Do Humans Have A Word-Virus?

[Strange]

And after I read these words, the only way to make sense out of them is to use more words.

Perhaps if you really want us to understand what you are trying to say, you should stop using words.

 

Try spending a couple of weeks just emoting in front of your computer. I'm sure we will all be a lot happier.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Strange

[s1eep]

Perhaps if you really want us to understand what you are trying to say, you should stop using words.

 

Try spending a couple of weeks just emoting in front of your computer. I'm sure we will all be a lot happier.

I'm not suggesting that words are not compulsory to using technology or bonding in civilized reality, I'm suggesting there is a more natural world, long lost, that could be bound for greater things; which includes evolution and a much longer lifespan of the planet. Imagine removing 90% of people from the planet, and with them, the whole of man-made reality. Even though the remaining humans would be having a much harder and seemingly lesser time, are they bound for greater things, will their struggle to survive result in more in-depth evolution? Is nature progressing toward a greater reality of it's own, one that can only be constructed by natural means, and the natural harmony that most animals endure (hunting for food; not having it bought. Using the extent of their liberty; not obeying rules. Generally, being more chaotic than civilized reality)?

 

If you didn't understand, it's because what I believe in takes major changes to properly work. In changed circumstances, are things more attuned to nature, and thus progressing to the best possible future? Minus man-made reality - it is the condition to imagine what I'm imagining; whether or not you believe it is natural, minus it. Minus the ability to talk in words - everything is how it was thousands of years ago. The remaining humans must survive unless they wish to suffer, and they are damned to their current surroundings. Give them a couple of hundreds of years to adapt to their new lifestyles - with no prior knowledge on the word. I don't think their objectivity would be enough to create the word; they would do, and that's all they would do because of the difficulty, and the essence of, survival. Not all of these humans would be together, there might be tribes, but tribes so uneducated that they didn't communicate with other tribes. They have no word, they talk in grunts and exerts of masculinity. They would hunt for food, I'm unsure whether they would hunt using their hands, or if they would craft because of their opposable thumbs, but their craftsmanship would not exceed a certain level - this is because they are using the extent of their powers to survive in their nature, and because of the essence of hunting "prey" or surviving against predators. Would their evolution be edging toward a more natural change? As these are times where survival is difficult or a certain complexity, and you may need specific change to survive; would you evolve in ways that help you tackle the environment with greater ease? Could we one day bond with the Earth so greatly with our adaption we were constant dream creatures with the ability to create universes of our own?

 

I suggest intelligence is special, and it's related to our adaption; not word-based, but nature based; we have to tackle, and not just observe nature, to become more intelligent.

Edited October 28, 2013 by s1eep

[pears]

Actually, some Scientists (the kind I would not trust my life or health with) do believe in the existence of a Deity.

 

What does this mean? What kind of scientist would you trust and not trust with your life and health? Are you saying that unless a scientist is an atheist you do not trust their results?

[Strange]

I'm not suggesting that words are not compulsory to using technology or bonding in civilized reality, I'm suggesting there is a more natural world, long lost, that could be bound for greater things

...

I suggest intelligence is special, and it's related to our adaption; not word-based, but nature based; we have to tackle, and not just observe nature, to become more intelligent.

 

Do you have any evidence at all to support these beliefs?

[s1eep]

 

Do you have any evidence at all to support these beliefs?

The beauty (or current adaptation) of life (that I consider beautiful), there's no evidence to say it isn't possible. I believe the present outcome of evolution to be great, and I expect future evolution along these lines to be great.

[Strange]

The beauty (or current adaptation) of life (that I consider beautiful), there's no evidence to say it isn't possible. I believe the present outcome of evolution to be great, and I expect future evolution along these lines to be great.

We appear to have perfectly adequate explanations for evolution that, so far, don't depend on your wolly ideas about emotional communication.

 

Evolution/adaptation is both amazing and great. But it don't seem to require anything much more than population variability, inherited characteristics with variation, and differential survival/reproduction. (Yeah, I know. It is a bit more complicated than that.)

