Does anyone of you think the world can change?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

BeatsMeWhy
 
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 12:20 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;92396 wrote:
Possibly, but it could be that intelligence is not what is needed. Humans may prove to be an evolutionary experiment that failed. Intelligence may not necessarily be the apex of evolution.


Curious remark. Do you mean maybe the winner society in terms of evolution is something like ants' or bees'? I mean, in some senses they do have advantages.

I tend to think that somehow a whole swarm is more like an individual in many bits. None of the separate types can survive or preserve the species alone. Anyway, even knowing very little about bees, I'm aware ants do fight, even if not with members of their own nest.

As a swarm, we fail to need the others to survive in such an evident way ants or bees do. The fact that our need of others is not so evident, I think, implies that intelligence is likely to be our only option. That, of course doesn't mean it's enough.

Sorry, I got carried away. Were you thinking about bees? Or did you have some other idea in mind?

---------- Post added 09-21-2009 at 08:49 PM ----------

manored;92300 wrote:
Unhappyfully these "bad" strategies are usually those that help we pass our dna forward. So, while our brains may be shaped by the world to think in the society, our dna is shaped to make us think on ourselves, instinct that can mostly only be countered by pro-society education.


I'm not sure that DNA is able to carry strategies as such. And I'm quite sure that, even if a very big child will certainly has a high probability of becoming a bully this is not always the case.

And I think nobody works for society unless they expect some kind of reward (of course, they might be wrong and get nothing). The point would be to be sure that cooperate is more profitable than fight. Which would almost certainly be the case if nobody were fighting. An intelligent cooperative society seems to be quite a stable system to me. With all the individuals being purely selfish, of course.

But we seem to be quite far from that point. Stable does not mean reachable, does it?

manored;92300 wrote:
So I think we wont be getting our feet out of the mud until we either modify ourselves or develop an educational system powerfull enough to steer the majority away from individualism.


I don't know what you mean by modifying ourselves, but I agree that education is a very powerful tool. Imagine the things we could avoid to learn with a perfect educational system.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 06:48 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;92396 wrote:
Possibly, but it could be that intelligence is not what is needed. Humans may prove to be an evolutionary experiment that failed. Intelligence may not necessarily be the apex of evolution.
True, it really depends of the point of view. From the point of view of "passing genes forward", intelligence, or perhaps our level of it, doesnt really seens like a good thing, since it allows us to decide to not pass our genes forward, what we oftenly do.

But intelligence also allows us to decide what is good and what is bad, so we just decide that passing genes forward doesnt really matters. Problem solved =)

Krumple;92407 wrote:
The world refuses to change because it enjoys ignorance over investigation.
I dont think so, I think it refuses to change because it is afraid of the unknow, and also, it seens the more world-changing potential one person has, more confortable its situation, and, thus, less reasons it has to change the world.

BMW;92469 wrote:
Curious remark. Do you mean maybe the winner society in terms of evolution is something like ants' or bees'? I mean, in some senses they do have advantages.
I think he means that intelligence is not necessarly helpfull in passing genes forward, so, taking in account evolution leads towards greater levels of "gene passing efficiency", we are not the most evolved beings, although we are the most complex. Not sure if "more evolved" means "better at passing genes" though.

BMW;92469 wrote:

I'm not sure that DNA is able to carry strategies as such. And I'm quite sure that, even if a very big child will certainly has a high probability of becoming a bully this is not always the case.
Dna gives you the emotions and the tendencies wich may lead you to develop such strategies. Culture isnt transmitted by dna, but the tendency to create/adopt a certain culture is. So lets say we have a group of people, who adopt different cultures. Those who adopt survival and reproduction friendly cultures will tend to have more children, so, over time, the percentage of people leaning that way increases.

BMW;92469 wrote:

And I think nobody works for society unless they expect some kind of reward (of course, they might be wrong and get nothing). The point would be to be sure that cooperate is more profitable than fight. Which would almost certainly be the case if nobody were fighting. An intelligent cooperative society seems to be quite a stable system to me. With all the individuals being purely selfish, of course.

I mostly agree with that, except the "purely selfish" part. If people were purely selfish, they would try to backstab each other all the time. I think there needs to be a balance between self and society. I think that, ideally, people should put the society above thenselves, so that they do not damage the society to improve their own situation. Kind of: if you had to chose between your life and someone's else, your decision would be based on your jugment about who is more valuable to the society, winhout your desire to live involved.

