Human Nature

Ecmandu · February 8, 2015, 11:48pm

Arminius:

Hello, Project (Machine Project?).

project2501:

Arminius:

When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires … and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

So culture is the same as nature?

No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: “When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.” That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

project2501:

Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.

That’s not true, alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species.

Arminius · February 9, 2015, 12:40am

Ecmandu:

project2501:

Arminius:

When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires … and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

So culture is the same as nature?

Arminius:

No. Culture it is t the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: “When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.” That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

project2501:

Can you say more about humans being defined apart from animals because of luxury?

Yes. I can.

That’s not true, alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species.

What is not true?

Whether “alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species” or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!

Prismatic567 · February 9, 2015, 3:28am

I cannot see how luxury is a significant difference animal nature and human nature.
Another difference between animal and human nature is the degree of self-consciousness on a continuum.
If the highest degree of self-consciousness in animals (e.g. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) are say 10/100, then humans could be rated 60/100.

Many animals are driven to extravagance by their procreation impulses.
Some birds go to the extreme of decorating their nests and themselves to attract the other sex. As mentioned the alpha male/female will also engage in excesses as selfish indulgence in order to dominate.
They do not regard it as ‘luxury’ only because their degree of self-consciousness (self-awareness, ego, etc.) is significantly lower that those of humans.

Humans also engage in the same excesses like animals but the difference is due to their higher degree of self-consciousness and egoism. Where they do it to the extreme, that is not normal human nature but rather it becomes a mental disease of obsession, compulsive disorder behavior, addiction, etc.

It is true humans do not conform to Darwinian theory of adaptation in full.
However humans still conform to general evolution theory and the preservation of the species in terms of large numbers, i.e. 7 billion++ and growing. I think the human species is quite secure until the Earth is physically inhabitable* for all humans.
*Singed/charred by the Sun coming near to Earth or destroyed by a rogue meteor, etc.

Arminius · February 9, 2015, 4:54am

Prismatic, please correct the quotations in your last post!

Prismatic567:

I cannot see how luxury is a significant difference animal nature and human nature.
Another difference between animal and human nature is the degree of self-consciousness on a continuum.
If the highest degree of self-consciousness in animals (e.g. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) are say 10/100, then humans could be rated 60/100.

Many animals are driven to extravagance by their procreation impulses.
Some birds go to the extreme of decorating their nests and themselves to attract the other sex. As mentioned the alpha male/female will also engage in excesses as selfish indulgence in order to dominate.
They do not regard it as ‘luxury’ only because their degree of self-consciousness (self-awareness, ego, etc.) is significantly lower that those of humans.

Humans also engage in the same excesses like animals but the difference is due to their higher degree of self-consciousness and egoism. Where they do it to the extreme, that is not normal human nature but rather it becomes a mental disease of obsession, compulsive disorder behavior, addiction, etc.

In the case of the humans self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism is one aspect, yes, but the main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: “extreme”) after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal (“individual”) development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, … were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

Prismatic567 · February 10, 2015, 3:20am

So is, naturally primates are 99.9%-animals, but culturally primates are 99.9%-primates.
(primates do have ‘culture’ but very insignificant if compared to humans)

What about this;
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but ‘nurturally’ humans are 98%-humans.

fuse · February 10, 2015, 6:40am

My intuition is that it’s way too reductive to say human nature boils down to this one trait, or any one trait that I can think of, but the human ability for sophisticated abstraction and shared abstraction comes to mind. Our mental categorization and schematism of the world set us apart from the beginning and have only become more prominent since.

Arcturus_Descending · February 10, 2015, 2:33pm

I can go along with that - and do.
fuse, if you could compare humanity to only one animal, which would it be? I’m being serious here.

project2501 · February 11, 2015, 1:17am

A superior creature ought to be able to reproduce endlessly and survive eternally.

project2501 · February 11, 2015, 1:18am

Arminius:

No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: “When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.” That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

So luxury is culture, and culture is luxury?

Will you?

project2501 · February 11, 2015, 1:19am

What are examples of the higher order of humanity?

fuse · February 11, 2015, 3:09am

A cat/dog hybrid. Part lion, part wolf, and in modern times I feel rather like it’s part house cat, part domesticated dog.

Arminius · February 11, 2015, 12:44pm

If you consider “nurture” as a main aspect of human culture: yes. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

Yes.

project2501 · February 11, 2015, 9:30pm

When?

Arminius · February 12, 2015, 1:44pm

As I said (for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the “luxury islands”.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say “human nature is human culture/s”, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!

Arcturus_Descending · February 12, 2015, 2:49pm

Rabbits and cock roaches do that. Does that make them superior?

Orbie · February 12, 2015, 3:39pm

The most implicit distinction between Man and cockroaches is in his ability to dream. If cockroaches could dream, they would look like armored, iron men by now. Perhaps this is somewhat what Kafka may have had in mind.

Arminius · February 12, 2015, 8:38pm

Well, … “in mind”? Perhaps you know that Kafka was not a philosopher but mentally ill - like many others of his “sort”.

Kafka wrote down what was in his mind, yes, but in his mind was no contribution to the solution of the problem of human nature. In his mind was merely he himself. So, metaphorically spoken, he himself was the beetle (you say: “cockroach”). But a beetle (and also your “cockroach”) is definitely no human.

It is not true that “the most implicit distinction” between humans and cockroaches is in the “ability to dream” (Orb). Many animals can dream.

Do dreaming animals dream typical human dreams?

…

No.

Arminius · February 22, 2015, 3:52am

Hey, Project, where is your response? You are a very slow “machine”. Are you “a windmill in a desert”?

project2501 · April 13, 2015, 3:45pm

Higher quality takes more time, your interpretation is being processed.

That version of computation has long been outdated.

Arminius · April 27, 2015, 5:49pm

[size=107]1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright walking which leads to the possibility of using hands in many other ways than walking which leads to a more voluminous brain with very much more capacity which leads to the birth of the luxury being.

The "birth" of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.
The "youth" of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.
The "adulthood" of the human luxury beings began when they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction (since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).

4a) The "early adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called “Neolithic Revolution”) to the agriculture.

4b) The "middle adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (=>).

4c) The "late adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.[/size]

[size=90]So currently we at the stage 4b.[/size]