Organisms on this planet have evolved a four-code system to collect and store memories - DNA
This is the third-person perspective - objectivity.
The mind projects the ego in some external local and then perceives itself relative to world…
The evolution from first-person subjectivity towards third-person objectivity.
I/Other and the third factor time…space…effort, etc.
Triad:
Body/Mind, as an emergent quality…and where the two merge (synthesize)…nervous system.
This is from where language emerges to either connect or disconnect with the world outside the human skull.
Nah. Language emerged from humans learning how to mimic animals. It then got pretty handy in hunting situations. Soon they were using special sounds to alert each other. Couple that with the tool use, free hands and evolved hips, and well, here we are.
That’s my theory, anyway.
The local in the physical form
Where does the vocalization emerge from in animals, in birds…what is it expressing?
Vocal communications emerges to express, communicate, externalize internal states of distress, hunger, sexual desire etc.
No. Also location. Imagine you and three others in a deep forest. How do you know where the others are in relation to you? One way to find out, make a sound that is not unusual, but distinct enough to signal location…
Yes, but in the wild exposing yourself vocally is a death sentence.
Biologists have speculated as to why animals vocalize distress when they perceive a predator, exposing themselves to danger.
The answer is…it is advantageous in the long run because having dozens of lookouts increases the odds of surviving, whereas escaping one predator is a risk worth taking.
Cost/Benefit.
Not if the vocals are mimicking another creature that may be present.
Mimicry is a sophistication that evolved gradually…and is not the rule. Even when imitating another you expose yourself to danger.
You give up the advantage of concealment. There’ are always more than one kind of predator silently lurking.
How do you know?
It’s not all predators you know, in fact prey animals outnumber predators by a large factor. What is it with you and the predators? Do you think that early man was sitting scared in his cave?
You should try to read “Clan of the Cave Bear” by Jean M. Auel, for example. That’s an imaginative look at what life was like for early humans, neanderthals in particular.
edit - and for that matter, if you were a predator would you go hunting three or more humans who all had very sharp sticks? I would stick to the other local fauna if it was me…
You have got to be kiddin…
No, I think man was in paradise sleeping with lions and sheep…frolicking on the meadows without a care in the world.
Like a park, or a zoo…a petting zoo.
Yes…paradise…
Birds expressing their musical talents…sheep braying…
Must have been so wonderful
Ta, Ta,.
See ya!
Desperate for what exactly?
I suggest you stop presuming things here. That way you will be able to concentrate.
So, to ‘you’, ‘I’ am delusional.
Now, what ‘we’ can observe here is what ‘this one’ is already believing as an irrefutable fact. What ‘this one’ will show, very clearly, from now on is its 'confirmation biases. See, once ‘we’ have established the beliefs and presumptions within ‘the other’, it is very simple and easy to see where they will ‘try to’ lead discussions from there on.
But, what has happened here so far is:
I asked “satyr”, Why have you always desired to live in peace and harmony?" (This is because I know what everyone Truly wants and so desires.)
“satyr”, instead of answering, asked me who told me that “satyr” desires peace and harmony.
I then asked “satyr” a couple of open questions for clarity’s sake.
“satyr” with, “I want to live in harmony with nature…”, thus confirming what I already knew.
So,
To you, “men” desire survival, and procreation is an extension of survival.
To me, “men”, “women”, and "children desire survival, and procreation is just a part of survival.
I only asked you, "What do “men” desire, (and what is exactly)?
Who cares what so-called “others” place ideals above survival? you made the claim that ‘I’ confuse what “men” desire (with what is). Now, if you believe that you know, without absolutely any doubt at all, that ‘I’ am confused about what “men” desire, this obviously implies that you know, for absolutely sure, what “men” desire. Now, unless you have more to offer up in regards to what “men” desire, then what you have already claimed is all there is.
Now, what can be seen here, very clearly, is that ‘I’ actually say the exact same thing as “satyr” regarding what “men” desire, yet LOL “satyr” claims that it is ‘I’ who is confused about what “men” desire. So, “satyr” is not off to a very good start here.
However, unlike “satyr’s” very narrow and closed perspective of things here, I say and claim that not just “men” but all human beings desire survival. So, who is actually more ‘confused’ here is becoming clearer. you have also obviously confused ‘procreation’ as being ‘an extension’ of survival, when it is very clear that ‘procreation’ is really just ‘a part of survival’. Without ‘procreation’ human beings obviously could not and would not survive.
you, again, come out with some very random comments and/or claims.