Off course, thats beyond what humans can do. I think a more feasible alternative would be: Its still capitalism and there are still big disparities, but at least everone has enough to live winhout working thenselves into death.
BMW;92469 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by modifying ourselves, but I agree that education is a very powerful tool. Imagine the things we could avoid to learn with a perfect educational system.
Modifying the dna of those to come to make then less evil, basically. Is messing up with the mind of someone who hasnt got a mind yet evil? I think not =)

I dont like the idea of "avoiding to learn". If we dont know something we are vulnerable for those who do. If nobody knew evil, a drop of evil would be devastating.

So, we shouldnt teach our children that lying is a good thing, but we must teach then that lies do exist and what they are like. Having the gun doesnt means you need to fire it =)
 
Wonderer phil
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 07:41 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
I think the way in wich may change, but in essence everything stays the same. But well.. Who really cares about the essence?
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 11:27 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;89964 wrote:
I mean, of course, if there is anyone in here that thinks that thinking is the way to discover how to redirect society to improve it.

Or if you think that philosophy's goal is just to understand what happens, not to modify it.


There have been very few great pioneers directed at the belief that one can change the word [idiom intended] by providing the environment to aid in promoting the development of man's mind. Though not yet understood, Plato was a giant in that field. How well we think determines what we do. Plato is more often misread, than read, for example, his so called utopia, if one can follow the text, was a creation of the greatest hell he could think of. Yet the work accomplished his goal, to demonstrate where justice and injustice lay, it lay in the reader.

So, if you desire to change the world for the better [idiom intended], find the ways, if they exist, in teaching man how to think, instead of the common fad of worshipping contradiction, myth, and ignorance.

The greatest thing in that regard today, which man is yet unaware is lucid dreaming. It was written that it would be taken from man for a very long time, so long man would forget what it was for, how to use it. It has been back for over fourty years and man still thinks it is a free for all fantasy state.

There is life in the universe, ways beyond our comprehension. One does not allow the criminally insane to join in a sane community.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 11:55 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
Other than the return of Jesus, I can't see how the world will change. No seriously, it would take some major event such as this for people to wake up and actually see beyond what's in front their face.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 12:17 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
Have you studied what events will happen at the same time as the so called second comming? Was not the return of lucid dreaming one of them, and also, is not the task to loosen something, something that man has had a very long time? Perhaps more things are interconnected, due to a single foundation than you realize. j.c.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 12:24 pm
@NoOne phil,
Lol I dunno, I'm Muslim, I think the signs of his coming may be different to those mentioned in Christian scriptures. But you may be right. What I was getting at is I do not believe you can enlighten everyone through a slow process of education. It would have to come via something quite spectacular, or at least something amazing would have to happen to make people want to change.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 12:35 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;93585 wrote:
Lol I dunno, I'm Muslim, I think the signs of his coming may be different to those mentioned in Christian scriptures. But you may be right. What I was getting at is I do not believe you can enlighten everyone through a slow process of education. It would have to come via something quite spectacular, or at least something amazing would have to happen to make people want to change.


I see you are a victem of the microwave culture, always looking for a royal road, dreading the reality of hard work.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 12:56 pm
@NoOne phil,
Always looking for a royal road? Dreading the reality of hard work? I see you are a victim of the you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about culture. I wasn't implying people should not be educated or we shouldn't continue our attempts to enlighten the masses.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 08:09 pm
@josh0335,
No, perhaps I know nothing at all. But imagine this, a virtual environment aimed at the modification of human psychology--aimed at the particular individual to create a saner individual.

I think that is more spectacular than the simple visual metaphors used in the first comming. More spectacular than watching someone else do things you don't understand.

You see, the first act was perceptual. In order to comprehend Christ, you had to "say what you saw"

Second act is conceptual.

The third act will be will.

Perception determines conception, conception determines will.

Or in a simple metaphor, The Father (what we experience), The Son (the learner) and the Holy Spirit (What one learns to do) are One.

In lay terms, we learn by experience. Virtual experience is geared to the particular mind.

One will learn that in the Lucid Dreamstate, they can control their own reaction to the environment, but not determine that environment, just like in real life.

The lessons will change a person, they are often harder than one can imagine.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Fri 25 Sep, 2009 08:28 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
This may have been said or even put forth and rebutted, but here is my answer in simple form:

Of course the world can change. Everything one experiences is always changing, always in a state of becoming something else, no matter what philosophy you subscribe to.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 06:41 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
My belief is that as the human intellect evolves it will bring humanity to increasingly higher levels of understanding which will result in a more tolerant acceptance of each others incompatibilities.

