And you must appear as your own… a grotesque, dome-headed freak!
Exterminate!
No counter-argument, only slander and declarations, and the usual obsession with Abrahamism.
Yes you dimwit, all is weakening, some more than others. The failure of Lamarckism also disproves your specious ideas.
Please demonstrate!
Indeed.
He has such a long list of misconceptions, it’s hard to believe he’s not from the 15thC
Over millions of reproductive cycles mutations and genetic drift exert a negative downward pressure on a species (99.9% of all species are extinct).
And your point is what…?
Humans know it though, at least some (maybe 20%), and these humans also know that humans are the only beings who knowingly (knowingly!) fight nature, and they do so with the help of technology. I’ve explained it here many times (others have too), but most here at ILP are just too stupid to understand: The point is not to say that what is natural in humans is not subjected to what is commonly called “natural selection”, but to finally make it clear that it is only in humans that, for example, the unfittest have the most offspring and the fittest have the fewest, often none at all. And this is not natural, but typically human, also in the sense of what you call “memes”.
You yourself have said that memes are far much more important than genes. So we are in agreement after all.
What a certain ILP fool (I have him on ignore) just does not want to admit is that the theory of the theologian Darwin has weaknesses, that there are errors in it, because humans do not fit 100% into this theory. And this is because of memes. And it is right what you also have said: Memes are far more important than genes, “particularly in a globalizing world where race mixing has made the lines blurry”.
It is a fact that humans are only to a certain percentage part of the natural selection and to another percentage not. Humans have been being on the at least 50% non-natural way since about 6000 years - with a prelude of about 20000 years - and very especially since the industrial revolution, which was above all a consequence of the scientific-technical and economic revolution that had already lasted several centuries, with consequences for medicine, pharmacy and hygiene, so that, for example, the child mortality fell to well below 1%. All this began in Europe and was later brought from here to all other countries of the world.
There would not be about 8 billion, but only about 10-20 million humans (0,125-0.25%) on this planet today, if humans lived (but they do not) 100% according to “natural selection”
I have just found a text from ILP member Humanize that says exactly the same thing as several of my texts:
Right. =D>
Again:
And this is why humans can deny, negate, their own existence, and develop nihilistic ideologies that attempt to redefine existence, or to linguistically alter natural order.
Awareness is a double-edged sword.
The fact that any theory has “weaknesses” is not an argument against it, nor is it evidence that other theories are better.
So, 6000 years of social selection - not completely free from natural order - usurps millions of years of evolution?
Of those 6000 years, when did man really create artificial environments that protected him from natural selection?
Let’s say a rudimentary form of culture started 6000 ago …how long before it became sophisticated enough to create social selection processes?
Furthermore, you seem to think that all human interventions are positive.
What are the consequences, the collateral effects of human interventions upon the environment and his own evolution?
We are seeing it, presently… with this transsexual insanity that is gripping America’s dominion.
Are you naive enough to believe that this will have no devastating repercussions down the road?
I see it as the end phase of civilization, after a period of cultivating its cultural ideal man - its “perfect citizenry”.
Well, the homosexual/transexual male - mostly, is that ideal American citizen.
Feminization of Man, rooted in Abrahamism.
America is the civilizational end-phase of a long culturally nihilistic road.
Its techno-utopia, void of races and sexes, will not be realized by the US.
Maybe the next iteration will be more successful.
And? :-"
How is this a bad thing?
Why are quantities so important to your kind? What about quality?
Put it to ya another way…the degree man contradicts natural order determines the severity of the unforeseen negative effects, necessitating further interventions …which then create more negative effects necessitating more interventions …until the system collapses unable to fully deal with the compounding side-effects of its own meddling.
Then you have to consider another factor: as your developing ideal system is intervening upon nature, creating freaks, another group is not contradicting nature to the same degree - it is more brutish, let’s say.
Will your group manage to survive conflict or competition with that group?
One side-effect of human meddling is compounding mutations with unforeseeable consequences…not all positive.
Demographics, for instance, will be severely impacted.
We’re not talking about focused intentional eugenics, but systems adopting an ideal that produce particular types of humans, and a variety of side-effects…like genetic pollutants.
The shift from gene to meme is inevitable.
