GENIUS FORUMS

Does anyone find this thread comical?

The argument is hilarious. That it's unintelligent to discriminate between a race or a culture in terms of its intelligence, based on the reason that "any race that uses force is necessarily unintelligent".

But intelligence forces out unintelligence, and in fact, those using the argument are forcing out intelligence.

Perhaps they are just arguing that world peace and freedom from suffering are the most intelligent values?

If so, what if one has a headache that worsens on deep-thinking? Don't think about a solution to the headache, in order to avoid pain?

Another what-if "game":

Two species require the same resources. If they're intelligent, they will determine which species can use the limited resources to best effect. Even if they share the same values, this doesn't change the limitedness of the resources.

They still have to draw a line somewhere. Do they all go hungry until their populations are appropriate and resources have been developed? Or do they fight it out to develop a new species made of individuals who use resources most effectively (ones who can think clearly and without emotion)?

Kevin Solway wrote: They are now dying out as a race, so their way didn't work fine. They were proven to be uncompetitive and unable to adapt to naturally changing circumstances.

They weren't dying out before civilization arrived to Australia---they were doing fine, like I said---before they were conquered and enslaved. What's "natural" about civilization?

Kevin Solway wrote:A large population can generate a large amount of wealth and creativity, which are important for colonizing space.

A very small population would have great difficulty in colonizing space, and would probably die out for the same reason as other small indigenous cultures.

If they are to die out, then that's nature's prerogative---extinctions have gone on here since life's been around; it's natural. Isn't being masculine and right brained about not trying to control everything and letting it happen?

Anyway, until we get our shit together here, I doubt we deserve to be out in space---we barely deserve the "right" to exist on this planet (meaning: the bulk of our actions are destroying nature---currently, we are a cancer on the surface of the Earth, so what right do we have to continue existing here?). We have not earned any right to exist yet.

We will get out there some day, probably when everything is dead or obliterated here---in which case, I hope it fails and we go extinct here, sparing another world from human insanity.

Kevin Solway wrote: Reason and personal experience.

A person with genuine spiritual knowledge is not dependent on traditional lands, activities, social interactions, etc. Their strength comes from within.

What does strength within do when one points an AK-47 at your head and those of your children?

Better still, when nukes are being dropped on your neighbourhood, how is inner strength going to stop being annihiliated?

Kevin Solway wrote:Those who are spiritually defeated are spiritually weak.

Okay, but those who are physically and technologically "weak," and spiritually strong, are still conquered, defeated.

Jesus was nailed to a cross; Endiku was seduced and enslaved; and Natives and Aboriginals were conquered, seduced, and enslaved.

The strength of the spirit prevents nothing much, ensures the survival of nothing at all.

Kevin Solway wrote:Those who are wise do not expect the government to tell them the truth.

Agreed.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is a mistake to put all your eggs in one basket. That's the first mistake we need to stop making, and (1) that's why we need to colonize other planets.

I agree...but (1) not entirely: extinction here, in a few decades or a couple centuries, or extinction on another planet a few thousand years later---putting our eggs into one basket is one huge problem, but it's not the main problem. (Which I see as consumption, in terms of civilization---but really civilization is the root problem for this world. If we had a sane, working system for all humans, space colonization would not be needed "to save us." I see what you're saying, though---eventually something will happen that will wipe-out most life on the planet, it's inevitable, and the planet will be evaporated in less than 4 billion years anyway; humanity is doomed if it stays here; sooner or later.)

Nordicvs wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: They are now dying out as a race, so their way didn't work fine. They were proven to be uncompetitive and unable to adapt to naturally changing circumstances.

They weren't dying out before civilization arrived to Australia---they were doing fine, like I said---before they were conquered and enslaved.

It doesn't matter if their culture was fine for only a limited period of time. To survive, a culture needs to be able to withstand natural changes in circumstances, like invasions.

What's "natural" about civilization?

It's as natural as anything else in nature. Do you think nature can create something unnatural?