[s1eep]

We appear to have perfectly adequate explanations for evolution that, so far, don't depend on your wolly ideas about emotional communication.

 

Evolution/adaptation is both amazing and great. But it don't seem to require anything much more than population variability, inherited characteristics with variation, and differential survival/reproduction. (Yeah, I know. It is a bit more complicated than that.)

But evolving this way is a lot less "extravagant" than evolving for traditional survival reasons, where we push our base selves to the natural, mental, physical and spiritual limits. We would need to evolve to put up a fight in survival, we would have problems, but problems that would go away after the liberty that comes with evolution. Problems which we don't have in reality, most normally difficult things are done for us. Our minds are relatively nullified in comparison to how chaotic they would be in the environment I'm talking about. I think the word virus humans have is a very serious matter, and that we are destroying a possible natural harmony that was destined for much greater things than we alone could create (and it's possibly causing future generations much suffering in the future).

Edited October 28, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

But evolving this way is a lot less "extravagant" than evolving for traditional survival reasons, where we push our base selves to the natural, mental, physical and spiritual limits. We would need to evolve to put up a fight in survival, we would have problems, but problems that would go away after the liberty that comes with evolution.

I have to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution is not caused by "pushing ourselves" and has nothing to do with words vs emotions.

 

 

Our minds are relatively nullified in comparison to how chaotic they would be in the environment I'm talking about.

How do you know that?

[s1eep]

The result of pushing ourselves to natural limits wouldn't affect what evolution's came thereafter?

 

And we are not allowed to kill each other anymore, we were much less civilized back in the days where there was no word.

Edited October 28, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

The result of pushing ourselves to natural limits wouldn't affect what evolution's came thereafter

No. That sounds like Lamarkian evolution ("giraffes have long neck because their parents kept stretching higher"). This has been shown to be (almost) completely wrong.

 

 

And we are not allowed to kill each other anymore, we were much less civilized back in the days where there was no word.

How do you know that there wasn't ban on killing each other in the past?

 

How do you know we were less civilised if there were no words (and therefore no historical records)?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Strange

[s1eep]

No. That sounds like Lamarkian evolution ("giraffes have long neck because their parents kept stretching higher"). This has been shown to be (almost) completely wrong.

 

How do you know that there wasn't ban on killing each other in the past?

 

How do you know we were less civilised if there were no words (and therefore no historical records)?

It's common sense that there were no man-made laws without the word.

 

The evolution that I'm referring to is more like "giraffes have long necks because they needed to collect food from high up in the trees, or to protect their heads". Humans do not need to collect food from high up in the trees, and therefore have no need to evolve longer necks or anything that would help us reach that food. What would have been difficult, for humans, surviving in these times I speak of? Maybe humans would find their boredom difficult - and possibly we would have evolved 'something' to help us enjoy ourselves when we are not surviving.

Edited October 28, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

It's common sense that there were no man-made laws without the word.

Ah. Common sense. Probably wrong then.

 

 

The evolution that I'm referring to is more like "giraffes have long necks because they needed to collect food from high up in the trees, or to protect their heads".

How do you suggest that "need" causes evolution? Just "needing" something modifies their genes? Or what?

[Tridimity]

The evolution that I'm referring to is more like "giraffes have long necks because they needed to collect food from high up in the trees, or to protect their heads".

 

 

Are you going Lamarckian on us?

 

possibly we would have evolved 'something' to help us enjoy ourselves when we are not surviving.

 

 

I didn't know that dead things are capable of enjoyment.

[s1eep]

 

Are you going Lamarckian on us?

 

 

I didn't know that dead things are capable of enjoyment.

Yeah, you could have reasoned with me instead of taking your frustration out on my semantics, while we were "passive", then. And I'm no scientist. I actually have a lot of respect for scientists, I just wish they would treat the Earth better given that much power over our intelligence.

 

And needing something whilst actively tackling the environment. And I suppose wants would have some effect.

 

This is not what I'm expert on. The word-virus is the topic at hand.

Edited October 28, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

And I suppose wants would have some effect.

Not on evolution.

[s1eep]

Not on evolution.