Anyway, what version of “survival of the fittest” do you use? In other words, what does that quote mean, and/or is referring to, to you, exactly?
So, what we have here is another one who loves to claim things as though they are the absolute truth, and/or that they know exactly what the truth is, but when questioned and challenge they provide nothing of substance, and instead just ‘try to’ insult.
Now, do you really believe that a person like you calling me a “man-child” is going to make an effect on anything here?
you did not answer and clarify your last claim, but let the readers see if you can and will elaborate on and clarify this new claim of yours here. you now claim that “absolutely nothing is exact”. So, what do you mean by this exactly?
Is the claim that “nothing is exact” not exactly as well? Obviously, it would have to be, well, according to “your logic” here.
And, what makes “your logic” and absolute claim here even more ridiculous is that if one does not believe the claim “nothing is exact” is the absolute truth, then ‘that one’ is a so-called “man-child”.
Is this really what a mature and grown-up individual would say and claim, especially on a philosophy forum in the public domain?
What has ‘this’ got to do with absolutely anything written and said prior here?
Look, “satyr”, you were the one who made the claim that it is ‘I’ who confuses what “men” desire with ‘what is’, which obviously is you believing and implying that you know, absolutely, ‘what is’ exactly. If you cannot elaborate on your claim and just explain ‘what is’ simply, then do you really understand what you are believing, claiming, and talking about here?
So, you agree with me here.
So, you respond to ‘my words’, but LOL you cannot be bothered with individuals ‘like me’.
By the way, what are individuals like me like exactly?
LOL “satyr”. What do you think they are seeing and thinking here now?
So, when you were younger, when you were naive and idealistic, you wanted to live in harmony with nature, but when you became older, and wiser, you now desire to survive and want to live forever.
Are you sure that you are not confused here? you now wanting to live forever sounds far more naive and idealistic than just desiring to live in harmony with others/nature.
What are you ‘trying to’ claim are delusions here.
Just saying something as uninformative as, for example, “your war delusions”, is not exactly saying much at all, let alone saying anything at all.
What about your conflict delusions “satyr”?
Why would any human being not want peace?
The answer, by the way, is very, very simple.
Yes, I have thought through the costs. And, there are no losers and everyone wins.
Have you thought through the costs… or do you only focus on perceived drawbacks?
Once more, absolutely everything that human beings have created was once seen as “too idealistic” or impossible.
Therefore, absolutely everything that human beings have created, and so has become ‘actual reality’, is proof that it does not matter one iota what you believe is “too idealistic” or impossible. Human beings like “yourself” are continually being proven Wrong.
So, to give you ‘an example’, just pick absolutely anything that human beings have dreamed up, designed, invented, built, and/or created into ‘reality’ and into ‘existence’.
Do you really believe these words are an insult?
Are these “off the cuff” remarks meant to be in relation to anything here?
If they are, then what is that exactly?
Once again, you are speaking as though you know, without any doubt at all, what is ‘real’ and so what ‘reality’ is exactly.
Now, list what you claim are human ideals, and then explain how they contradict what you call ‘the real’.
Then explain the ‘negative consequences’, as well as ‘the severity’.
Explain to the readers here, for example, a human ideal of ‘living in harmony with nature’, which, after you “grew up”, only then did you start to believe absolutely that ‘this ideal’ contradicts ‘nature’, and explain the ‘negative consequences’. Then will you explain the severity of the negative consequences?
Here you have just made another claim.
So, what exactly do you believe I am ‘projecting’?
If you laughably believe that ‘I’ have introduced absolutely any thing to ‘try to’ deflect and deceive, then provide a list of those things.
Show the readers that you are actually capable of backing up and supporting your claims here.
So, because ‘you’ obviously are always in constant conflict, stress, and tension with “yourself” and with “others” you project that absolutely everyone else is also always in conflict, stress, and tension as well.
Which is quite funny considering what the actual Truth is here.
Imagine how immature one would have to be to present condescending remarks like this one is.
Remember, I have also noted how when one believes something is absolutely true, they cannot do the opposite of what they believe because of the 'cognitive dissonance ’ that doing so would obviously cause for that one.
Here is another absolutist claim.
