but a human being wouldn't kill if it hadn't the instinct to do so.
A lot of acts that you call evil are committed through instinct.
Instinct is a primitive part of us, but still natural, we are born with
it.

Actually, instinctively, we CAN'T kill.

The only way a human being can kill, or rape, or otherwise inflict
horrible injuries on another- is by convincing themselves that their
victims aren't human, but some kind of lower being. Or that they are
somehow better than human.

The exception to that rule is when the killing has considerable
personal gains. Either by killing someone who is trying to kill us
(staying alive- very understandable goal). Or in order to get wealth,
power, money, the mate of your desire, etc.

Ultimately, murder is not a human instinct. Our instincts try and stop
us from it. Our bodies have extreme reactions to (real) violence, the
injury of others, and death. Vomitting is high on the list. Emotional
breakdowns, too. A lot of people faint at the sight of another person's
blood. You get the idea.

Well, you might notice that I spoke of primitive instincts, something we
inherited from our forebearers, when they felt threatened. Do you know
what goes on in the mind of someone, who rapes children? Neither does
he, he only follows what his primitive instincts tell him.

Actually, pedophiles aren't that hard to understand. You get three
major types.

Type 1- sadistic. They don't "rape", so much as "sexually torture"-
which is a whole other game. They HATE children.... for whatever
reason.... and inflict harm upon them to make themselves feel better.
That's "personal gain"- and is obviously not a biological or genetic
disorder. It's psychological.


Type 2- sympathetic. These guys are sexually drawn to children. They're
not hateful. In fact, many of them hate themselves for not being able to
control themselves. A lot commit suicide. Others convince themselves
that the child wants and enjoys it. Their desires for children are
really no different than any other orientation, like herero and homo
sexuals.


Type 3- traumatic. These have been molested, themselves. And their
interest in children tie back to that event. They're the most
complicated sort. But are still not "instinctive".

'Poetnartist'

You have a wonderful way of not addressing, nor answering anything that
is put to you 'poetnartist'!

To my direct question to you:
"From what supreme authority do you establish the 'ABOVE' or the 'PLUS'
you quickly 'FIRE BACK WITH'!!!"

You might have answered this:
"I came with the "plus" based on the "fact" that our brains do all the
functions of other animal species, and yet come complete with a "higher
series" of functions."

So, 'poetnartist', do I put YOU down as the 'SUPREME AUTHORITY'???

If that is so, you have all my sympathy, and I refuse to take advantage
of your situation.

As for the rest, if you have no other point to contribute than the
position you are tied to, that "humans are superior",
... I could be wrong, but I would bet a lot of money that fellow posters
have long long ago gotten that point of yours, and it is very very
stale!

Give it a rest, don't burn yourself on a single stubborn belief. You
might have something interesting to share in the future, and nobody
will listen!

Have you nothing'fresh' to say on the subject of 'ARE WE SUPERIOR'?!?!?
If not, don't play fools with well meaning people. You can if you
insist, but it is a great waste of good energy!

And you've already judged me, voil, and wrongly at that. Whatever else
I may be, I'm no hypocrite.


I said "pragmatism"- that is the authority I'm using. By the laws of
pragmatism, that which is most effective is best.

If you want to use a "spiritual" law, instead of pragmatic, just tell
me- we'll play that instead. I did with abra.


And if someone here is so petty as to disregard me entirely because
they don't like my opinion on one subject- then they don't DESERVE
englightenment of any sort.


I'm listening with an open mind, I've yet to find any compelling points
from your end. I've said myself animals are deserving of consideration-
we can't just slash-and-burn and expect to get away with it. But that
doesn't mean we cannot also be superior. It has relevence to our
position in the global scheme of things, but it doesn't establish the
position of any other lifeform.

Oh. And voil. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least
accuse me of something TRUE. When it comes to me, and my own concious
mind, I *AM* the authority. Unless you've somehow read my mind to come
to these conclusions.

We are superior in terms of our collective knowledge. No other living
thing has written languages to pass down to knowledge from hundreds of
years ago.

We also plan our future so we can have greater rewards in our work. For
instance farming we plant one season, the next year we reap the benefits
or a plentiful havest, you could say it's a sacrafice of hard work and
the reward is food crops.

We tamed other animals and they serve in our work, as a food source, or
we keep them as companions. Dogs as watch dogs or pets, cats as pets,
horses as transportation, cows, chickens, pigs, and sheep as meats or
milk source.

And we don't adapt to the environment we change the environment to suit
our needs, think air condition, heaters.