But I’ve repeatedly said that memes must remain extensions not contradictions of genetics. Genes/Memes must remain in relative harmony - more the latter with the former.
Meme must remain in alignment with the past - sum total of past nurturing = nature. Memes must be anchored upon Genes.
I measure nihilistic dogmas/ideologies by the degree of contradiction the meme offers to the naturally selected gene.
When ideal confronts the real, the real ain’t gonna lose that battle.
The optimal method is for the meme, the ideology/dogma to remain aligned or in relative harmony with the genealogy it emerged from.
This is how I’ve defined artificial, as it pertains to environment:
All organisms affect their environment and are affected by it, in return.
‘Artificial’ would be an environment where the organism has affected its environment to such a degree that its interventions are affecting its evolution more than the environment it intervened upon, i.e., more than the naturally evolved, determined, environment.
Here free-will enters the picture since if man has no free-will then the implication is that all this is part of a cosmic process, and so it is all determined; so, all we can do is wait and see what happens next, since we are impotent audiences of our own lives.
But, if man does have some degree of willful agency, and his judgments and choices do participate in what will be determined, then this means that the ideals governing men’s judgements, i.e., evaluations, determining the probability of man’s choices, will be crucial to man’s destiny.
Ideals also determine morals/ethics.
And this is what is occuring…a war over ideals.
Americanism wanted to force its ideal upon the entire world - as an extension of its Judaic spiritual grounding - its Globalizing messianic liberalism failed.
It could not undermine resistance fast enough. It undermined itself faster.
Now we are entering a multipolar world order… meaning, multiple ideals will be competing; each one cultivating their own ideal citizenry, their own ideal men and women…or lack of, as in the case of Americanism.
I would hazard a prediction and say that the one which is more aligned with nature will be the most successful…and the one which most contradicts nature will fail.
I did not say that it is a bad thing.
And:
“Social evolution” is nonsense. There is no such thing as “social evolution”. What there is is a genetic-biological evolution, from which from a certain point of time and place - i.e. in a certain situation - a linguistic evolution, and included in it are the memes (they are linguistic), separates.
Only humans after suckling age speak a linguistic language. Animals and human infants speak only a semiotic language.
It is the linguistic language which has created a whole universe of infinite possibilities for a further evolution, i.e. history. At first and for a very, very long time, the linguistic language was scriptless. About 6000 years ago it became written - for known reasons. This has produced the also writing based history, whereby the language evolution has got an even more powerful push than before already.
And this is not a bad thing, but a good thing. But what happens today - the development towards an artificial language (falsely called “artificial intelligence”, which is not intelligent at all, but comparatively stupid) - that is something which is quite to be interpreted as a bad thing show, because it goes beyond humans (see: transhumanism).
What is nonsense are your casual dismissals.
Natural selection becomes social selection.
In nature what offers an environmental advantage is selected into the gene-pool.
In manmade environments, guided by ideals and ethics, what is selected is what offers a social advantage, determined by these ideals.
What is naturally advantageous is not necessarily socially advantageous, and what is socially advantageous is most certainly ever naturally advantageous.
Unless social assimilation is considered part of what offers a natural advantage.
For example, ants are not benefited by individualism or a sense of self. Such a development would inhibit their participation in the colony.
Feminine Men are only advantageous within a system where masculine men shelter them form the consequences. Their feminine disposition towards power benefits their social status, improving the odds of them passing on their genes.
The difference being abstraction.
Human language can refer exclusively to abstractions. what is exchanged through linguistic intercourse, are ideas, concepts, that may have no external references.
Animal communications are more base - they communicate states of mind, in relation to an external referent, or an internal state triggered by a real event.
Humans can be triggered by fantasies, or concepts that only exists in their collective psyche.
And along with those benefits it has produced costs - negative consequences.
I agree.
What separates you and Kathrina are two words. She uses the word “language” where you use the word “social”.
Language is not only, but more than “social”, not only, but more than “communication”, not only, but more than “information”.
I use “social” to replace natural.
Natural selection becomes social selection.
Language is to memes, what DNA is to genes.
One carries the naturally selected past, the other carries the socially selected past.
Genes manifest phenotypes: memes manifest ideological types, or social types.
Language is not more than social, its not even more than communication.