So, if ‘I’ am supposedly at war as we speak, and ‘I’ am supposedly battling and struggling, then with who and/or what exactly?
Now, you want to make another absolutist claim. So, if ‘I’ am unaware, because my energies suffice, then what energies are you referring to exactly? Why do your energies not suffice, which makes you aware that you are always battling, struggling, and at war? Could you pre-exising beliefs and presumptions be affecting ‘the way’ you look at and see things so what is actually happening and occurring is that you are not actually always battling, struggling, and warring, but ‘your confirmation biases’ cannot see absolutely anything else?
Or, are you not fallible to ‘confirmation biases’ because your current beliefs and assumptions are only of what is actually true and real, and if anyone sees anything different from you then it is ‘them’ who is Wrong?
What is, supposedly, naivete in display?
And, as I just pointed out above, all are completely unnecessary.
Are you here really ‘trying to’ suggest that you do not fear any violence at all?
If you are, then you must be very brave and strong, right?
If ‘you’ love or like being pushed around and/or being forced to do things that you do not like, then ‘I’ totally understand.
LOL, LOL, LOL
If you really cannot see the contradiction here, then I am not going to explain it to you.
If you ever decide to read the Nine Steps, and come to also learn and understand them as well, then you will just how naive and far behind “your thinking” is here.
‘I’ am supposedly losing what, girl?
I am not ‘trying to’ do anything here.
I just made a note of how absolutely idiotic your statement and claim are.
If you are ‘corned’, then ‘you are corned’.
Now, if you really want to claim that ‘I’ have made an absolutely idiotic statement and/or claim absolutely anywhere, then provide ‘it’, explain why you believe ‘it’ is, then ‘we’ will take a look at ‘it’, and then see what the actual Truth is, and exactly.
LOL When you read or hear the words, “young children who love when parents are constantly fighting and warring with each other”, then is “bombs” really the first word that you imagine?
When you hear the words, “conflict”, is the word “bombs” what jumps out in front of you?
Are you here now ‘trying to’ claim that you do not fear bombs, either now or when you were a young child?
So, once again this one pretends to ‘ask a question’, but really it has already decided what ‘the answer’ is, and then just keeps writing as though it, laughably, knows without any doubt at all, and thus knows absolutely what ‘my answer’ would be.
And, the funniest part of all of this, it is clearly very obvious that its ‘attempt’ to introduce another “red-herring” to deflect, and to deceive the readers here, was absolutely nothing that I was obviously writing nor thinking.
LOL So, the one that claims stress, tension, conflict, and wars, MUST ALWAYS exist, has now resorted to talking about extremes. I talked about “bombs” in ‘conflict zones’, and then this one introduces “nukes”, and then questions me about whether it advocates for nuclear war or not.
What is wrong with you “woman-girl”, lol do you fear nuclear war?
LOL How many “red-herrings” can you introduce in just one reply?
LOL Now it has completely and utterly ‘changed its tune’.
Are you trying to argue and fight for your belief and claim that there is always stress, tension, conflict, and war? Or, are you trying to argue and fight that wars and children living in ‘conflict zones’ is something that can be prevented and stopped?
It would help the readers here to understand ‘your view and position’ here. Otherwise, some might end up thinking you just want to fight and/or argue against whatever points of views another puts forward.
Which obviously would be exactly what those who believe, absolutely, that there is always stress, tension, and conflict, would want to do and would do. After all, human beings would obviously want to do what aligns with their current beliefs and presumptions.
Imagine being so “one-eyed” and closed that you would end up believing, absolutely, that ‘the one’ who wrote a nine-step process that can, and will, lead to World Peace has, remarkably, been turning a “blind eye” to the holocaust happening in “palestine”.
Sometimes people’s beliefs will not allow them to become aware of what they are actually saying and/or doing.
Why would you now claim that you do not like what is natural?
Is this why you said that when you were young, you were naive and idealistic, you know, back when you wanted to live in harmony with nature, and why now that you believe you are not naive and have “grown up” you do not want to live in harmony with nature?
you are, after all, here claiming that the killing and murdering of children in “palestine” although it is a completely natural occurence, you still do not like it.
Have you worked out that you really do want to not live in harmony with nature, but just want to live in disharmony with nature?
