|
It's great that existence is a thing or else existence wouldn't exist.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGikhmjTSZIBuried alive posted:Incidentally, it was one of those talks that tipped me over from agnosticism into atheism. But you fool, something can't come from nothing. The big bang signifies a breakdown of our models that we're trying to resolve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:46
|
|
Something can't come from nothing!
Well, actually...
|
And please, always remember: The inventor of the big bang theory was a jesuit priest.
The Belgian fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Wouldn't the selection pressure then come from fire and its use as a kind of 'external digestion', which then lets jaws get smaller? IIRC paleo-anthropologists currently put a lot of emphasis on the shift to a more palatable diet in the evolution of large brains. However the big change wasn't a shrinking sagittal crest, but a smaller stomach. So some physiologists were looking at the body and noticed, hey, humans have these huge brains eating up a ton of energy. To meet the needs of a big brain, we should expect humans to have a faster metabolism than our small brained ape cousins. However when they measured the metabolism of chimpanzees and gorillas, they found that wasn't the case. Humans and their cousins all used energy at about the same rate, even though humans had a calorie guzzling head. So where were apes spending all their energy? Well it turns out breaking raw leaves and tubers into usable energy is really expensive. If you look at gorillas you'll notice they have really big guts, and you can even see the difference in ape skeletons with their bowed out ribs. All the energy apes saved via a small brain got spent on their digestive system. So when proto-humans started eating a more digestible and energy dense diet, they freed up lots of metabolic space they could invest in big brains, and simultaneously lost the need for a big muscular jaw. Of course this theory doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that large sagittal crests capped skull capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
There were likely a number of hominid subspecies who had some form of fire and speech but our ancestors killed, or uhm interbred all of them into extinction producing the single human species present in nearly every ecosystem/climate since before recorded history. Maybe some of them got cold and made simple clothes or kept their fur - but we made the best coats and the best tools. Once all those 'others' were gone we've been finding reasons to kill each other ever since.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The fact that we don't understand much about stuff like dark matter does not in any way mean that there might be some bizarre dark matter life or something. These type of statements are all I'm talking about. Something like 2/3 of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, we know pretty much nothing about it so saying there can't be life based on it is complete guessing. How can you say with any certainty that there can't dark matter based life (or highly unlikely) when you or anyone else knows nothing about it? Edit: We don't even know how to interact with it to examine it so there must be forces and particles that determine its properties. Since none of the forces or matter we know of interact with it (except gravity) you can't even say we know of all the existing particles and force carriers. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
speculating about dark matter life is just kinda pointless we'll know it when we see it (or not), and then we can think about how to work it into our framework of life, but before then you're just making very  wild rear end guesses that are slightly less productive than thinking about how to make unicorns exist in real life
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Squalid posted:Of course this theory doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that large sagittal crests capped skull capacity. yeah, at some point you just run into physical limits like you literally can't attach enough mammalian muscle for cracking nuts in your jaws to a sufficiently stable skull with an oversize brain without running into problems, and you solve these problems by cutting back on one of the above or by making the entire head larger (which will require other tradeoffs) you can see that we haven't just evolved weaker jaw muscles but also had to make the stability tradeoff beacuse a whack strong enough to shatter a human skull wouldn't do much more than piss off a gorilla suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
There could be some super exotic dark matter life, but given how little we understand dark energy and matter searching for life there isn't the best use of the limited resources we have. If there is dark matter life there's no guarantee we'd recognize it anyways. We know life exists in all manner of extreme habitats on Earth so the best bet is looking for life in similar environments. I hadn't heard about the gut/brain size correlation, that's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
I'm not saying there is, but at the same time saying there isn't is just as baseless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I'm not saying there is, but at the same time saying there isn't is just as baseless. we might as well act as though there isn't until given reason otherwise though i mean ~dark matter life~ might make for a half-decent doctor who episode but not much more
