Natural Selection cannot thrive in an environment which is not natural, by definition.
Social structure can evolve, but not in the way that out physical bodies once did.
What is laughingly called social evolution to the summation of conscious choices and responses to known problems. In this sense it is analogous to Lamarck rather than Darwin.
But what is’natural’?
Is it a conception?
The distinction between natural/artificial was given over and over.
Here it is again:
The ambiguous point when an organism’s’ interventions upon its environment begin to affect it more than the original environment.
At that point an organism is determining the factors of its own evolution.
See what Americanism has lead to…Insanity.
Nihilistic ideologies produce this mind/body dissonance, as their end.
Men with no bodies, no past, no nature…entirely conceptual, fashion, art…fantasy men living in fantasy worlds, populated by other fantasy life forms.
The end phase of nihilism is insanity - detachment - zombification. Then…collapse.
A system of homosexuals and transsexuals cannot survive.
Natural environments require no belief, no maintenance…they are self-sustaining, self-regulating
Artificial environments require a conscious mind with an ideal, an objective, to constantly maintain it - otherwise it reverts back to nature.
So, all artificial, man-made and maintained artificial environments have an ideal - an objective, an end, cultivating a specific kind of man to the extent that it can contradict nature.
Nature has no end. Society does.
I get the difference, but if so, then any conception rises out of a pre-conceited state, which has layers and layers of redundant mixes of both.
Like a sieve where smaller and smaller particles fall out, the larger are sifted through progressively finer strains, and it appears as if this reduction begins it’s contrary journey of re-producing through very similar or, identical processes as it re-build through some kind of formal-structural memory.
I think this supports your comment on the prevelabe of Lamarkianisn over Darwin, but on its periodic ascent and descent, the conception can not be ultimately be reduced, either to resemblance or to simulated counterpart.
Conception is both a natural and a phenomenal usage, that only appear to exclude each other on the primary level of understanding, that is reliant on a prior notion of apprehension.
Americanism? Release es on the idea that political economy can effect the economy of the id, and reversely, that economic variables of profit and loss can determine changes of acquired traits, long enough up the constructed developmental chain to become permanent fixtures as more significant biological components evolve.
All organism’s intervene upon their environment…only one - known one - can intervene to the degree man can and does…producing man-made and man-maintained artificial, ideologically based environments.
Their development is similar to any evolutionary process…creating intermediate stages of varying success.
Ironically, these artificial environments are naturally selected- man must understand what he is negating or correcting.
One cannot alter what one does not understand.
So, artificial environments decline when those that understood buy into their own lies - feeling like gods - or their minds deteriorate due to their own interventions - miscegenating and sheltering.
Nihilist founded man-made environments are particularly vulnerable.
The degree to which an artificial environment attempts to “change, contradict, correct” nature to man’s idealized desires, determines the degree of interventions that must be constantly apply to maintain and enhance it…until the energies necessitated exceed what is available.
Again yes but redundancy is eliminated by functional utility, in trans-cultural and even multi-worldly phenomena( if that ever rise above the theoretical to the actual), and even if it doesen’t , it will only become another unproven, nihilistically fisposeable product of the natural process,
Guess, everything is natural until proven otherwise; a faux pantheism turned on I upside down, but not to go to a non existent absurd limit.
All that emerges in nature is natural.
The distinction is meant to recognize the point to which the organism begins to determine its own evolutionary fate, with all the consequences this implies.
It is meant to appreciate how human ideologies/dogmas cultivate types of men, and how viable these types are, if they don’t contradict the ideals they depend upon.
So, homosexuality emerges naturally, for a variety of reasons, but a society may cultivate and promote it as its ideal man… with consequences.
Free-will = choice.
Man participates in his own fate.
Specialization faces a tipping point.
How many free-radicals or specialists can a system endure - how much inter-depedency, reducing independence to a hive mind.
