STeve555

Cheers. I knew I was right. That motofoko!!! on that other forum.

How are dolphins "simpler" lifeforms? Did you know that dolphins have the same syntax comprehension of a human being? first person, second person, and its plural derivates. They can recognize their own mirror image too. So a dolphin at a certain age is smarter than a 2 year old human being. Just because another mammal does not speak human language does not mean it does not think like humans. Feral humans raised by dogs lack the ability to speak, as goes for a lot of deaf people. Actually deaf people are better off not speaking, and instead focus on sign language. Too bad deaf people are often born out of perfectly hearing parents, so these parents have to learn sign language. Dolphins speak, but in a language we can not mimic yet. Some people argue that the way they ambush fish is similar to the lion strategy of hunting. But is not the dolphin killing by humans in scandinavian countries the same tactic? Dogs can smell cancer in human beings. Humans can not even invent a machine that emulates that trait. The only problem with dolphins is: humans are too stupid to think of a way to communicate with them. Dolphins even have a sense of time, tense of past, present and future. It it not merely religious people who deem themselves on top of evolution. The fact we are not yet able to communicate with dolphins is a demerit concerning our intelligence. Fuck dolphins, I do not even like the critters...but it is the one species that is capable of communicating with autistic people the way humans can not. Trust me: if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror it is capable of thinking in abstract dimensions. It is merely our shortcoming in power to invent a way to translate this shit. sure, we are the smartest species on this planet. That is not the issue here. But I do not believe we are the only species here that are aware of its earthly surroundings. Dolphins, Octopus, chimpansee...I believe in that order are capable of communicating with humans if latter merely found a way how to.

DNA is a replicator, a molecular string of information that exists out of reproductive and protein building routines or instructions. But a so called meme is a presupposed replicator of cultural inheritable units of information acting somewhat like a gene, but not always. Since the only creatures on earth that have a notion of culture are supposedly humans, the concept meme can not be other than a human invention. When a zygote is formed you can basically deem that a shuffled deck of cards consisting of both the mamma and pappa genome and an embryo will start growing accordingly. But as soon as the embryo takes on the shape of a humanoid inside the womb it soon enough will be susceptible to ex-utero influences. That is where nurture and nature first meet. Replicators are sometimes called blind. Sometimes even called "selfish", but that latter term merely contributes to misconception of the concept replicators in my opinion. But both genes and memes are blind. They are not selfish, egocentric or whatever. One might even wonder if "genes" are alive or dead. I suspect they are dead since they are merely molecules. But all those molecules acting together make up for a living being. That is why life itself must be deemed holistic. With or without a deity life is holistic. The sum or product of it's parts is always worth more than each part seperately. The awkward paradox with DNA as a replicator, is that mammals capable of rational thinking, like humanoids and perhaps dolphins, are actually the vehicle of those very reproducing strings of molecules. How can a vehicle of replicators (DNA) possibly become aware of the fact that it is built by DNA itself, and that that is the underlying building blocks for the cortex that made pinocchio aware of his own gepetto. If genes are blind for a fact, humans gave them a white cane. Remember Descartes? "I think, therefor I am" And because he thought that animals could not think, they were automatically deemed automatons. But if all things that do not think do not exist why could Descartes still see and lift a stone? The stone does not exist in his mind for it thinks not. But he could not have known about bacteria and viruses. Maybe "to be" in Descartes mind was something difference than "to exist". My questions are: 1) are memes truly replicators somewhat like DNA. And if so, are there any other forms of replicators aside from DNA and memes? 2) if we are made out of dead molecules, like Lego stones, and grow into thinking individuals. Why do telomeres suddenly take away life from us? 3) why do turtles and parrots live longer than most other reptiles and birds respectively?

Moral is a something like gravity. Did it exist before homo sapiens came to be? Robert M. Pirsig says it's a ghost in his most famous book. Some people watch movies where a hungry Cheetah is skin over bones and they sigh with relieve when it finally gets a meal. Some people watch movies where a limp impala is struggling to luck out of it's delayed destiny of being a diner to a predator. The truth is that morals do not exist but in human minds. I do not see why you distinguish "secular moral" from "religious moral" Moral, the word and its explanation itself is discriminate and full of bias. In political denomination it would be called "left wing". Morality favors the weak and outcasts and it rather sides that part of life that struggles. Empathy is moral, that is why psychopaths lack moral. But all in all "moral" is a human invention and therefor not the truth per se. You can deem "moral", when looking objectively from an extraterrestrial mind's eye on earth, just a character trait of the mammal homo sapiens sapiens. People who hate to see cattle slaughtered for hamburgers sometimes do not mind cattleslaughters to die by the knife themselves. Some philosophers, like Christopher Hitchens, knowing and realizing that evolution through natural selection is rather cold and impersonal, we should regardless all that be nice to each other. Some jews say: if you kill one person you kill the entire world. Both are right in the realm of morality. The execution - the following up to, rather than the demise of - moral is an utopian one, walking on a conjecture gold lanes of pre-paved idealism. The truth is not a mixture of the classical and romantic truth. No, the truth is still the truth when no humanoid ever got into existence period: a dystopia of a cheetah that needs to feed, and an impala that in peace needs to breed. Moral, and thus empathy, is merely a human surplus that is granted to lesser beasts because we are in the position to play god over all other mammals and co. The annual pardon of the turkey in the usa is a prime example of this. I personally do not give a shid. As goes for the holocaust. 6 million "jewish" homo sapiens sapies died along with homosexuals and "gypsies". That is what THEY say. Multiply 6 million by 10 and you get the total death rate of that stupid war based on sheer bigotry nationalism. I do not like religions, nationalism and culture. But those are the 3 prime suspect warmongers that get rewarded by tax money the most worldwide. Stop being proud of your place of birth (of which you had no vote anyway), and stop believing that one human race is superior over another. Let alone religions, because you all should realize that religion is stupid like you think your kids are stupid when they keep believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Somehow modern philosophers forsake philosophie by stating that even though Darwin has deprived us from a omni- scient, present and potent God, that we yet got to remind ourselves that we are humans and should keep in high regard the so called " Anthropic principle". I wonder why. Why is this world or universe, after the demise of God, having a big brother in order to judge your karma? There is no moral other than the one that is protecting people at best, it is called democracy.

Is the earth's gravity less since we shot 3 people into space? Reverse: does the Earth gain on gravity whenever extraterrestrial mass lands on it? Since gravity is an inverse square law given to distance and all, is the gravitational pull on the moon less when we (all humans) gather in one place facing the moon side, and jump for one second? This all regardless of any space debris falling down on earth, perhaps adding to its mass and gravitational pull. I am asking this because someone on another science forum told me that even if you landed the population of 20 million other civilizations on earth it will not change the gravity that earth exerts. I always thought that humans roaming on earth added to the mass of the earth and thus to the gravitational pull. Much obliged in advance.