I'm unsure. What do you know about evolution. That is 100% knowledge.

[Strange]

I'm unsure. What do you know about evolution.

Enough to know that desire or need has no effect on your descendants genome.

[Moontanman]

And after I read these words, the only way to make sense out of them is to use more words.

 

Because I have a word-virus and the word is a major abstraction in my life.

 

Because that's the only knowledge we have of the actual beings of things, sensory and feelings. As said, the word is equal to a bark.

 

 

You do realize other animals have communication skills as well as humans right? Some actually have words/sounds that specify unique meanings, from monkeys to whales to birds animals have language...

[s1eep]

If you do not know everything about evolution then you are not a person adept enough to explain it. Any of the things you think that you do know, you don't "know", and what you say are simple rational guesses based on the partial evidence. It needs to be based on evidence, and that does not include partial evidence, to be a fact. And thus, I'm as right as you are when I say that wants may have an effect on our evolution (we are both trying to explain something we only have partial evidence for) - and don't come back at me with a simple analogy about how things are known partially and how we have reached rational ends, because you often make things seem much stupider than they sound.

 

And I would like to see proof that other animals use words.

 

EDIT: We could say that because the mouth consumed what it effected, consciousness could have the same personality as the mouth where it consumed what it wanted. This could be over a long period of time, or travelling at the speed of light, metaphorically; adrenaline rushes, and other chemical reactions in the body that have high user-potential, where we live to the highest degree of chaos. Acting under the influence of our subconscious, for the benefit, and good feeling, of the self, and having no outer communication except exerts of masculinity and grunts that may be in harmony with sensory data and feelings at times.

 

And there we have it, an example of what I'm doing that's related to yours.

Edited October 29, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

It needs to be based on evidence, and that does not include partial evidence, to be a fact.

 

You appear to be saying that if we don't have pefect knowledge then we don't know anything. Which is obviously nonsense.

 

 

And thus, I'm as right as you are when I say that wants may have an effect on our evolution (we are both trying to explain something we only have partial evidence for)

 

The difference is that there is a mountain of evidence for the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection (and all the extra complications).

 

On the other hand, there is zero evidence for evolution being driven by "wants". (Unless you have some?)

 

Which means that "random stuff you make up" is not as right as well-tested science. Sorry.

 

As you have no evidence or rational arguments. I will leave you to it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Strange

[s1eep]

 

You appear to be saying that if we don't have pefect knowledge then we don't know anything. Which is obviously nonsense.

 

 

The difference is that there is a mountain of evidence for the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection (and all the extra complications).

 

On the other hand, there is zero evidence for evolution being driven by "wants". (Unless you have some?)

 

Which means that "random stuff you make up" is not as right as well-tested science. Sorry.

 

As you have no evidence or rational arguments. I will leave you to it.

We could say that because the mouth consumed what it effected, consciousness could have the same personality as the mouth where it consumed what it wanted. This could be over a long period of time, or travelling at the speed of light, metaphorically; adrenaline rushes, and other chemical reactions in the body that have high user-potential, where we live to the highest degree of chaos. Acting under the influence of our subconscious, for the benefit, and good feeling, of the self, and having no outer communication except exerts of masculinity and grunts that may be in harmony with sensory data and feelings at times.

 

[Moontanman]

If you do not know everything about evolution then you are not a person adept enough to explain it. Any of the things you think that you do know, you don't "know", and what you say are simple rational guesses based on the partial evidence. It needs to be based on evidence, and that does not include partial evidence, to be a fact. And thus, I'm as right as you are when I say that wants may have an effect on our evolution (we are both trying to explain something we only have partial evidence for) - and don't come back at me with a simple analogy about how things are known partially and how we have reached rational ends, because you often make things seem much stupider than they sound.

 

And I would like to see proof that other animals use words.

 

EDIT: We could say that because the mouth consumed what it effected, consciousness could have the same personality as the mouth where it consumed what it wanted. This could be over a long period of time, or travelling at the speed of light, metaphorically; adrenaline rushes, and other chemical reactions in the body that have high user-potential, where we live to the highest degree of chaos. Acting under the influence of our subconscious, for the benefit, and good feeling, of the self, and having no outer communication except exerts of masculinity and grunts that may be in harmony with sensory data and feelings at times.