Will there ever be a world without the negative aspects of humanity? I think not. These are as natural as are the positive aspects. But harmony will be found in our ability to balance these two sides of our nature, and that ability will come as we develop our intellectual understandings.

We are much farther ahead than we were two thousand years ago. And who knows how this growth will increase exponentially over the next thousand years.

I believe that harmony is the goal of the human race and that we evolve toward it with every passing generation. Humanity will not realize its potential until it realizes that harmony.
 
BeatsMeWhy
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 10:24 am
@manored,
manored;92577 wrote:
True, it really depends of the point of view. From the point of view of "passing genes forward", intelligence, or perhaps our level of it, doesnt really seens like a good thing, since it allows us to decide to not pass our genes forward, what we oftenly do.


Well, there remains the fact that some people, knowing about their "bad" genes, decide not to pass them on.

manored;92577 wrote:
But intelligence also allows us to decide what is good and what is bad, so we just decide that passing genes forward doesnt really matters. Problem solved =)


I agree with you. I don't think a living creature will spend any energy for no profit. It's not sound.

manored;92577 wrote:
(...) it seens the more world-changing potential one person has, more confortable its situation, and, thus, less reasons it has to change the world.


Again, I agree with you. Unless you need society to work, and while it remains so overwhelming a task to mend it, it's likely that we all will settle for less at an affordable price.

manored;92577 wrote:
If people were purely selfish, they would try to backstab each other all the time. I think there needs to be a balance between self and society. I think that, ideally, people should put the society above thenselves, so that they do not damage the society to improve their own situation. Kind of: if you had to chose between your life and someone's else, your decision would be based on your jugment about who is more valuable to the society, winhout your desire to live involved.


I strongly disagree with you here. No one should prefer other's life to his own. How can someone sincerely want to improve a society he won't have the chance to live in?

manored;92577 wrote:
Modifying the dna of those to come to make then less evil, basically. Is messing up with the mind of someone who hasnt got a mind yet evil? I think not =)


I personally don't see evil at all in modifying DNA, but somehow I don't think it's so critical for the development of a series of strategies.

manored;92577 wrote:
I dont like the idea of "avoiding to learn". If we dont know something we are vulnerable for those who do. If nobody knew evil, a drop of evil would be devastating.

So, we shouldnt teach our children that lying is a good thing, but we must teach then that lies do exist and what they are like. Having the gun doesnt means you need to fire it =)


Even if this is a little off topic, I'll explain myself better Smile.

I think the way you really learn a strategy is by implementing it. Before trying something, you really don't associate a feeling of pleasure or displeasure to it. I know drugs exist, but I have never tried none of them, so I haven't learnt to use them. Same for say, guns. Neither drugs nor guns are things I'm likely to consider a resource if things go wrong.

Lots of people learn to cry when they are sad, because when they have done that and they have received help and comfort in exchange. So they feel the urge to sit and cry for a while before or even instead starting to solve whatever is wrong. A waste of time and energy.

Something's wrong. I cry. If I get someone to solve the problem for me, I spend the energy required to cry and to somehow manipulate that person. If I get someone to comfort me and make me forget the problem I waste my energy and my time and that person's, and still the problem will remain there.

I know all children need to cry when they have no other means of communication, and a total inability to keep themselves alive. But we teach them to cry a lot more than they need to.

In school, we teach children to pass tests, not to learn useful things. I myself am able to learn the contents of a book in a week, and never get anything useful out of them, because my only goal is to get a mark. And that is what I was talking about. But since it's less clear, I preferred the example of the excessive crying strategy.

NoOne;93568 wrote:
So, if you desire to change the world for the better [idiom intended], find the ways, if they exist, in teaching man how to think, instead of the common fad of worshipping contradiction, myth, and ignorance.


I don't think we really fancy things because they are false. We like thinks that work, in the sense that they provide more pleasure in exchange of less effort. Which makes sense.

The real problem is that pleasure is not always proportional to utility.

josh0335;93574 wrote:
Other than the return of Jesus, I can't see how the world will change. No seriously, it would take some major event such as this for people to wake up and actually see beyond what's in front their face.