Fitnessfanatic wrote...

Mon 04/23/07 03:06 PM
We are superior in terms of our collective knowledge. No other living
thing has written languages to pass down to knowledge from hundreds of
years ago.

We also plan our future so we can have greater rewards in our work. For
instance farming we plant one season, the next year we reap the benefits
or a plentiful havest, you could say it's a sacrafice of hard work and
the reward is food crops.

We tamed other animals and they serve in our work, as a food source, or
we keep them as companions. Dogs as watch dogs or pets, cats as pets,
horses as transportation, cows, chickens, pigs, and sheep as meats or
milk source.

And we don't adapt to the environment we change the environment to suit
our needs, think air condition, heaters.
****************************************************************

If having read this thread, you will notice that I come from a different
veiw of who ot what may be 'superior', in that I don't beleive humans
are superior...(just to clarify that point)

SO when reading your post, I found a number of points, that don't sit
well, for me.

Written knowledge, in our history, it is an inarguable point, as to
evidence of any other species documenting thier history, in the manner
that humans have...agreed.

I don't feel that adds weight to whether we are superior...as even in
our humaness, it is undeniable that many animals, bacterias, (single
cell life) has been born with an inherant, instinctual memory, not of
their own experiences, many examples have been shown through the study
of other species..

With many historical references to this documenting of human's history,
I see it as a 'compensation' for that part of the collective memory of
the species that lies dormant in most. As an example, an injured animal
learns to compensate with the loss of a limb...

I don't feel that adds weight to human superiority.

Secondly, as to planning future, using your example, animals
historically, have migrated through their environment,(their manure
reseeding their grazing plains, their instinctual pathways through
fields and forests to reduce compacting of soils, for example), and the
elements of the seasons, to different food sources, and even our
observations, learnt from them, we followed the herding, migrating
animals, as a food source.

Animals also manipulated their environment,for example, beavers and
their damming and changing of creeks and rivers...animals utilising the
environment and adapting it to suit their purpose..

Many animals co-exist, 'tame', adapt, behaviours to work in well
together, many predators do not eat the foragers that assist them..the
birds that pick lice of a crocodiles back, a sucker fish, that cleans
sharks, and other predatory fish..

I don't feel your points add weight to human superiority, I feel we got
good at compensating for our weaknesses..

Poetnartist wrote:
“I'm listening with an open mind”

No you are not. You’ve said so yourself. You just don’t realize that
you are extremely closed-minded. You have closed yourself into a box
of your own making and you can’t even see that you are stuck in it.

You have clearly stated that it is your belief that if morals are
relative or subjective then ‘nothing matters’.

You may as well quit right now because there’s the foundation of your
belief.

Everything that you do and say is based on this fundamental belief of
yours that if everything is relative or subjective then ‘nothing
matters’.

Therefore all of your arguments will be to support this fundamental
belief. Any facts or evidence is irrelevant. Your only goal is to
support your belief in an *absolute* value system. By your own
admission, without that, ‘nothing matters’.

That’s where you’re at. That’s the box you can’t get out of.

This is why evolution is so repugnant to you. Evolution suggests that
everything is on equal footing.

You necessarily need to have *absolute* truths, and the one extremely
important *absolute* truth that is paramount to you is that humans were
meant to be here and we are special.

You’ll argue to the death that this must be the case in face of any and
all evidence that might suggest otherwise. Because you are working from
a core belief that “If humans aren’t special, then nothing matters”.

That’s a box my man! In your in a box.

You don’t have an open mind. You are determined to support the idea
that if there is no absolute morals then nothing matters. That’s not
having an open mind. That’s having a predetermined agenda.

Jess, I would agree with the arguments you made to one of the last
responders. But then I agree with any argument that takes the point
that we are not superior.

Jess, Have you read the very long reply that Voil has entered. I think
you, of all the folks here, would be more open to it's comprehension.
The reason is that you have spent many years and a great deal of effort
in your chosen course of beliefs which, by your other responces,
indicate that have the open mindedness, and hence the ability, to
transform what he says into the rational reasoning of why we are not
superior.

I would truly like to open a discourse, argument, discussion, whatever,
into some of the information he posted. It is fascinating and I'm sure
it will be a challenging journey to all of us to disassemble the
infomation and reassemble it to form several eye opening suggestions
related to it. In the end we may just discover for ourselves, in a new
light, why we humans are not superior.

Yes Red I have read it, and mailed Voil my gratitude at having read such
a refreshing post...

