22 Dec 2010, 1:12 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
Xenzaka wrote:
the more people multiply the more these genes spread
This is false. The genes will spread only if some survival advantage to retaining them. There may be a temporary surge in the incidence of a particular trait, but if this proves a disadvantage, it will be pruned from the gene pool.
Quote:
before we know it, this whole world might be an "autistic" world
"Might be" is hardly a scientific conclusion. We "might" be dead tomorrow because of that undetected asteroid plummeting towards us.
Quote:
or in other words, a world of preservation, self-knowledge, compassion, love and playfulness that we as autistics endure and exist in (in our world)
So you ARE autistic. That explains your communication style. Are you verbal?
science is a tool
science is a tool used for communication
science is a tool used for communication with the outside world and our observation
communication is linguistics
linguistics is language
science is a communication tool used for observing the outside world
one language is limited
that's why there are other forms of language, such as mathematics to understand the outside world
there are many ways to observe and understand "reality", and the "universe" and many different "tools" of "communication"
that is to say...science can be limiting
22 Dec 2010, 1:19 pm
Xenzaka wrote:
with that said, i will admit, some of my beliefs are not fully "scientific" based, they are spiritual, metaphysical and lie elsewhere within the occult
which, yes, to some extent makes some of the things i talk about very hard to connect, understand or esoteric
which, yes, to some extent makes some of the things i talk about very hard to connect, understand or esoteric
its strange yes but understanding autism from scientific, and other contexts makes it more easy to understand
metaphysics, occult, hinduism, buddhism, judiasm, left-hand path religions, reincarnation etc
this is NOT NEW AGE, i have nothing to do with new age material, although what i discuss above is the origins of what is now called "new age" do understand please
coming from both that direction and a very linear, scientific direction creates this understanding of autism
like using right and left brain
i am sorry i do not know how to verbalize beyond this
22 Dec 2010, 1:19 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
This is false. The genes will spread only if some survival advantage to retaining them. There may be a temporary surge in the incidence of a particular trait, but if this proves a disadvantage, it will be pruned from the gene pool.
But is this always true? Human beings have proved it's not always the case. Natural selection isn't always in affect. We have proved that natural selection doesn't always factor in by regulating our own reproduction and producing domesticated animals where we decide various characteristics and traits in the offspring. These traits aren't always survival traits that would occur in the wild.
See my post in this thread about the separability of man and nature as a false dichotomy. If the genetic material that "wins" is such that it is able to modify itself (genetic engineering) that genome is STILL the evolutionary victor. The stressors and fitness functions on that genome become less external and more from a self referential feedback loop, but there are still stressors and a selection process tied to the perceived fitness of a particular trait.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
22 Dec 2010, 1:34 pm
Xenzaka wrote:
science is a tool
Overly simplistic, but obvious.
Quote:
science is a tool used for communication
Obvious
Quote:
science is a tool used for communication with the outside world and our observation
There is no "outside" world. There is only what exists. We cannot separate ourselves from it.
Quote:
communication is linguistics
linguistics is language
linguistics is language
Overly simplistic. If I kick you in the nuts I have communicated something without any linguistics being involved.
Quote:
science is a communication tool used for observing the outside world
You said that already.
Quote:
one language is limited
that's why there are other forms of language, such as mathematics to understand the outside world
that's why there are other forms of language, such as mathematics to understand the outside world
All language is limited. Any symbolic representation of reality is by definition an approximation of that reality. All symbolic representations of realty are by definition finite strings of symbols. Any finite string of symbols can refer to only one aspect of reality and then it is only a referent to that aspect. For example, we cannot discuss infinity without first creating a symbol that represents it (or a string of symbols, in this case "infinity"). But that symbol is NOT infinity, it is only a referent to the idea. The symbol is inadequate to the task, even if it is sufficient to allow the discussion of that to which it refers.