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:These type of statements are all I'm talking about. Something like 2/3 of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, we know pretty much nothing about it so saying there can't be life based on it is complete guessing. How can you say with any certainty that there can't dark matter based life (or highly unlikely) when you or anyone else knows nothing about it? I admitted it's possible, just that it's a completely negligible possibility. It's like wondering if the Earth's crust might actually be alive and we just can't detect it because its form of life is so radically different from ours. Yeah, it can't exactly be disproved, but it's not really worth considering unless we come across some sort of evidence indicating it might be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
McDowell posted:There were likely a number of hominid subspecies who had some form of fire and speech but our ancestors killed, or uhm interbred all of them into extinction producing the single human species present in nearly every ecosystem/climate since before recorded history. Maybe some of them got cold and made simple clothes or kept their fur - but we made the best coats and the best tools. Once all those 'others' were gone we've been finding reasons to kill each other ever since. There isn't any evidence for any of that. The only distinguishable hominid known to have interbred with human were the neanderthals, and even then there isn't any conclusive proof as to what caused them to disappear as a distinct sub-species. As for waxing lyrical about 'what is a man', lmao ok whatever. The past century was the most peaceful in all of human history, so it would be far more accurate to say that we've been finding reasons not to kill each other since whenever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:There isn't any evidence for any of that. The only distinguishable hominid known to have interbred with human were the neanderthals, and even then there isn't any conclusive proof as to what caused them to disappear as a distinct sub-species. As for waxing lyrical about 'what is a man', lmao ok whatever. The past century was the most peaceful in all of human history, so it would be far more accurate to say that we've been finding reasons not to kill each other since whenever. There were others like homo florensis or homo naledi and we're witness to how fast humans do things compared to geologic time (somebody stuck a bunch of naledi corpses in a deep cave). The question now is how we keep our population in balance with the ecological systems that make our economy possible. Alot of people go to religion or other mindsets that encourage mindless outbreeding of those other people - this is not compatible with industrial civilization and billions of humans already living.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:we might as well act as though there isn't until given reason otherwise though Yup. Please remember I'm referring the OP, that can life only be based on the same chemical interactions on Earth and just saying probably, but the sheer amount that we don't know about reality just means you can't give a definite yes to that question, all you can say for certain is "as far as we know". Which may be very little. quote:i mean ~dark matter life~ might make for a half-decent doctor who episode but not much more Ytlaya posted:I admitted it's possible, just that it's a completely negligible possibility. Neither of you are basing this on anything more than "I don't see how therefore it's a near zero possibility" and all I'm saying is that's foolish. Up until 1970 biology believed ALL life derived it's energy from the sun directly or indirectly (either gets its energy via photosynthesis or eats that life to get the energy it's chemically stored from it) and this thread would have both of you saying yeah, it's possible life could be based on something other than photosynthesis but it's so unlikely it's not worth thinking about. Then we go deep enough in the ocean and discover that there is chemosynthesis based life in an ecosystem that is deadly to every other form of life. Even when it was first discovered marine biologists assumed they ate "sea snow", the bits of organic photosynthesis based bits of dead crap that drifts down to the ocean floor. If I had said back then it's possible for life to form in temperatures exceeding 350-400 Celsius and derive their energy by consuming hydrogen sulfide you'd have the same responses. It not only exists in those conditions but the density of living things is 10,000 times that of the rest of the ocean floor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
McDowell posted:There were others like homo florensis or homo naledi and we're witness to how fast humans do things compared to geologic time (somebody stuck a bunch of naledi corpses in a deep cave). The question now is how we keep our population in balance with the ecological systems that make our economy possible. Alot of people go to religion or other mindsets that encourage mindless outbreeding of those other people - this is not compatible with industrial civilization and billions of humans already living. Tentatively maybe, but again there is no evidence as to what happened to those sub-species nor is there any real evidence of what their relation to humans actually was. As for religion and the instinct to copulate, there is no connection. Procreation is a universal characteristic of life, and the instinct exists independent of any social structure. Also lmao if you believe that humans seek to compete through procreation. Conflict is a consequence of environmental conditions and base vertabrate nature, not any of this social darwinist nonsence. Everything