I am a little detained with other things right now, but have every
intention of responding to Voil's post...and would love to discuss it
further.

And your box is any better, abra? You refuse to see my points because I
make a presumptions of absolutes in my religious beliefs. For all you
know, we're right. What then, eh? You're not leaving your zone, and at
least I walked with you on your road, even if deciding it wasn't right.
You took one look at mine and turned your back.


Don't forget, I made a duel function point. First- that we are special
by status of a divinity that we're connected to. And second- that if
there is no "divine" truth, then we're superior by virtue of our many
advantages over the rest of life.


I am open, moreso than you at least. Before accusing me of anything
else, take a long look in the mirror. Or does the "subjective"
philosophy disallow that, too?

If you haven't noticed- the constant barrage of insulting and
condescending remarks from those who disagree with me is starting to
grate on the nerves a little.

Ok, Voil, please forgive my simplification of some of the information
you so generously passed on. I thing we need to take the infomation a
little at a time. To play with it, to tease the information you provide
out of some thought processes of our own.

This is very difficult subject matter. In order to grasp it completely
we must come at it with an open mind. We must first 'immagine' that
what is being said is true. In other words we must do battle with the
inner self, the actual physical part of us, the neo-cortex, that creates
illusions for our benefit, illusions we have been compelled to believe
our whole lives.

First, let's start by saying that what Voil has provided is accurate
information according to the majority of the scientific field.
Remember, I'm not saying this is so, I'm saying we are going to start by
accepting it as so.
from this point on, any new information that adds to this theory or
alters it with some evidence should include links that we can all view
where the new information has come from. So feel free to do some
reading on your own, but also remember that your opinions, and questions
and even some new revelation of your own are welcome as long as they're
not given as anything other than that.

SO I'LL START. There are physically two seperate parts of our brains.
The two parts of the brain being are defined as;
The primitive or emotional brain. This is the place that
intelligence of all body functions, inherited intuitive and intemporal
knowledge reside. As Voil put it teh master of the instinctive fight or
glight survival system.
The neo-cortex, or the part of the brain that has the ability to
rationalize, observe and analyse, what it observes.
The neo-cortex is a physical part of the brain that encapsulates the
primitive or emotional brain.

The two have no direct physical connection within the human system.
HERE WE GO.
The last statment means that they do not serve the same functions or
fill in or take over for each other. They are not linked physically.
They do communicate, or actually it would seem that the primitive brain
feeds the neo-cortex. How does it do this? First it receives all the
data, the input comes from all our senses, sight, sound, smell, touch.
These are the processed that the primitive brain understands. It makes
sense to me that the primitive brain would be the first to recieve such
information as it is already programmed with all the instinct to react,
without any thought, to save our lives should it 'feel' it needs to
'fight or fly'. Now, because the primitive part of the brain gets this
information FIRST, it also makes sense that the neo-cortex is going to
get a 'picture' of what just occured, second hand. Because the
primitive brain is a first line of defence, it has no reason to have the
ability to 'think' beyond the emotional, therefore it does not require a
language at all. What it does require is a way to communicate what is
happening to the being it is trying to protect, after all, it has to run
when the emotion run is que'd up to the neo-cortex. It does this by
sending emotional pictures. The neo-cortex must make sence of this
picture, it does this somewhat like a computerer uses a program. It
feels the emotion, which give it a picture, THIS IS THE PICTURE THAT
VOIL SAYS is the time delayed illusion of reality. The neo-cortex
continues by putting the event into words, the words that language
provided. HERE WE SEE the reason why we find it necessary to create
labels, words, written and verbal AND COMMON communication. It's
because it's necessary for our two brains to function together.

OK - stopping point. Please feel free to amend, add, qustion or
continue. Remember at the end we hope to find some answer to the
superior nature of the human.

Mr. poetnartist:
Sir, u have a serious ego problem. U seem somebody I knew from somewhere
else.

I'm not the one insulting people just for disagreeing with them.

My Lord says:
Be the last among your peers, and then you will the first.
Therefore, we are not superior than any other creature, all of us are
needed to keep the balance of the ecosystem in which we live.

Thanks a million for kicking back RED., and great format you’re
proposing here. I’ll fly on your wing on this, and let me know if step
out of line! (starting with this first reply)

For this conversation, we’ll refer to the works of David
Servan-Schreiber: following studies in medicine and psychiatry, focused
on fundamental research in cognitive neurosciences at the Carnegie
Mellon Medical Faculty of Pittsburgh ‘U’.

