Human Exceptionalism

[Fist and Faith]

I wasn't thinking I'd answered the question. Just taking baby steps. Everybody wants to take several steps at once. Or skip some. Which gets us in trouble. Heh

Understood. I was just taking your comment as an opportunity to expand on my own points.

Gotcha. And I didn't get a chance to look at the rest of your post before, because I was on my Galaxy Tab at work. Tough to read and post serious things like that.

Anyway, yes, very good thinking, imo. As you say, something must have always existed. Even if it was just a potentiality. And, unless there was always something more than potential, like energy or matter, then that potentiality was the original thing. Whether our Big Bang was the first thing to come from it, or whether we are just the latest in a finite string of oscillating meta-reality (Is there a word for what I'm trying to describe?), potentiality was the thing that always existed.

And I guess it's in the realm of quantum uncertainty? The potential could have been realized; or not. And the Big Bang wasn't a perfectly uniform distribution of all of the most basic building blocks; it was distrubuted randomly. Why? Same reason the photon might go through this slit, and might go through that slit. Same reason why one atom of a radioactive substance decays today, and another decays in 100,000,000 years. Because chaos is the fundamental building block.

Maybe? *shrug* I don't know. Making this up right now.

[Avatar]

Time and space may have exploded into Being at the Big Bang, but existence itself couldn't have started then.

Depends what you mean by existence...whose or whats?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Not sure it matters whose or what's. If anything existed, then there was existence.

[peter]

Just imagine if the other 11 or so dimensions of string theory suddenly unrolled themselves into the tangible domain of our lives. That would be a day worh seeing!

[Linna Heartbooger]

Many peeps have many views on what makes humans different. I think, as I've said elsewhere probably, it's the extravagant extra capacity and plasticity, emergent/synergistic/non-algorhithmic/non-determinate quality of our brain functions. I've posted lots of ways this reveals itself other places so won't repeat now/here...but the end is they lead to a brain of spare capacity for analogy/metaphor, and that leads to the potential for asking "why?"

Interesting... like it when you go into stuff about how human minds works; I've been thinking/learning about minds / my mind lately and it's both fascinating and often leads me conclusions that bug the crap out of me.

Could you give a little more detail on "in-between" links in the connection:
spare capacity for analogy/metaphor -> potential for asking "why?"
I'm thinking it has to do with the ability to make connections between things seen in different domains / the propensity to attempt to derive underlying patterns.
(though on some level I have probably not said anything new 'cause that's mostly just WHAT analogy/metaphor is!)

This matters cuz it is qualitatively different from what/when/where/how...problems that we're better at, quantitatively, than the lesser minds, but not essentially different from in kind compared to those minds. But what happens? Our emotional part is webbed with our rational part...our why is bicameral, is both an emotional and rational question at many levels. Dolphins are sad when a mate/offspring dies...but as far as we know they don't ask why existentially, why did my child die?

So I think this is going in the direction of:
Humans, when asking the "Why?" questions, are wondering in a way that assumes that the/a driving force behind the events and outcomes in the universe "ought to" have a personality - "ought to" have a personal interest in which way things go.

(I'm sure I'm shamelessly subjecting your argument to the structure of my belief system, tho.
What you're thinking probably lacks a few restrictions that my statement right there has - but I don't know which ones they are!)

At which point I return to my previous statement...we cannot, have not, probably will not rule out god[s] or holiness. But we have, and can, and for God's sake [and our own] must rule out particular GodBeing descriptions...because they have, and will, and in extreme cases MUST kill us in the name of truth while being unalterably false.

This is very interesting, I think... thought so when I first skimmed posts a couple days ago. I think there's a lot of truth in that... I think I even see some of the "while being unalterably false" part...
I think you're saying that the [necessarily finite] descriptions our minds/language could come up with for such a being would have to be false - due, at the very least, to being finite.

But again, that right there is clearly me putting my spin on it...

[Zarathustra]

The obvious differences between us and animals tend to overwhelm the attention given to smaller--though equally crucial--differences which led to our survival and eventual domination as a species. I'm talking about physical differences, instead of the usual focus on mental capacity and flexibility.