Quote:
there are many ways to observe and understand "reality", and the "universe" and many different "tools" of "communication"
that is to say...science can be limiting
that is to say...science can be limiting
Science is nothing more than a process for discerning relationships between observable phenomena. Anyone that attempts to elevate scientific conclusions to the level of truth abandons science in the attempt.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
22 Dec 2010, 7:43 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
wavefreak58 wrote:
This is false. The genes will spread only if some survival advantage to retaining them. There may be a temporary surge in the incidence of a particular trait, but if this proves a disadvantage, it will be pruned from the gene pool.
But is this always true? Human beings have proved it's not always the case. Natural selection isn't always in affect. We have proved that natural selection doesn't always factor in by regulating our own reproduction and producing domesticated animals where we decide various characteristics and traits in the offspring. These traits aren't always survival traits that would occur in the wild.
See my post in this thread about the separability of man and nature as a false dichotomy. If the genetic material that "wins" is such that it is able to modify itself (genetic engineering) that genome is STILL the evolutionary victor. The stressors and fitness functions on that genome become less external and more from a self referential feedback loop, but there are still stressors and a selection process tied to the perceived fitness of a particular trait.
I am not sure if the genome is the actual winner. Without any human interference, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals would be left to fend for themselves. The impact of our engineering remains to be seen...
22 Dec 2010, 8:45 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Without any human interference, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals would be left to fend for themselves. The impact of our engineering remains to be seen...
"Without human interference" is meaningless. There is no way to describe the world without including humans in that description. Nor is there any meaningful way of talking about what the world would be like in the future had there been no humans. The current state of animal genomes is what it is precisely because of how those species interact with an environment that includes humans.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
22 Dec 2010, 10:35 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Without any human interference, dogs, cats and other domesticated animals would be left to fend for themselves. The impact of our engineering remains to be seen...
"Without human interference" is meaningless. There is no way to describe the world without including humans in that description. Nor is there any meaningful way of talking about what the world would be like in the future had there been no humans. The current state of animal genomes is what it is precisely because of how those species interact with an environment that includes humans.
Yes, that's true up to a point but it's a contradiction because it isn't nature doing the selecting, it's humans and we all know how difficult it is for domesticated animals to survive without us. They have lost some of their natural instinct for survival and replaced it with human beings feeding and caring for them.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
22 Dec 2010, 11:13 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yes, that's true up to a point but it's a contradiction because it isn't nature doing the selecting, it's humans and we all know how difficult it is for domesticated animals to survive without us. They have lost some of their natural instinct for survival and replaced it with human beings feeding and caring for them.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
Humans are not outside the system, so it is exactly nature causing the selection. It just so happens that the agent of selection is humans instead of an asteroid.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
22 Dec 2010, 11:18 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Yes, that's true up to a point but it's a contradiction because it isn't nature doing the selecting, it's humans and we all know how difficult it is for domesticated animals to survive without us. They have lost some of their natural instinct for survival and replaced it with human beings feeding and caring for them.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
Humans are not outside the system, so it is exactly nature causing the selection. It just so happens that the agent of selection is humans instead of an asteroid.
It could be humans or an animal that eats others, a flood, an asteroid or a bird that accidentally flies into the side of a mountain...I never typed humans were outside any system but humans are not the same as natural selection. We possess a consciousness while nature does not. Nature would not select a gene based on what it wants, but what the animal needs to survive. When humans select genes for an animal, it is based on what the human wants, not what the animal needs to survive on it's own. Most agree humans breeding animals without careful study tends to make a population weaker than it would be in the wild.
Natural selection might not be evident in every situation, either. Maybe it occurs in some instances but not in others and we falsely believe it's a 'one size fits all' theory?
22 Dec 2010, 11:44 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We possess a consciousness while nature does not. Nature would not select a gene based on what it wants, but what the animal needs to survive.
Where did this consciousness come from if not nature? When did it cross the line from nature to not nature? Everything we are, including our consciousness, is part of nature. Even if the agent of selection is one of consciousness, it is still a artifact of nature operating on nature.
_________________
When God made me He didn't use a mold. I'm FREEHAND baby!
The road to my hell is paved with your good intentions.