Maybe because you believe the people living in one country dropping bombs on children in another country is ‘just natural’, and because you now ‘want to live in disharmony with nature’, this is why you are, maybe, now advocating for the ‘natural progression’ to ‘nuclear war’ to end? But, then again, maybe you are just a very afraid “women-child” who is scared of being affected by 'nuclear weapons"? Maybe when you are not living in a ‘conflict zone’ you will try to argue and fight for your belief that ‘conflict’ and ‘bombs’ always must occur, but when the ‘bombs’ could affect you, you become very weak and scared and then that is only when you do not advocate for war and tension?
Imagine believing that adults from a country who have become so hateful of “others” that they believe dropping bombs on children in another country is ‘just natural’, and is a ‘natural occurrence.’ Imagine believing that that then means that ‘those adults’ are completely absolutely “justified” in becoming ‘that way’ and with ‘doing that’.
How does ‘this’ make any sense at all?
‘I’ have never ever sought ‘salvation’ from absolutely anything, let alone from Nature, Itself.
Also, to me, there are no uncertainties, no injustices, nor brutality regards to Nature. Nature’s indifference is just plain obvious and understandable as well.
What you appear to be doing here is projecting your own obvious fears here.
Are ‘you’ some kind of absolute imbecile?
‘I’ have never wanted absolutely anything like this at all.
Maybe ‘this one’ wanted these things, but finally realised that it cannot do anything about this, and so just imagines and/or projects its own insecurities into others.
Once more, this one has provided another absolute claim.
So, if there is supposedly ‘plenty of conflict in nature’, then provide a list of them.
Then there is no conflict, obviously.
Did you really need to be informed of ‘the answer’ here?
Do you believe that you, adult human beings, really do ‘have to’ keep creating conflict among “yourselves”?
What do you mean by ‘beast’, exactly?
Why do you believe, absolutely, that you always have to live with stress and in tension and conflict with everyone else?
And, please do not just say, ‘nature’.
‘Natural selection’, itself, is not violent, brutal, peaceful, nor loving.
Why do you believe that it is violent and brutal?
you are the one making the ‘absolute claims’ here.
you believe, absolutely, that ‘it is, absolutely, how it is’. you also believe, absolutely, that ‘natural selection’, itself, is violent and brutal.
you also believe, absolutely, it is absolutely impossible for you to live in harmony with absolutely anyone.
So, if you stopped with your ‘absolutist claims and beliefs’, the ‘absolute’ word would not be raised again.
What a load of “babble”.
you are the one who claims that you have to absolutely always live in stress, tension, and conflict with absolutely everyone.
Well, obviously, you cannot always live in conflict with only some, but not with everyone else.
If you could, then you would be living in peace and/or harmony, ‘with some’.
Which you have continually ‘tried to’ claim is an absolute impossibility.
While you were also, contradictory, claiming that you ‘have to’ always live with stress, tension, and conflict with all others, at the same time.
But, you also claim that you always have to live with stress, tension, and conflict with all others.
Have you written the words, ‘most probably’ anywhere before in this thread?
If yes, then where and when exactly?
So, since your conception, you have ‘always believed’ ‘this’.
Do you believe that anyone here will believe you?
But, as I have shown and proved previously, what you believe here could have been already disproved, you are just not open to it.
I am, supposedly, doing ‘poorly’ in regards to what, exactly?
What will, supposedly, end soon?
But, it does not matter ‘the reason’ why I am, supposedly, ‘doing poorly’ and will, supposedly, ‘end soon’, when you are not even capable of informing anyone of what ‘your words’ are even in relation to.
Here we have another example of a one-word response, which absolutely no one but you knows what you are meaning or referring to exactly.
In case you forgot, I was asking you how one can bond with another when you also claim that every one ‘must’ be in conflict with everyone else?
Yes.
How does a duckling or a chick imprint upon say you, a crocodile, or a tree, for example, when either of these things are the first living the chicks or ducklings see?
you appear to have forgotten, misinterpreted, or not understood ‘the question’. Or, maybe you are just ‘trying to’ deflect, detract, and/or deceive here, again.
How does let us say, a crocodile and a duckling ‘bond’, exactly, after the crocodile is the first thing a duckling sees?
Is any of this meant to relate to the actual question ‘I’ posed, and asked ‘you’?
If yes, then how exactly?
Do ‘you’ also?
LOL Exactly as I said it would be.
LOL Not a single second of consideration took place. it instead jumped to a Wrong conclusion.