There are a few other bipedal animals, but not many. And of those few, we are the only one to not only retain the use of our non-walking limbs (arms), but to put them to new uses. Unique among the animal world, we have an arm that can rotate in nearly 360 degrees. This was important for a very useful "trick," the use of projectile weapons. Spears. Rocks. This trick conveys a survival advantage that few other creatures can match, because it means that we do not have to close with our prey in order to take it down. We don't have to risk horns, teeth, claws in order to deliver a lethal blow ourselves. This extends our reach, our killing power, beyond the sphere of our own personal vulnerability. That skill generally--extending our power beyond ourselves--is itself a uniquely human trait which we see in guns and satellites, but it started with our arms and shoulders ... a body part much overlooked in discusions which typically emphasize the hand and the brain.

And if you look at human physical skill in general, we achieve things that no other animal achieves. I think we tend to view ourselves as inferior physical creatures because we're so used to thinking that our chief benefit over all other animals is our brain. We don't run as fast as cheetahs, we're not as strong as apes, we can't see as well as eagles, we don't have thick hides or protective scales, we don't have massive teeth/claws/horns, we can't (naturally) fly, etc. However, no other animal can do what an Olympic gymnast does with her body, or a martial art expert, or any other physical activity which takes years of training. For most species, whatever "trick" a particular animal does, most of the entire species does this "trick," too. We're the only species which has members who develop our physical potential to its maximum, purely by choice, training, and experimentation. We push our bodies beyond what evolution has "designed" them to do. We find motions and types of action which our natural environment would never have had a needed us to perform ... like snow boarding or surfing. While other animals might be able to push their bodies to do new things, none of them possess the mental capacity and focus to spend years learning how to do this, much less the culture which preserves and passes down this learned experience so that it can develop over generations.

9 ...

[Vraith]

Linna, from what you put in, it seems like you're interpreting me just fine for that post.
On the move to "why," it actually connects with Z's talk on the physical, an integration, the making connections as you say.
In fact, I think the extra brain capacity and the physical distinctions are a feedback loop...they reinforced each other. The ability to do mathematics arises from the same initial brain structures that integrate the arm that can throw a spear with the mind that can almost instantly process the calculations necessary to actually hit something with the spear. And that part cross-connects with the part that cares about others, and the part that allows us to communicate...to teach one of the most important. We are great hunters, and great gatherers too...in most cases better than the animals famous for it... despite lower-resolution senses, because we can strategize, recognize, organize, communicate, teach...and all of those things function by and through analogy and metaphor. Survival of the fittest selected for math, music, and poetry...I like to ponder that sometimes.
The connections are obvious if you look at people large scale. Despite the focus on the outliers...the autistic/savant musician, the mathematician who can't tie his shoes, the superstar point guard who can't speak comprehensible sentences...the truth, in general, is if someone is really smart/talented in one area, they are almost always smart/talented in numerous areas...they just tend to care about one area more than the others.
I may have argued this before, but in my view subjectivity, relativity are both fundamentally necessary for intelligence to even exist...and equal to objectivity, just a different bailiwick, and the really human stuff happens where they meet. Because if we were perfectly objective we could never, literally, understand anything but ourselves...and if there were nothing objective that we can relate to, at least in peripheral/indirect ways, there would literally be nothing else to understand.
We are, in our own selves, a sacred marriage of Matter and Metaphor, amen.

[Linna Heartbooger]

...because we can strategize, recognize, organize, communicate, teach...and all of those things function by and through analogy and metaphor. Survival of the fittest selected for math, music, and poetry...I like to ponder that sometimes...

Btw, totally been thinking about the metaphor/analogy thing quite a bit.

Also, the whole discussion of "the possibility of some sort of holiness" brought up this quote in my mind. (I think you'll see some connection, even if you dont really buy it.) I just went and found it:

There is an important difference between biblical justice and our societal view of justice. The symbol of justice in our society is a blindfolded woman, indicating that justice is blind. The fair judge is dispassionately objective, free from bias, who rationally decides what is right before an impersonal law. On the other hand, the role of the judge and justice in Israel was to actively and redemptively seek to protect the poor from the wiles of the rich and powerful. So strong was the skepticism toward the powerful that the poor in the courts were often viewed collectively as the innocent and the righteous...

When I first read this.. the ideas both surprised me and, well, made sense of some things I already believed / thought...