He talks of two brains:
On the one side, the cognitive brain, which lodges the distinctive
human neo-cortex, or frontal cortex: language, consciousness and
rationality turned towards the exterior world (observer).
On the other side, the emotional brain: unconscious, first and foremost
concerned with survival, and totally focused on physical and biological
‘body’ functions. Decidedly turned inward, to the body.

PRIMITIVE BRAIN
Looking at the whole primitive brain, which has 9 distinct parts to it,
and which we share with all primates, we will focus on the Hypo-Thalamus
and its connection with the limbic system.

Totally integrated to the 8 other parts of the primitive brain, the
Hypo-Thalamus regulates eating, sleeping, sexual activity, emotional
experience and maintains a stable internal environment. The key here is
that the H-T is heavily connected with the limbic system, home of raw
emotion: anger, fear, etc., and plays a central role in controlling
emotional states.

CERABRAL CORTEX
This could be said to be the no man’s land where the frontal or
neo-cortex, situated just behind the forehead, gets all its information
from the cerebral cortex, which in turn records and regulates
everything that’s taking place in the primitive brain. A bit like a
report of activity coming from head quarters, the information coming to
the neo-cortex might as well come from an outside source: no direct
connection.

Tests conducted by Schreiber, where substances were inducted directly
in the fear area of the limbic system, registered high brain activity in
the Hypo-Thalamus, while no trace of activities showed-up in the
neo-cortex part of the brain. It left the participants in the test
totally terrified, without knowing why they were terrified.

OK, we’ll call it a night for now.

Jess Wrote I really think you that you dismiss many of the points I made
as weakness and not strenghts.

"Written knowledge, in our history, it is an inarguable point, as to
evidence of any other species documenting thier history, in the manner
that humans have...agreed."

"I don't feel that adds weight to whether we are superior...as even in
our humaness, it is undeniable that many animals, bacterias, (single
cell life) has been born with an inherant, instinctual memory, not of
their own experiences, many examples have been shown through the study
of other species.."


"With many historical references to this documenting of human's history,
I see it as a 'compensation' for that part of the collective memory of
the species that lies dormant in most. As an example, an injured animal
learns to compensate with the loss of a limb..."

"I don't feel that adds weight to human superiority."


With respect to bacterias and animals, human do have instinicts, the
very same instinicts that animals have. Humans have instinict like self
perseverevation, sexual reproducion, appetite. The difference between
human instinicts and animal instinicts is that human have the prudence,
or foresight, to stop those instinicts from taking hold because in the
long run it would be the most benefical to them. For intance when there
a drought, people would just ration water, or if a young person is horny
that person would use a condom to stop disease.

In other words we control our fate. Animals only follow instinicts.

And thank for agreeing with my point of human collective knowledge, but
I don't think you fully grasp the idea. With a library of knowledge at
our disposal we can go beyond what instinictal behavior limits us. With
medical knowledge we can live longer healthier lives. With the sciences
we can explain our environment and with that knowledge manage the earth
and it's resources.

"Secondly, as to planning future, using your example, animals
historically, have migrated through their environment,(their manure
reseeding their grazing plains, their instinctual pathways through
fields and forests to reduce compacting of soils, for example), and the
elements of the seasons, to different food sources, and even our
observations, learnt from them, we followed the herding, migrating
animals, as a food source."

Animal migration can hardly be planning since is just instinicts drive
them to their destination. Early human hunters just did the same thing
until the development of farming. Farming requires planning, and it also
started civilization since you don't have to move find moving herds or
wolly mammoths.

"Animals also manipulated their environment,for example, beavers and
their damming and changing of creeks and rivers...animals utilising the
environment and adapting it to suit their purpose..."

Beavers have to eat their own feces in order to break down the wood they
eat. I hope you're not comparing a rodent to a tool using human are you?

"Many animals co-exist, 'tame', adapt, behaviours to work in well
together, many predators do not eat the foragers that assist them...the
birds that pick lice of a crocodiles back, a sucker fish, that cleans
sharks, and other predatory fish..."

Animals don't keep pets. Human have pets for companionship. Human have
compassion for other species and that's one reason humans have pets, or
animals around them. Animal co-exist is solely based on "I scratch your
back then you scratch mine" behavior. The only other species that have
compassion for other animals are Bonobo apes and they're the clostest
genetic relative to humans.

"I don't feel your points add weight to human superiority, I feel we got
good at compensating for our weaknesses.."

Jess I think your underestimating human strenghts.

Would you save the life of one horse to that of one human being?