A bewildering number of species, not only animal, manage to communicate without any actual language. A formal language is a social phenomenon, but social phenomena are greater than language alone.
Information about the culture is carried through generations by much more than language. Ask any archaeologist. It is their job to reconstruct the “histories” of cultures from times when there was no written language. Culture is written in the style of buildings and artefacts, and communicate subtle and not so subtle information across time.
None of this invalidates Darwin’s principles in any way.
In fact talk of memes extends that principle beyond the genome
What you have not understood is the fact that we divide language more precisely and extensive or comprehensive, and do not mean, as you do, only the linguistic language, but also the semiotic (note the difference between semiotics and linguistics). In other words: If e.g. animals communicate with each other, then they use language, namely the semiotic language, and already this language is more than communication and information, because the animals have a mission, which is: to protect the group or the pack, to warn, i.e. finally: to survive. After their infancy - every human infant is born too early - humans use besides the semiotic also the linguistic language, and it is it, which let humans become so successful.
Your definition of language is much too narrow and therefore wrong.
So once again: Language is not only, but more than “social”, not only, but more than “communication”, not only, but more than “information”.
I can agree to that, but I would just use another word instead of the word “social”. It is just the word “social” that Kathrina replaced with “language”. And I can agree to that too.
This different choice of words results in a different choice of terms, and this different term provides a different image and thus a different interpretation.
My motive is not only that too much mischief has already been done with the word “social”, but also and above all that the social is also interpreted, and this by means of image as well as by means of word. And since interpretations are or become meanings and there were originally no modern technical media, but only living media, we have therefore become more and more dependent on the technical media, i.e. on the increasingly powerful control, which in turn forces us to establish our own words and concepts.
For example: Are “social media” really “social”?
They are just a kind of semiotic-linguistic language, namely a modern technical kind of semiotic-linguistic language. And the have been being successful because of the evolution of language!
From the naturalists’ point of view, language-based evolution or cultural evolution - you call it social evolution - is a false evolution, a reverse evolution: a revolution. It is one that runs the other way around.
The point here is not whether the numbers are exactly right, but that the human revolution you call „social evolution“ actually fights natural evolution because it contradicts it, just as human technology does by exploiting nature and trying to make it its slave.
90-99% of the humans living on this planet would not exist at all, if it were not for the cultural evolution that you call „social evolution“ and which is a revolution, a reverse evolution (as if revalued).
In other words, 90-99% of the humans living on this planet would not exist at all if only natural evolution existed.
So 90-99% of the humans living on this planet exist only because of the existence of the Occidental culture with its technology, science, leading to industrialization (the greatest revolution ever) and to the health and thus population explosion of unprecedented proportions: from about 500 million to almost 8 billion humans on this planet.
social refers to conventional or collective…or to institutionalized.
Language refers to the codes used for a society to communicate, and to disseminate ideas, beliefs, ethics.
Indeed.
It is the basis of my perspective.
Then my offering may interest you.
My position is that Americanised, i.e., western, man has been infected by a mental disease, a virus, carried by a parasite, but also a product of natural evolution of self-awarness, requiring a way of dealing with the negative consequences of objective self-awarness.
The parasite - memetic - exploits this for its own survival needs.
Words have been used to detach rather than attach minds to reality.
The sensation is pleasant, because existence is experienced as need/suffering.
These variants of ideological/dogmatic detachments I call nihilistic.
They start with the Abrahamic triad, and advance through Marxism to the present day postmodern/transhumanist variant.
There can be a variety of such contraptions because their motive is to detach form the only reference that can restrict human imagination: nature.
Nihilism is entirely linguistic, since it has no reference in reality and is motivated by a desire to escape it.
If anyone attempts to return words to their original utility these fanatics react with a passion.
For instance…concepts like god, free-will, morality, can be returned to their original meanings…but these fanatics do not like this, because their goal is not clarity and truth, but escape, pleasure, comforting.
social is code for socially constructed.
Race, gender, must become socially cosntructed…by first detaching them form their real-world references.
All words must be given this nihilistic treatment.
Those that use ‘social’ in this way advocate social engineering, eugenics…whilst pretending to disapprove of such practices.
They invert everything.
They e hypocrites…and don’t even know it.
Self-Deceiving.
Everything I’ve posted is in relation to this.