you say is a blatant expression of the dominant ideology of our age. You're imposing your own meanings on stuff that inherently has none. I mean you would be, if you weren't so tragically mistaken on the basic facts of human history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Tentatively maybe, but again there is no evidence as to what happened to those sub-species nor is there any real evidence of what their relation to humans actually was. As for religion and the instinct to copulate, there is no connection. Procreation is a universal characteristic of life, and the instinct exists independent of any social structure. Also lmao if you believe that humans seek to compete through procreation. Conflict is a consequence of environmental conditions and base vertabrate nature, not any of this social darwinist nonsence. Everything you say is a blatant expression of the dominant ideology of our age. You're imposing your own meanings on stuff that inherently has none. I mean you would be, if you weren't so tragically mistaken on the basic facts of human history. b-b-but how can I avoid the sadbrains if things just exist instead of having a ~deeper~ (pretty much magical) meaning? Toasticle posted:Neither of you are basing this on anything more than "I don't see how therefore it's a near zero possibility" and all I'm saying is that's foolish. We don't know enough about dark matter to meaningfully think about how hypothetical dark matter life or whatever would work so right now all the idea is good for is making something up for TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Dark Matter did 9/11Friendly Tumour posted:Also lmao if you believe that humans seek to compete through procreation. Conflict is a consequence of environmental conditions and base vertabrate nature, not any of this social darwinist nonsence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Dark Matter did 9/11 Er, no. I was saying that humans fight with each other for the same reasons as other pack hunters do. Killing things that aren't part of your reproductive group is a characteristic shared by the vast majority of pack hunters. Chimpanzee communities engage in warfare with each other. Social structures are what allow for us to not kill each other by resolving conflicts without the use of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
blowfish posted:b-b-but how can I avoid the sadbrains if things just exist instead of having a ~deeper~ (pretty much magical) meaning? Pretty much There is a great Murray Bookchin video which you can find in my post history - he talks about postmodernity where you peel away all the layers of the onion and all that's left is the smell. I do indulge in nihilism but there is something about homo sapiens social evolution being something very exceptional* compared to the aeons of prior 'biological' evolution - we are nature introspecting itself and with the potential ability to colonize outward into the universe. An electronic 'megamind' is the next level of life on earth. * Friendly Tumour posted:The past century was the most peaceful in all of human history, so it would be far more accurate to say that we've been finding reasons not to kill each other since whenever. Human individuals are born very fragile and take a long time to develop compared to other animals - we need society and medicine to exist in our present global state. I worry about antibiotic resistance eventually culling us - outside our control it could mean extinction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Human individuals are born very fragile and take a long time to develop compared to other animals - we need society and medicine to exist in our present global state. I worry about antibiotic resistance eventually culling us - outside our control it could mean extinction. No we do not. Human infancy is no different from chimpanzee infancy and it evolved long before humans had society or medicine. Obsessing about the world ending with our generation is nothing new either, it's a theme as old as civilization. You're just constrained by your ideology to imagine the causes to be material instead of magical, although like in the distant past it is ignorance that allows these apocalyptic fantasies to persist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:No we do not. Human infancy is no different from chimpanzee infancy and it evolved long before humans had society or medicine. Obsessing about the world ending with our generation is nothing new either, it's a theme as old as civilization. You're just constrained by your ideology to imagine the causes to be material instead of magical, although like in the distant past it is ignorance that allows these apocalyptic fantasies to persist. So what are you about? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
McDowell posted:So what are you about? The world isn't ending.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The world isn't ending. It's being recycled https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0tqZfMv34 Hallelujah
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
McDowell posted:It's being recycled Turn your monitor on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
As usual, the true gospel as restored in the latter days by the prophet Joseph Smith answers your question.The Book of Mormon Alma 34:32 posted:For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