The degree to which man contradicts the environment he emerged within, determines the degree of friction between his artificially maintained world and the natural world.
This friction is what produces pollutants - material and genetic ([size=85]mutations[/size]).
The degree of friction determines how much intervention - how many energies - man must invest in maintaining and expanding its artificial reality.
At some point the energies required are too vast…and decline begins.
At this point it becomes possibly significant to introduce two very similar ideas yet worlds apart: conception and recognition/recognition.
The emergence of man’s imputed effort to simulate according to functional utility as seen fit, depends for the most part a re-cognition of prior means of the means of adaptation, whereas pre-conception may offer a means to seek out changes from extra-sensible sources.
Agreed
Precedent is the guide.
What works and the degree that it did.
Man learns, and then changes his choices accordingly.
There is no preconception. There is projection based on resynthesizing precedent into novel forms.
Everything comes from memory - DNA and experiential.
What you may mean is that man can tap into primal, subconscious, genetic memories he had not fully become cognizant of.
Re-Collection.
Experiential data may include data the mind did not become fully aware of - subconscious data.
Like latent genes, the mind stores such memories until new data triggers them.
The mystic, guru, taps into these concealed genetic memories, finding in experience symbols to bring them forth into his consciousness. He tries to make sense of them using his experiences.
An artist does something similar, only he taps into those unprocessed experiential datum, stored in memory in unrefined forms. he tries to make sense of their incomprehensibility, by finding connections to his lucid experiences or his subconscious genetic memories.
So ones become unfunctional, are discarded as useless, but they still are simulated from the same source, regardless, as many AI derived products loose their meaningful recovery, as if they were meant to.
But I see te point.
Yep, it should be. That is what it really is and means. But most people run from it because “muh it makes me fewl badd waaaa”
All can be “healed/corrected” with “proper edumucation”.
Very progressive mythology.
All we really need is…luv.
I don’t run, I get kicked out on purpose. But…there was this one guy … I kicked him out by giving the appearance of space expanding. He needed space, but didn’t have the nuts to say it. Wish granted.
Anyway. That was lightyears ago, and apparently the entanglement was all in my head.
I can see clearly now.
That’s what happens when sons loose respect for their fathers, and the guilt eats them up that is.a symbolic mutilatioa masocjistic bearing of a cross wired assumed anger from a father reduced to some transcendental reverse projection of the anthropoformic image.
Even if that’s not how it may have been designed toward a vanishing objective, as it should have been, time is of the essence to realize farther spaced out objectives,
Course the sheeple has gone through the similar trauma of denying the live that should be rekindled between the finale of the father’s love toward his son, which has been abandoned for the most part.
The breakdown of the connection between the familial and the familiar, is what the spaced out awareness can no longer reflect on.
It’s easier not to commit to love, that way no one will get hurt.
So dissonance is not innate, but the tendency for it is, the possibility for it great, and it is learned as that protomodel of negation attracts those who have something to benefit.
The perceived masochism of the son, is a manifestation of the out s paced future, it’s objective ethereally blown out of a proportion , where it develops into a defense against the loss of live, as time determines it.
Lorikeet, I started watching your video because I thought at first it was trying to explain the origin of cognitive dissonance, which is what the original post is about. I’m not exactly sure why I assumed that. But it turns out that it is saying that cognitive dissonance is why Christians believe what they/we believe (in regards to the resurrection, I’m assuming?). I listened to it for a while, but it just kept saying they were preparing to talk about it and they were preparing to get into it …but everything they were saying was stuff that is really old and has been dealt with for a really long time. And it doesn’t really address the original post, so I stopped listening. If there was anything specific that you wanted me to actually respond to, please try to articulate it in your own words.
It seems like we must have a natural capacity for it, otherwise we would be incapable of being surprised by anything or scared by anything or caught off guard by anything.
The fact that humans are not the only animals capable of being caught off guard or surprised or scared… just something to consider when considering the learned aspect.