Personally, I find much more worrying our inability to see what is in front our faces. And the worst of all is the trend we have to see what doesn't exist at all.
 
NoOne phil
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 11:31 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;93739 wrote:


The real problem is that pleasure is not always proportional to utility.

Quote:


If you examine the human bodies environmental acquisition systems, you might find something interesting.

1) The digestive system, 2) the ocular system, 3) the respiratory system, 4) the vestibular system, 5) the manipulative system, 6) the procreative system, 7) the judgmental system.

Most, if not all, have secondary systems that generate "pleasure" even the judgmental system, as pride, ego, vanity. etc.

Not one of these subsidary pleasure systems are required for survival. One can live without smell, taste, etc.

Not one of them require the judgmental system to work, but all of them can effect an abridgment for its dysfunction.

Humm, imagine that. After all, it is provable that the judgmental system is not yet wholly functional in man.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 26 Sep, 2009 05:44 pm
@NoOne phil,
NoOne;93568 wrote:

The greatest thing in that regard today, which man is yet unaware is lucid dreaming. It was written that it would be taken from man for a very long time, so long man would forget what it was for, how to use it. It has been back for over fourty years and man still thinks it is a free for all fantasy state.
Whats the meaning of "Lucid dreaming" here?

josh0335;93585 wrote:
Lol I dunno, I'm Muslim, I think the signs of his coming may be different to those mentioned in Christian scriptures. But you may be right. What I was getting at is I do not believe you can enlighten everyone through a slow process of education. It would have to come via something quite spectacular, or at least something amazing would have to happen to make people want to change.
I think its possible, if we start "enlightening" children since a very young age and do so for many years, and if that view is indeed superior to the old ones, (Aka: They cant be undone by convivence with those with the old views) we will eventually enlighten everone.

Pathfinder;93711 wrote:
My belief is that as the human intellect evolves it will bring humanity to increasingly higher levels of understanding which will result in a more tolerant acceptance of each others incompatibilities.

Will there ever be a world without the negative aspects of humanity? I think not. These are as natural as are the positive aspects. But harmony will be found in our ability to balance these two sides of our nature, and that ability will come as we develop our intellectual understandings.

We are much farther ahead than we were two thousand years ago. And who knows how this growth will increase exponentially over the next thousand years.

I believe that harmony is the goal of the human race and that we evolve toward it with every passing generation. Humanity will not realize its potential until it realizes that harmony.
I agree with you here. I think there is still a long way to go though, our technologic advancement may solve our social problems before our ideologies do =)

BMW;93739 wrote:
Well, there remains the fact that some people, knowing about their "bad" genes, decide not to pass them on.
I think there are very little people that think lowly about thenselves, and even less of those who would think of not having children due to this.

BMW;93739 wrote:

I strongly disagree with you here. No one should prefer other's life to his own. How can someone sincerely want to improve a society he won't have the chance to live in?
Well:
1. That may be your objective, or purpose, in life. It is mine =) (Cant say I am ready to die at any moment for someone more important though...)

2. Your children and loved ones will live in that society

3. If nobody makes such sacrifices society wont be good

4. There is the possibility of continuing to interact or watch society in after-life

BMW;93739 wrote:

I personally don't see evil at all in modifying DNA, but somehow I don't think it's so critical for the development of a series of strategies.
I dont think its critical either, its just an option.

BMW;93739 wrote:

Even if this is a little off topic, I'll explain myself better Smile.

I think the way you really learn a strategy is by implementing it. Before trying something, you really don't associate a feeling of pleasure or displeasure to it. I know drugs exist, but I have never tried none of them, so I haven't learnt to use them. Same for say, guns. Neither drugs nor guns are things I'm likely to consider a resource if things go wrong.

I dont disagree, but I think it makes us too vulnerable. Its like not having an army: You wont fell tempted to invade another country, but you will probally be invaded yourself in short time.

Another example: If you dont know that crying is not always a sign of serious trouble, you will be easly manipulated by criers.
 
BeatsMeWhy
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 02:43 am
@manored,
manored;93794 wrote:
I think its possible, if we start "enlightening" children since a very young age and do so for many years, and if that view is indeed superior to the old ones, (Aka: They cant be undone by convivence with those with the old views) we will eventually enlighten everone.


Anyway, first we would need to know how to enlighten people and what shape the light has. I agree with you, enlightening adults seems much more difficult. Because of the wrong things we think we know.

manored;93794 wrote:
I think there are very little people that think lowly about thenselves, and even less of those who would think of not having children due to this.