[Linna Heartbooger]

In fact, I think the extra brain capacity and the physical distinctions are a feedback loop...they reinforced each other. The ability to do mathematics arises from the same initial brain structures that integrate the arm that can throw a spear with the mind that can almost instantly process the calculations necessary to actually hit something with the spear. And that part cross-connects with the part that cares about others...

And don't forget, we've created such amazing technology because our drive to fight wars and kill each-other more effectively has made it so necessary to innovate!!!
Why do we kill each-other, anyways?
Hmm, one big reason is to take each-others' stuff.
Because we're too lazy to create the things we want ourselves.
So we get a few people to innovate and create weapons of war, and then we go and attack each-other so we can get each-others' stuff.
So we don't have to work for it.
Right...
(why didn't I see that opening before? )

Hmm, can you change your response on this darn poll?

[Vraith]

In fact, I think the extra brain capacity and the physical distinctions are a feedback loop...they reinforced each other. The ability to do mathematics arises from the same initial brain structures that integrate the arm that can throw a spear with the mind that can almost instantly process the calculations necessary to actually hit something with the spear. And that part cross-connects with the part that cares about others...

And don't forget, we've created such amazing technology because our drive to fight wars and kill each-other more effectively has made it so necessary to innovate!!!
Why do we kill each-other, anyways?
Hmm, one big reason is to take each-others' stuff.
Because we're too lazy to create the things we want ourselves.
So we get a few people to innovate and create weapons of war, and then we go and attack each-other so we can get each-others' stuff.
So we don't have to work for it.
Right...
(why didn't I see that opening before? )

Hmm, can you change your response on this darn poll?

The funny thing is that war isn't really a great driver of innovation. And we've invented a heck of a lot more things that aren't for war than are...unfortunately almost anything useful can be modified to war usage.
But why do we kill each other? lots of reasons...and for other's stuff is one reason [like spouse killings, or kingdoms fighting over gold mines and corn fields]...but mostly it's just cuz we are mean pack animals in many fundamental ways.

BTW, I liked the quote in your previous post. In other threads here, especially in the tank, there's lots of argument, analysis, dissection of issues that pivot around/involve that kind of distinction in kinds of justice, maybe even a thread asking what justice is.

[Avatar]

I dunno...I think war (or at least hostility) has been the impetus for a lot of invention or innovation.

--A

[Vraith]

I dunno...I think war (or at least hostility) has been the impetus for a lot of invention or innovation.

--A

in a way, indirectly. What it really does [what most other urgent situations do, too] is ensure massive infusions of money and resources to get the engineering done, get things to market [so to speak]. But actual knowledge/invention/innovation really doesn't surge or spike...in the majority of cases those already exist. I've said elsewhere [and its quoting someone, don't recall who] necessity isn't the mother of invention, leisure is.

[wayfriend]

I tend to agree with Avatar's opinion here. From experience, I can say that innovation is an expense that, like any other, any business will trim off if possible. The threat of death or, worse, communism, is usually needed to get the kind of innovation-at-any-expense we are talking about. Because then the defense dept ponies up big, and it's now profitable. I'm not saying this is always, just usually. Most other "big" innovations are of the accidentally discovered variety.

[Vraith]

I tend to agree with Avatar's opinion here. From experience, I can say that innovation is an expense that, like any other, any business will trim off if possible. The threat of death or, worse, communism, is usually needed to get the kind of innovation-at-any-expense we are talking about. Because then the defense dept ponies up big, and it's now profitable. I'm not saying this is always, just usually. Most other "big" innovations are of the accidentally discovered variety.

The bold is what I'm saying....money and resources, and a specific predetermined use/purpose. Take nukes. Their was almost zero basic science done in that...just gathered lots of smart people and lots of money and lots of resources and told them what to make...the science already existed for the most part, it was mostly technique they were looking for. Two things matter: those smart people were in leisure mode, no need to fend for themselves in any way at all with a single purpose to build a bomb. If that same group had all the money, all the resources, all the care and feeding but DIDN't have a war to worry about, WEREN't pointed at just make a bomb, they'd have come up with a hell of a lot more knowledge/innovation in more fields. The space program is the middle example. Because they had a single goal, but at least some basics had to be worked out across fields, longer time frame, and no actual threat. The proof is the number of things that came out of those fields AFTER they were no longer single-point projects.

