You see what you want to see... the subjectivity of human perception is guilty of this. If you look for specialness you'll find it, if you look for mediocrity you'll find this. You can look at non-human species and find specialness too though. So even in being special we are not unique
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.
Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see.
Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see.
Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.
These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are.
Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.
These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are.
Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.
I agree with your first paragraph though.
Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).
Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special.
Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man.
Humans demonstrate spirituality via clear and distinctive behaviors that have physical manifestations such as elaborate rituals, shrines, artifacts and talismans, for example. Like I said a physical projection of their thoughts.
I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular? Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.
I agree with your first paragraph though.
Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).
...
In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special.
Don't confuse equally less likely as equally special. A fluted stone tool and a random rock are both extremely unlikely to be duplicated. An anthropologist obviously considers the fluted tool special.
Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man.
Perhaps, but the key point is that we are special and unique - which was the point of this thread.
I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular?
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.
Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists.
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.
My mistake. I meant anthropocentric. My point still stands.
Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists.
How do you mean?
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Linear Mode
