested a rudimentary google search threw up this article from 10 years ago, and ive read several others on the subject in the years since, so if you're of a mind, the neccessary info about evolutionary psychology is out there

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nakefears.html

no, unicellular organisms are capable of some basic cybernetic circuitry is all. in fact life itself is a cybernetic phenomenon. information is physical, not metaphysical. add a few billion years of complexity and you get self-awareness.

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

if you think your consciousness is not a biochemical reaction triggered by outside stimulus, try solitary confinement and watch your "miraculousness" melt.

there is no ghost in the machine. there's only the machine. it's a beautiful machine but it's natural, not supernatural.

http://www.stroke.org/site/PageServer?pagename=EFFECT

"A fable is a succinct fictional story, in prose or verse, that features animals, mythical creatures, plants, inanimate objects or forces of nature which are anthropomorphized (given human qualities), and that illustrates a moral lesson (a "moral"), which may at the end be expressed explicitly in a pithy maxim."


When existentially you fail to understand that science is merely a fable communicated through the medium of advanced technology it is you who is there no trying with ;)

Again, y'all seem to mistake me for disagreeing with science, not at all, but I am just honest enough to accept science for exactly what it is, a matter of faith in scholasticism and technology, but faith none-the-less..

"science is merely a fable communicated through the medium of advanced technology"

No amount of tasty burgers will ever give that sentence meaning. I do concede that you are honest and sincere, but in arguement a serious person shouldnt take that as a compliment.

If your life depended on whether we chose a scientific approach to the problem or a religious one, i reckon you would be screaming for the scientific method as much as I. You sneer at the methodology whilst reaping its rewards.

Im annoyed with myself for having engaged the subject to be honest, its such a waste of my time typing this stuff out AGAIN. Your mind cant be changed, its a sad indictment of the fact I have nothing better to do if im honest.

Funny I was thinking the same thing :(

I am being quite serious, albeit a bit too philosophical for y'all, where is Glice when I need him? Y'all need to pick up some more Joseph Campbell and get over yourselves. Science is just a new religion, I see that, many others do as well, and so I don't see any conflict between science and my own personal faith because both are merely reflections and manifestations of the same thing, faith, a belief and assumption in things beyond the scale of existential proof. If you honestly think that science is "proven" you are sincerely a man of more devout faith than myself, and that is saying something.

Again, I fully accept science, and I very much enjoy it as well, but y'all are the folks who seem to think that faith and science are mutually exclusive rather then mutually reflecting. Maybe when you fully mature beyond the need to "prove anything to anyone" one day you'll finally see the depth of what I am talking about.

Glice was succeeding in not replying to this thread again. Especially as I've no new insights (or insults) particularly.

Without necessarily wanting to endorse a narrativistic approach to the scientific method I'm always interested in what science represents to a person more than what they think they think about it. Science is a very broad thing and can look at the same object in several ways for various reasons. A right-wing economist will say [x], a sociologist [y], a sewage expert [z] (etc) - it'll be the same object (and that object can be in ontplogical space if you like) but numerous perspectives on that object (and objects aren't necessarily objects as in bricks and tennis rackets as well - remember that, it's important).

I only mention this because it's kind of interesting that there's a complex set of tensions between some orientations towards science and some orientations towards faith. I can understand that some people negate (monotheistic, and mostly Christian) theologies because of the onus of proof doesn't lie with science (Ikara). That's fine. The problem I find is that a lot of those theologies then start talking bollocks. I don't necessarily think that spirituality belongs to an aesthetic category, but I think (philosophically) people would find it a lot easier to deal with religion if it weren't so... massive, scary, politically influential, conservative, controlling. In conversation, I tend to find it more useful to define my faith in aesthetic terms (or apophatic terms) rather than going over the proofs argument - the proofs will simply never exist within the narrativising remits of the scientific method (see also: homeopathy, art in general). The being or un-being of God and religion is immaterial to the difference or complete lack thereof that it brings to the individual. The antagonism that allegedly exists on both sides (there aren't two sides - there are fewer, or many more) is at best chimerical, or at worst to do with an individual's given anxieties.

I'm bored of writing now.

Im afraid you cant just swap the word "religion" with the word "science" and think you have made a point. This is why its pointless trying, youre happy to just misuse words to suit your own end, you love science! But its just as valid as Aesop's fables. Good for you.

And I just hope you posess enough self-awareness to see how inconceivably patronising that last paragraph is. Id prefer if you insulted me directly rather than through implication, but a girl cant have everything in this world of fancy words and fancy men.