This one still believes that the word, ‘fittest’, laughably, relates to ‘strength’.
What are you referencing ‘peace’ in relation to exactly, “grandma-baby”?
What do you mean by, ‘your utopia’, exactly?
you also talk as though ‘your utopia’ exists outside of ‘the world’ somehow.
The same could apply if you set up the same ‘commune’. Do you want to set up ‘a commune’?
If you do not, then why not?
By the way, do you have a belief that I want to?
If yes, then why exactly?
How many are there?
There is only One, which you live in, and where you believe absolutely that absolutely everyone must always live in tension, conflict, and war with absolutely everyone else.
LOL So, to “satyr”, there can only be ‘absolute harmony’, or ‘absolute conflict’. There could never ever be anything between.
Which explains exactly why it presents so many ‘absolutist claims’ here.
Why do you absolutely believe that one must fight to preserve their peace, “granny-girl”?
Could it be because you absolutely believe that you are always in constant conflict and tension, and always have to fight with others?
Yes, and again, because “satyr” believes that it knows the absolute truth of things here also.
LOL But, you believe in knowing the absolute truth about the yin/yang symbol, as well as believing absolutely absolute disharmony.
For ‘this one’ to now claim that it does not believe in absolutes while also claiming that everyone must absolutely live with stress, tension, and in conflict, is obviously self-contradictory and thus self-refuting as well.
So, the absolute truth, well, according to “satyr” anyway, is that there are ‘no absolutes’.
Why do the people who claim things like, for example, there are ‘no absolute truths’, completely and utterly blind and deaf to the completely obvious contradiction?
Claiming things like, “Strength is relative, not absolute”, is making an ‘absolute claim’. What “satyr” is ‘trying to’ claim that “strength is relative” is absolutely true and correct. Just like claiming that “ALL value judgements are not absolute” is an attempt to claim ‘absoluteness’. While also ‘trying to’ claim that ‘that one’ knows, absolutely, what the absolute truth is, exactly.
Ah, … another one of those who says one thing but means a completely other thing.
How and when did ‘honesty’ get you into so-called ‘trouble’ exactly?
Okay, bye.
This usually happens when ‘I’ get ‘too close’, or go ‘too deep’, for people who do not like to be open and/or honest here.
If this is what you really want to believe is the absolute truth, then okay.
- Why would I declare victory?
- Why would I gloat?
- What could there have been to ‘win’ here?
- What could there be to ‘gloat’ over?
- Why would ‘you’ call “yourself” ‘a goat’?
Who or what decided that there are, absolutely, ‘no absolutes in existence’, (except, of course, ‘the absolute truth’ that there are ‘no absolutes’)?
Did ‘the brain’ make up and decide ‘this absolute’, or was it something else?
LOL, LOL, LOL
Here we have another prime example of projection.
Just because, to this one, Existence remains incomprehensible, this means, absolutely, Existence will remain eternally incomprehensible.
Which is even a funnier belief and claim considering what the actual Truth is exactly.
Are those who offer you the complete model that ‘Existence is incomprehensible eternally’ also lying? Or, are those offering that ‘complete model’ telling the truth or the absolute truth?
Why couldn’t a completion be, for example, ‘Existence is fluid always, and in all ways’?
In fact, how could It be any other way?
Who does this ‘we’ word refer to, exactly?
And, why is it just because you believe, absolutely, that ‘there is no absolute truth’, then there is, all of a sudden, others who exist with this absolute belief, also, and it is only ‘you’ and ‘them’, with ‘that belief’, who are here 'telling the truth" (with only ‘high probability’, of course)?
What are the ‘three poles’, that give rise to humans?
The brain is just a receiver of information fed to it through the five senses of the body.
The human brain separates the One undivided whole into ‘perceived parts’. This is because creating this false perception is the only way the human brain can make sense of the One Universe in which it has found itself within.
When I posted
before you thanked me for posting them. And these were not the only times you said things like this about how you are not here to prove claims to us but rather to prove your claims to future generations.
Still you do not seek out clarification.
you, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what is actually meant.
your misunderstandings have led you completely and utterly astray. And, you have done absolutely nothing to obtain actual clarity and understanding.
Which, again, is why these people, back then, lived in the war-torn, greedy, selfish, and destructive world.
By the way, I still thank you for presenting ‘my words’ and ‘your misunderstandings’.