 

And there we have it, an example of what I'm doing that's related to yours.

 

 

Evolution is a fact, what drives it might be in debate but evolution does indeed account for the biodiversity we see around us today.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication

 

 

 

Auditory[edit]

Many animals communicate through vocalizations. Communication through vocalization is essential for many tasks including mating rituals, warning calls, conveying location of food sources, and social learning. Male mating calls are used to signal the female and to beat competitors in species such as hammer-headed bats, red deers, humpback whales and elephant seals.^%5B8%5D In whale species whale song has been found to have different dialects based on location.^%5B9%5D Other instances of communication include the warning cries of theCampbell monkey,^%5B10%5D the territorial calls of gibbons, the use of frequency in greater spear-nosed bats to distinguish between groups.^%5B11%5D

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_monkey

 

2009 studies have suggested that this species has one of the more advanced forms of [/size]animal communication, with a rudimentary syntax.[/size]^{%5B3%5D%5B4%5D%5B5%5D}

 

 

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/language.html

 

We are only in the early stages of decoding this language - understanding the meaning of specific signals so that we can use these to study forest elephants and help in their conservation.

 

 

[s1eep]

 

 

Evolution is a fact, what drives it might be in debate but evolution does indeed account for the biodiversity we see around us today.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_monkey

 

 

 

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/brp/elephant/cyclotis/language/language.html

 

 

They are not defined words, they are words that can suit many definitions based on their combined sensory data, a deer would grunt to another deer to warn it. It communicates through it's likeness to other deer, they could be feeling round about the same thing, and sensing the same data - each deer has probably judged the other deer, all it takes is a "yes" answer to confirm an action. It is not defined, they are expressing feelings and tactics. It is not the word they understand, but imagination.

Edited October 29, 2013 by s1eep

[Moontanman]

They are not defined words, they are words that can suit many definitions based on their combined sensory data, a deer would grunt to another deer to warn it. It communicates through it's likeness to other deer, they could be feeling round about the same thing, and sensing the same data - each deer has probably judged the other deer, all it takes is a "yes" answer to confirm an action. It is not defined, they are expressing feelings and tactics. It is not the word they understand, but imagination.

 

 

Not defined words? How do you know that? Just because we don't under stand them doesn't mean they are not the same as our own words which to them are just grunts... Post #2 of this thread is about dolphins having specific whistles that are their names how is that not a defined word?

[Tridimity]

 

What does this mean? What kind of scientist would you trust and not trust with your life and health? Are you saying that unless a scientist is an atheist you do not trust their results?

 

I am saying, all other things being equal, I would prefer to be treated by an atheist than by a theist. Others may disagree and prefer to be treated by a theist, or may not care either way, but that is their own life choice and not mine. I appreciate the suggestion by some that theistic Scientists may be able to effectively 'separate' their thinking such that, while working on scientific projects or in their capacity in a scientific field (e.g. Medicine), they concentrate on the availability of evidence that is amenable to peer review and to the scrutiny of the public - while, in their capacity as a follower of religion, they choose to rely more heavily on faith as an approach to 'discovering Truth'. Therefore, defendants of the theistic scientists' approach would have us believe that such a person's belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving and interventionist God - even in the absence of publicly available evidence - would have no impact on their ability to safely practice Medicine, i.e. they would not see a positive result where others see negative; or they would not rely on faith in place of an evidence-based approach.

 

Personally, while I understand the point that theistic scientists are able to compartmentalise their cognitive processes in this way, and so the vast majority of theistic scientists are good scientists and safe practitioners of Medicine - I would be relucantant to place trust in somebody who compartmentalises in this way. If you visited your Doctor's surgery and they mentioned that 9-5 they choose to think like Tommy but on work nights and weekends they choose to think like Harold, would you still trust them? Most people displaying the compartmentalisation of multiple personality disorder are pitied and possibly medicated - not so if they happen to visit Church on a Sunday.