[SinJin]

But don't we follow a natural progression? It was only natural for us to step out of the ocean and breathe the air, right? And so it was natural for us to leave the forests. We are nature, and so everything we do is natural. We may not make natural things (i.e. cars, buildings, etc.), but what we do is still part of nature because we are still part of nature. And so it is part of that natural progression to question things. if only for our benefit. If we move back to the forests and stop questioning, then we're going to simply exist and die with the Earth or sun. That would actually be unnatural, because it seems like the natural thing for life is to try to survive.

[Guille]

[quote=SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>>

W should not care about things if we want to be natural. This is the basics of Guille's political manifestation. QUOTE]


But don't we follow a natural progression? It was only natural for us to step out of the ocean and breathe the air, right? And so it was natural for us to leave the forests. We are nature, and so everything we do is natural. We may not make natural things (i.e. cars, buildings, etc.), but what we do is still part of nature because we are still part of nature. And so it is part of that natural progression to question things. if only for our benefit. If we move back to the forests and stop questioning, then we're going to simply exist and die with the Earth or sun. That would actually be unnatural, because it seems like the natural thing for life is to try to survive.

I completely agree with this. I always think that everything artificial is natural. Because we are made by nature. but, getting better is not somethingun-natural, but something of humans. It is true that nature evolves, but we are not doing this in a nature-like way (it is natural, but not nature-like). This is because we are evolving so much to be able of controlling nature. Something of nature to control nature IS SOMETHING UN-NATURAL. This is why we aren't that. It is impossible to controll nature. If we realise this, then why have buildings? if we first made them to look over the mountain. Why have cars? if we made them to be faster than lepards. etz. etz.

[yogi]

[quote=SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>>

W should not care about things if we want to be natural. This is the basics of Guille's political manifestation. QUOTE]


If we move back to the forests and stop questioning, then we're going to simply exist and die with the Earth or sun. That would actually be unnatural, because it seems like the natural thing for life is to try to survive.

In nature that's what happens. we Homosapiens as a species probably consists of 0.1% of total species (correction welcome) on the planet and have a notion that what other 99.9% of species is doing, is unnatural. concept of nature is another illusion of Human society. our social structure is contrary to "Natural Laws" i.e. we select and foster the weakest and not the fittest.

sincerely,
yogi

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>>

I completely agree with this. I always think that everything artificial is natural. Because we are made by nature. but, getting better is not somethingun-natural, but something of humans. It is true that nature evolves, but we are not doing this in a nature-like way (it is natural, but not nature-like). This is because we are evolving so much to be able of controlling nature. Something of nature to control nature IS SOMETHING UN-NATURAL. This is why we aren't that. It is impossible to controll nature. If we realise this, then why have buildings? if we first made them to look over the mountain. Why have cars? if we made them to be faster than lepards. etz. etz.

I see what you mean by seperating the two ways that we are getting better. When we evolved from monkeys to humans, we were getting better, but it was evolution, it was nature making us better. But what did nature do to make us better? It gave us more control, more intelligence, the ability to ponder things and create tools to better our survival. Nature gave us these things, so shouldn't we use them? I think there is a point where evolution basically kills itself by evolving intelligence, which can then make things to better itself with, instead of waiting to evolve further. But I still see it as a natural progression.Evolution gave us these abilities. You say "Something of nature to control nature IS SOMETHING UN-NATURAL." But why does it have to be unnatural? So what if we can never control nature fully... but is it unnatural to try? Obviously not, because we're trying, and the skills we've learned came from nature itself. I think it all boils down to survival though. Survival of life in general. Life wants to survive to the fullest extent.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin

I see what you mean by seperating the two ways that we are getting better. When we evolved from monkeys to humans, we were getting better, but it was evolution, it was nature making us better. But what did nature do to make us better? It gave us more control, more intelligence, the ability to ponder things and create tools to better our survival. Nature gave us these things, so shouldn't we use them? I think there is a point where evolution basically kills itself by evolving intelligence, which can then make things to better itself with, instead of waiting to evolve further. But I still see it as a natural progression.Evolution gave us these abilities. You say "Something of nature to control nature IS SOMETHING UN-NATURAL." But why does it have to be unnatural? So what if we can never control nature fully... but is it unnatural to try? Obviously not, because we're trying, and the skills we've learned came from nature itself. I think it all boils down to survival though. Survival of life in general. Life wants to survive to the fullest extent.

It's not unnatural to try or to get better, but it is nature that has to be over the subsets of it.

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>>

It's not unnatural to try or to gewt better, but it is nature that has to be over the subsets of it.

So by this line of thinking you are saying it would be unnatural if robots free of human guidance are controlling the world. If humans are still in the picture, then it would still be natural. Because if we are using machines, and we and the machines are both made from nature, and we're using them to survive, which is natural, then nature is over the subsets of it.

[subversion]

this is a really good discussion I must say, something I've been thinking about a lot. On the one hand, it should be obvious that, no matter what, everything man-made is still natural, since we are natural. We see this. Yet on the other hand we see a different aspect. This is the aspect that the things we do are so so much different than what any other animal can do. It is clear that we have set outselves apart from the animal kingdom in some very big ways, mainly characterized by the fact that we can control nature and other animals simply can't. So even though everything we do is technically natural, it is a side of nature that nobody's ever seen before, that no other species is capable of. This makes us perhaps unnatural, or supernatural, if you will. So when we think about cars and civilization and stuff, we have to think, this is just an extension of nature, but yet this is different than most nature.