22 Dec 2010, 11:49 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote
Quote:
Yes, that's true up to a point but it's a contradiction because it isn't nature doing the selecting, it's humans and we all know how difficult it is for domesticated animals to survive without us. They have lost some of their natural instinct for survival and replaced it with human beings feeding and caring for them.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
You could argue that humans selecting the genes is like nature selecting them but I disagree because humans have egos and choose the genes that best suit their needs, not the animal's. So, it's nature and not nature, both at once, depending on how you look at it.
Quote:
"The only way to produce an animal with the desirable traits is through captive breeding, yet the only way they could been captively bred is if they had the desirable traits to start with.
This paradox is the crux of the entire, counterintuitive line of evidence that argues for domestication as an evolutionary, rather than human, invention. The only way out is to recognize that, in an evolutionary sense, domesticated animals chose us as much as we chose them. And that leads to the broader view of nature that sees humans not as the arrogant despoilers and enslavers of the natural world, but as a part of that natural world, and that custodians of a remarkable evolutionary compact among the species.
Why has this paradox been so long ignored.........The short answer is that domestication has largely been studied as an anthropological issue, a matter of cultural change. At it's heart, this may be a reflection of the natural human tendency noted above cast human actions as paramount.
The Covenant of the Wild
Why Animals Chose Domestication
pg. 24
This paradox is the crux of the entire, counterintuitive line of evidence that argues for domestication as an evolutionary, rather than human, invention. The only way out is to recognize that, in an evolutionary sense, domesticated animals chose us as much as we chose them. And that leads to the broader view of nature that sees humans not as the arrogant despoilers and enslavers of the natural world, but as a part of that natural world, and that custodians of a remarkable evolutionary compact among the species.
Why has this paradox been so long ignored.........The short answer is that domestication has largely been studied as an anthropological issue, a matter of cultural change. At it's heart, this may be a reflection of the natural human tendency noted above cast human actions as paramount.
The Covenant of the Wild
Why Animals Chose Domestication
pg. 24
This book also takes note than humans aren't the only species to practice domestication or "cooperative associations". Just because nature practices domestication doesn't make it "right", but I am pointing that out saying animals doing so is natural and still wild, while humans doing it for their own needs is somehow outside the natural state, is incorrect. If I recall this book correctly, and other things I've read, "domestication" is natural.
Quote:
"The more one understands the motives behind coevolution in the wild, the less one feels the need to invoke the deus ex machina of human invention to explain domestication. Dogs, for example, likely benefited from their association with humans in a number of ways. They would have gained immediately from scavenging human camptsites and parasitizing hunting parties, much as hyenas parasitize African wild dogs.
Pg. 60
same book
Pg. 60
same book
The aggressive wild dogs or, wolves, that came closer to the campsites would have been chased away and likely often killed. Possibly the tamer ones staying closer to the camps and benefiting in some ways while humans possibly benefiting from the presence of the dogs or wolves. This is not to say that I think this was all nice and gentle but the general idea makes sense to me.
In these sorts of processes I don't see how or why the animals interacting with humans would not also be changing the humans as well along with the benefit of the survival their own species.
I'm not a scientist or anything but these sorts of things I can find interesting.
Last edited by Jediscraps on 23 Dec 2010, 12:15 am, edited 4 times in total.
22 Dec 2010, 11:49 pm
wavefreak58 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We possess a consciousness while nature does not. Nature would not select a gene based on what it wants, but what the animal needs to survive.
Where did this consciousness come from if not nature? When did it cross the line from nature to not nature? Everything we are, including our consciousness, is part of nature. Even if the agent of selection is one of consciousness, it is still a artifact of nature operating on nature.
The strangest thing, wavefreak, is that we are so far away from natural selection, have been for quite some time, and yet our evolution is more intricate which leaves one to wonder about the theory of natural selection and it's implications even further...
While animals like grizzly bears, lions, tiger, alligators, crocodiles, etc have been practicing natural selection on a more continual basis and haven't experienced these drastic changes in their thinking. They still do today what they were doing thousands of years ago, more or less.
22 Dec 2010, 11:58 pm
I also would like to say that because I think 'domestication' as "natural" and not simply about human domination that it does not mean I support capitalism.