I think somebody with some serious hereditary illness is quite unlikely to have children. And I don't think any other feature directly associated to DNA is likely to determine the role you are to play in society.

manored;93794 wrote:
Well:
1. That may be your objective, or purpose, in life. It is mine =) (Cant say I am ready to die at any moment for someone more important though...)

2. Your children and loved ones will live in that society

3. If nobody makes such sacrifices society wont be good

4. There is the possibility of continuing to interact or watch society in after-life


1. I'm not sure I get your meaning.

2. I don't think children and loved ones ought to mean something if you are dead.

3. I don't think a society requiring sacrifices can be stable or healthy.

4. That would require a society of believers.

manored;93794 wrote:
I dont disagree, but I think it makes us too vulnerable. Its like not having an army: You wont fell tempted to invade another country, but you will probally be invaded yourself in short time.

Another example: If you dont know that crying is not always a sign of serious trouble, you will be easly manipulated by criers.


I think I haven't succeeded in explaining myself.

I don't think we really learn a strategy unless we implement it obtaining a benefit. I know what drugs and guns do, I simply haven't tried them, so I don't associate any kind of pleasure with the idea of using them. When I feel bad, I'm very unlikely to seek relief in shooting or taking drugs.

As for your example of crying... I think that if someone is crying and tell you that his newspaper has just fallen to the floor you can easily determine by examining the problem that the reaction is excessive.

Alas, we know society tends to punish us when we don't help somebody who is crying, and to reward any action to comfort that person. So seeing someone crying is very disturbing, and we seek relief by solving his problems and comforting him.

And we all know that crying is a good strategy, at least if you are a woman (men are generally expected not to cry, and rewarded if they remain "strong", which is not ideal but at least is better than what happens to women).
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 27 Sep, 2009 04:59 pm
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;93836 wrote:
Anyway, first we would need to know how to enlighten people and what shape the light has.
This is the whole reason it hasnt happened yet =)

BMW;93836 wrote:

I think somebody with some serious hereditary illness is quite unlikely to have children. And I don't think any other feature directly associated to DNA is likely to determine the role you are to play in society.
I think differently, some considerable personality traits are affected by dna, such as being or not being "hot-headed".

BMW;93836 wrote:

1. I'm not sure I get your meaning.

2. I don't think children and loved ones ought to mean something if you are dead.

3. I don't think a society requiring sacrifices can be stable or healthy.

4. That would require a society of believers.

1. Everone needs a purpose, one may chose that (Making society as good as possible) as his purpose.

2. Depends of whenever you are interested in leaving a "mark" in the world after you die or not, I suppose.

3. All societies require sacrifices, then someone escapes death thanks to expensive treatment given by the government, all of the country made a small sacrifice. Sacrifices improve society in overall, and the idea behind then is: You benefit from the sacrifice of others, in exchange of being willing to do sacrifices yourself. In this example, if pay a small amount per month but, in exchange, if you do need treatment during your life you will get it. Perhaps you could not pay by yourself and would die.

4. Its just an add-on, its not the base of it.

BMW;93836 wrote:

I think I haven't succeeded in explaining myself.

I don't think we really learn a strategy unless we implement it obtaining a benefit. I know what drugs and guns do, I simply haven't tried them, so I don't associate any kind of pleasure with the idea of using them. When I feel bad, I'm very unlikely to seek relief in shooting or taking drugs.
Hum, I dont get how that would be different from teaching children how to lie but that lying is bad. The only other way I can see is not teaching about lies, but that doesnt seens to be what you are talking about here.
 
The Jester phil
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 04:44 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
BMW;91955 wrote:
I've never been sure about what human nature is assumed to be.


I excuse for the lateness of the post, but better sometime then never.

Human nature: humans act first, think later, and feel last of all. And it has not changed.

Regards,
S. Segnan
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 07:03 am
@The Jester phil,
The Jester;94880 wrote:
I excuse for the lateness of the post, but better sometime then never.

Human nature: humans act first, think later, and feel last of all. And it has not changed.

Regards,
S. Segnan



Humans always think first, the problem is that they don't consider the possible outcome of their choices while they are deciding what to do.
 
The Jester phil
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 07:44 am
@BeatsMeWhy,
I must differ. Rarely humans think first, that is the privilege of the few who want to think.

Regards,
S. Segnan
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2024 at 04:30:36