I don't know if chemicals are the sole cause of life, but they're certainly the sole cause of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:life is self-propagating information capable of detecting environmental conditions and responding to them. Seasonal Candles posted:It's a method of carrying information coherently forward in time and space. We and all other Eukarya are adaptive organizations for the dissipation of energy. All energy is, in turn, information, that is then stored and later dissipated into smaller bits. This information levels off into a general flat line w/ regards to richness and structure given enough time, the most complex, and thus larger/more massive patterns (in the form of stars, planets, gas filaments and debris and other stellar-scale objects) are stored permanently in black holes first and then the simplest bits (constituent protons etc.) towards the end of time through the heat death of the universe. Gravity is either an operational framework for the connection of this information dissipation/storage or a byproduct of it. Doesn't information require some being who can potentially perceive it? Yes, the information written in a book can be said to exist separately from a physical copy of the book, but if the last speaker of that language dies without leaving a translation key, the information is lost. Unless "the information" can sort of hover around a book with no potential readers, a perceiver is required. If life is information, who is the perceiver?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:There isn't any evidence for any of that. The only distinguishable hominid known to have interbred with human were the neanderthals, and even then there isn't any conclusive proof as to what caused them to disappear as a distinct sub-species. As for waxing lyrical about 'what is a man', lmao ok whatever. The past century was the most peaceful in all of human history, so it would be far more accurate to say that we've been finding reasons not to kill each other since whenever. There is genetic evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and other populations as different from us as neanderthals. The most accepted example is the Denisovans in Asia, who contributed a lot to the DNA of modern Melanesians, but some researchers now believe there were multiple other cases. This is difficult to demonstrate for many reasons, Denisovans for example were unknown until very recently and there still aren't many samples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Doesn't information require some being who can potentially perceive it? Yes, the information written in a book can be said to exist separately from a physical copy of the book, but if the last speaker of that language dies without leaving a translation key, the information is lost. Unless "the information" can sort of hover around a book with no potential readers, a perceiver is required. If life is information, who is the perceiver? Life perceives itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Squalid posted:There is genetic evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and other populations as different from us as neanderthals. The most accepted example is the Denisovans in Asia, who contributed a lot to the DNA of modern Melanesians, but some researchers now believe there were multiple other cases. This is difficult to demonstrate for many reasons, Denisovans for example were unknown until very recently and there still aren't many samples. The level of distinction that Denisovans ought to have from Sapiens of their time is rather contentious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The level of distinction that Denisovans ought to have from Sapiens of their time is rather contentious. The same can be said of many hominids, including Neanderthals. If they were interbreeding they couldn't have been that distinct!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Life perceives itself. Life (all life) is self-aware? No, I don't think so. While concepts like that are hard to define, just about no one would say that self-awareness is a necessary aspect of being alive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Life (all life) is self-aware? No, I don't think so. While concepts like that are hard to define, just about no one would say that self-awareness is a necessary aspect of being alive. Perception has nothing to do with with self awareness. And Information in the scientific sense has nothing to do with things like words in a books, you are thinking of meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
I believe the universe has a creator and a purpose - far beyond our perception and understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I believe the universe has a creator and a purpose - far beyond our perception and understanding. So nothing we should concern ourselves with, cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:And Information in the scientific sense has nothing to do with things like words in a books, you are thinking of meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:So nothing we should concern ourselves with, cool. Yup - what matters is the material world - and the need to be rational and moral with the time we get as individuals - like Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Life (all life) is self-aware? No, I don't think so. While concepts like that are hard to define, just about no one would say that self-awareness is a necessary aspect of being alive. If "life is information" then that information (genetic material) is "perceived" by the lifeform itself, which is equipped to transcribe/translate/replicate its own genetic material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
If god exists, he made us a loving miserable world to live in and thus we can conclude he hates us all. In short, listen to Slayer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 16:42
|
|