(I also don't think it's fairor accurate to use the problems and treatment of animals within capitalism as an argument against domestication. I don't consider myself a permaculturist but I agree with the general idea of making argiculture/husbandry into a much more sustainable symbiotic relationship/s)
23 Dec 2010, 12:14 am
Jediscraps wrote:
"The only way to produce an animal with the desirable traits is through captive breeding, yet the only way they could been captively bred is if they had the desirable traits to start with.
The animal doesn't always have the desirable traits that well informed breeders would choose because sometimes people breed dogs for profit and this motivator can mean dogs without desirable traits are bred. Desirable traits would be those in the standard of the particular breed if we are talking about purebred dogs. These traits are what humans interpret as "desirable" not necessarily what the dog would have if it were left in the wild to do whatever it's instincts told it to do.
Quote:
This paradox is the crux of the entire, counterintuitive line of evidence that argues for domestication as an evolutionary, rather than human, invention. The only way out is to recognize that, in an evolutionary sense, domesticated animals chose us as much as we chose them. And that leads to the broader view of nature that sees humans not as the arrogant despoilers and enslavers of the natural world, but as a part of that natural world, and that custodians of a remarkable evolutionary compact among the species.
It is evolutionary meaning that mutations have been passed onto the offspring. It's arguable that it's natural selection. It might be "human selection" and voila, a new term is coined.
The animals might have "chose" us by simply being around a human settlement thousands of years ago to eat any scraps of food or refuse humans leave behind only to be captured and bred. It only takes a few generations for the wild animal to become more docile and with aggression being screened out via future breedings., the species grows more "domesticated".
It is a remarkable evolutionary compact...just what kind of evolutionary compact? Is it for the good of the animal species or the human? Only time will tell...
Quote:
Why has this paradox been so long ignored.........The short answer is that domestication has largely been studied as an anthropological issue, a matter of cultural change. At it's heart, this may be a reflection of the natural human tendency noted above cast human actions as paramount.
The Covenant of the Wild
Why Animals Chose Domestication
pg. 24
The Covenant of the Wild
Why Animals Chose Domestication
pg. 24
Because natural selection was thought of as absolute truth, unalterable and therefore, written in stone?
Quote:
This book also takes note than humans aren't the only species to practice domestication or "cooperative associations". Just because nature does domestication doesn't make it itself "right" but I am pointing that out saying animals doing is natural and still wild, while humans doing it for their own needs is somehow outside the natural state, is incorrect. If I recall this book correctly and other things I've read, "domestication", is natural.
But humans are the only ones who go to such lengths to select individual traits in other species and it's own. An ant might feed an insect of a different species to use for it's own benefit but it doesn't consciously alter the species, just feeds it and cares for it. Quote:
"The more one understands the motives behind coevolution in the wild, the less one feels the need to invoke the deus ex machina of human invention to explain domestication. Dogs, for example, likely benefited from their association with humans in a number of ways. They would have gained immediately from scavenging human camptsites and parasitizing hunting parties, much as hyenas parasitize African wild dogs.
Pg. 60
same book
Pg. 60
same book
Well, yes, dogs do benefit as long as humans are here and they are living the life of a domesticated animal. When put in the wild, they are clearly at a disadvantage. The ultimate benefit or lack thereof we can only know in specific circumstances. We have seen dogs perish when humans aren't around to care for them and have that to go on.
Quote:
The aggressive wild dogs or, wolves, that came closer to the campsites would have been chased away and likely often killed. Possibly the tamer ones staying closer to the camps and benefiting in some ways while humans possibly benefiting from the presence of the dogs or wolves. This is not to say that I don't think this was all nice and gentle but the general idea makes sense to me.
In these sorts of processes I don't see how or why the animals interacting with humans would not also be changing the humans as well and with the benefit at the survival their own species.
I'm not a scientist or anything but these sorts of things I can find interesting.
In these sorts of processes I don't see how or why the animals interacting with humans would not also be changing the humans as well and with the benefit at the survival their own species.
I'm not a scientist or anything but these sorts of things I can find interesting.
In the long run, the human benefits more than the dog as a species.