So I will argue that we are entering into the entire other aspect of nature, and it is indeed making us very powerful, and dangerous. We seek to control nature, and it is our ultimate goal to have complete dominion over reality. I dare to say it is entirely possible. I dare to say that the TOE will turn us into Gods. This is the natural progression known as the forsaking of nature.

I have to say I'm a little surprised Guille that you're saying we should not be looking for a TOE. But I fully understand your wariness. The TOE is scary! But the way I see it, we're at the point of no return. Humans have been forsaking nature since the very beginning, so it's no time to turn back now. I would love to go back to the forests and live like primitive peoples did, but the fact is that we must go forward. As SinJin said, in order to ensure our ultimate and eternal survival, we must complete our knowledge. Sorry if this post was long and boring, but I just wanted to state my opinion about god nature and science, and how we are destined to discover the TOE, for better or for worse.

[PROFET]

The statistics show themselves, and most of the people believe in a god like figure, even here at toe quest. You said that people who believe in god were kind of silly and that they needed a reason for existence, a magical one. You still think that once youve seen the statistics?

alex

[Nichole]

Personally i firmly believe there is a God. For me the answer to why is hardly ever God.In other words, God is not my answer to things i do not understand. I have a natural yearning to search for a higher being and unshakable feeling that i don't belong here (earth- work, eat, sleep, die). Maybe i'm an alien and don't know it and am just home sick. To think that my existence is totally accidental and that after my 70 or so years i will no longer exist is just ridiculous to me. However i do not believe God is some old man sitting on some gold throne is space looking down on Earth. I believe he is beyond the universe and finite world. I also think he may be the life force. As far as i know we haven't been able to take something that in comepletely lifeless and give it life. So either there is something that gives life to all that lives or we are just stupid and havent figured it out yet.
Oh yeah what is there after TOE. They will be nothing left to search for, no point in life.

---- I was specifically replying to some of the entries of the first page

[Guille]

Originally Posted by PROFET

the stadistics show themselves, and most of the people believe in a god like figure, even here at toe quest, you said that people who believe in god were kind of silly and that they needed a reason for existant, a magical one, you still think that once youve seen the stadistics???

alex

oh, oh, oh.....my friend Alex, you are so mistaken, and you have gone so far, that you yourself aren't talking like what you really think. I know you now form a long time ago, and I know, and you know, that you are NOT that religious extremist. You have gone too far, even, maybe further than islam extremist. Really.

Statistics? you talk about that? you? you, who believe in god, according to your words, at least. And you, who agree with Einstein that "God doesn't play with dice"? do you, you do, you told me. And you, who know perfectly well that the basis of statistics is probability, and that playing with dice is probability. So, if you believe in statistics as real proof, which shouldn't be, because there are thousands of millions of billions of ways in how statistics and number may failure, but if you believe in statisticxs, you should believe in a god that plays with dice. But, remember once, we discussed about how on earth could god know what was going to happen, but we being free to choose what is going to happen? well, you said that we choose but he knows, but, if he is the probabilistic guy, then, he can't know what is going to happen, for it's to our choice what chance is decided.

And, yes, I still think that, even though most people believe in god, or in a supreme being, there is definatlely NO possibility for a god to exist in the reality of everything, i.e., the reality of nature.

Statistics ay many things, that are misleading. Most of the number in statistics have errors in the method used to gain the results. Another important failure is that statistics often don't take into account many other facts, or any other statistics. And, the probably most important one, many, really many statistics, oftet are fallacies. By the way, I don't like being that extremist in discussion about god, nowadays, but as you ARE being extremist, I am going to comment that: There are several hundreds of statistical measurements that proof that:
1. There is a big percentage of religious or god-believing people that admit, when asked, that they agree that they believe in god to have a part in life which makes them believe that they are doing all the good things they do because they will be eternally in heaven.

my comment: First, don't you think all this being good to go to heaven is very agocentric? yes it is, and, isn't your religioin supposed to be anti-egocentrism? yes it is, but doesn't achieve.

2. There is an avarage of both higher IQ and intelectual achievement in people who do NOT believe in god (atheists) than in the rest of the people. Also there are statistics that show that the religious people tend to develop mental disorders more than atheists.

My comment: Please, people, don't all jump screaming at me when I post this, I'm just playing as hard as my friend has. I'm not saying that there are not or have never been intelectuals that believe in god, just that the avarage is higher in atheists. These mental disorders are not the type of bulimia or these, but: escizofremia, paranoya, sociophobia (if it can be said like this)...

Finally, what I mean by posting these statistics is NOT to reduce all the people who are religious to crazy people that are very stupid, no, no no. This kind of thing is what you, my friend, have tried by statistics. What I mean by this post is that please, think more about the subjects and tools you use to defend your religious position, because, in this case, you will definatelly loose (by the way, Hardy was one of the best mathematicians in the 20th century, he worked a lot in statistics, and developed several important discovermnets...and, humm, he was.....Atheist.)