[Avatar]

Yes, I'll grant that that's a valid distinction...it may not be that war causes innovation, just that it provides an environment when innovation is funded.

The base principle however, remains the same...conflict drives technology for whatever reason.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

The bold is what I'm saying....money and resources, and a specific predetermined use/purpose. Take nukes. Their was almost zero basic science done in that...just gathered lots of smart people and lots of money and lots of resources and told them what to make...the science already existed for the most part, it was mostly technique they were looking for. Two things matter: those smart people were in leisure mode, no need to fend for themselves in any way at all with a single purpose to build a bomb. If that same group had all the money, all the resources, all the care and feeding but DIDN't have a war to worry about, WEREN't pointed at just make a bomb, they'd have come up with a hell of a lot more knowledge/innovation in more fields.

I disagree. I do think your point of the guys working on the project not actually being in danger was neat/amusing... something I'd not quite thought of.

But I still totally disagree! Even if the scientists themselves were not physically in danger, I expect that (to co-opt one of your arguments) because of their human empathy, the war DID galvanize them with a sense of purpose in a way that a peacetime situation providing that level of resources did not.

If you and I had been part of the generation(s) who were adults during WWII, I don't think we would have questioned that. (sons and brothers and husbands and childhood friends going off to war? the media doing a quite decent job of making an emotional impact? a societal ethic that doesn't just let people allow themselves to hide in a media-free hole - how could they face their neighbors?)

The space program is the middle example. Because they had a single goal, but at least some basics had to be worked out across fields, longer time frame, and no actual threat. The proof is the number of things that came out of those fields AFTER they were no longer single-point projects.

Also a "middle example" because of the cold war, I'd think... not quite sure if I should bring these things up when I'm not particularly informed about the subject.

Btw, thanks for your comment about the quote; yeah, sometimes a quote is not something that it's time for ppl to talk about just then (i.e. when it would sidetrack) but it helps (me, certainly) to hear positive feedback.

[Vraith]

Ok, maybe I can persuade you. I had an idea, so I compared patents approved from 1991-2000 [when we weren't at war] to 2001-2010 [when we were].
Corporate patents 90's= grew 100%, 01-10 grew 25%.
Gov't patents over the whole period were flat in total, BUT that's only true because there was a sudden spike in late 2010. Except that single year recovery, gov't patents were flat in the 90's, and declined 50% below that level during the war years.
Individual patents rose 30% in the 90's. Fell overall 32% in 01-10, but again a single year spike in 10 helped it look better than it is [even though it doesn't look good as it is]...during the rest of the years, actually fell by over 50%.

Meanwhile the 3 largest economies not involved in the war: rose continuously across ALL the years...at the same basic rate as us during the 90's, and squashed us like a bug in 01-10.

It's important to notice also that at least since 1963 [that's how far back the records went] recessions/crashes/economic downturns had almost no effect on the patent rates.

It also is important to note that corps moving operations overseas is irrelevant. If IBM's India division invents something, IBM registers a U.S. patent.

Also important to note that, despite the "we're not educating, other's are beating us"...only China actually produced more science/tech/engineering/math graduates than us...and just barely. And despite the fact that a lower percentage of U.S. grads are in those fields [compared to others] nowadays, the total number of those people is still growing. And despite the thing about the failure of primary/secondary ed., our universities are still damn good. [In the fields listed, we have twice as many universities in the worldwide top 500 as the second best...Japan is the highest ranking asian country, at number 7...we have 5 times as many on the list as they do]. In the top 10 worldwide we have 6 schools. Honk Kong is the best from Asia, no top ten, it is at 17.

[Avatar]

Hmmm, interesting stats.

--A

[wayfriend]

I have a basic disagreement about using patents as a measure of innovation, however. The amount of innovation going into most patents is on the order of miniscule. Since the 90's there's been a corporate movement to maximize the number of patents, because its lucritive, and so there are a lot of patents that are (for the purposes of this discussion) trivial. So you can't really use them as a measure of innovation until you normalize this other factor out of the data.

I have a patent. (Which I share with four others.) Think "earth shaking". Now go as far as you can in the other direction. That's where mine is.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

What is your patent for, if you don't mind me asking? That's rather cool.