Kevin Solway wrote:A very small population would have great difficulty in colonizing space, and would probably die out for the same reason as other small indigenous cultures.

If they are to die out, then that's nature's prerogative---extinctions have gone on here since life's been around; it's natural.

Yes, it's natural for species to die out, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and go extinct.

Isn't being masculine and right brained about not trying to control everything and letting it happen?

Being wise is about controlling anything that can be controlled, if useful.

Anyway, until we get our shit together here, I doubt we deserve to be out in space---we barely deserve the "right" to exist on this planet (meaning: the bulk of our actions are destroying nature---currently, we are a cancer on the surface of the Earth, so what right do we have to continue existing here?). We have not earned any right to exist yet.

All life on this planet can be viewed as parasitical, or a disease on the planet. Humans are no different. There have been plagues of other organisms, such as bacteria, which radically changed the composition of our atmosphere, oxygenating it.

We will get out there some day

You don't know that. I'd rather do it now and be sure of it.

. . . probably when everything is dead or obliterated here---in which case, I hope it fails and we go extinct here, sparing another world from human insanity.

Not all people are insane. I see hope in intelligent, truthful and courageous people.

What does strength within do when one points an AK-47 at your head and those of your children?

It makes all the difference. It takes fear out of the equation and enables you to make wise choices and actions.

Better still, when nukes are being dropped on your neighbourhood, how is inner strength going to stop being annihiliated?

If you are destroyed by a superior physical force, then your inner strength obviously wasn't enough to protect you. But the greater your inner strength, the less vulnerable you are to all physical forces. You will have greater means of defence, not only technology, but also greater skills of averting conflict.

The strength of the spirit prevents nothing much, ensures the survival of nothing at all.

Having spiritual wisdom means thinking truly and without fear. It can't achieve everything, but it can achieve more than any other way of life.

Part of what Kevin's talking about here is the ability of wisdom to be proactive rather than reactive. The wise enough would not get in a situation where an AK-47 was pointed at their and their families heads, or wait for an A-bomb to be dropped, or wait for an asteroid to strike the planet, or wait for the molten core to cool to the point that the planet becomes an uninhabitable rock.

Who knows, maybe we were on Mars once, and waited too long to save more than just some people and little to no technology, became savage nomads as a result of not being able to save our culture, and had to start over again.

Culture builds on itself, as the advancements of predecesors make additional advancements possible. If we did have to start over once, imagine how much further we might be if we had not had to start over again.

Although language has evolved, look at the people depticted in the Bible. We are not so different. What if the thing that has the most potential for evolving is culture and society rather than the human organism itself - and that is our only real means of advancement?

Cultures also evolve (for better or worse - take the culture of Christianity for example) and become extinct as new cultures invade other cultures. Living things must grow or die, and culture itself takes on this characteristic - perhaps parasitically off humans.

Wisdom can guide a culture to evolve in a survivable way. Wisdom seems to be a product of cultural overlay rather than a product of biological humans. That is why I consider wisdom to be above gender, as gender is so biological. Some biological conditions may make some biological organisms better hosts for the "parasite" of wisdom (and it is interesting to note what those conditions are), but culture seems to be the bridge between biological organisms and the realm of Truth which contains such statics as wisdom and mathematics.

Wisdom itself will survive, but it is culture and the cultivation of those conditions that make biological units better hosts that optimize the ability to access the static truths. Humanity has been able to access some of that with the cultural tools that we have been able to evolve, so being wise enough to save the progress that we have made so far will save having to re-do the last set of cultural growth, including re-doing the ugly mistakes if we forget them along with the culture.

Only by going forward can we have any hope of fully stepping into the static realm, and only by not having to start over again will we be able to move forward. That will necessitate either being able to pick up and move if the need arises, or being able to regenerate life within the decay of our planet as it naturally ages and dies. For now, it would be easier to learn how to pick up and move, so that may be our next step. After that, maybe we can learn how to regenerate life. We are Nature, but only by having full access to wisdom can we, or even should we, control unbridaled nature. We are getting there - and it would be a shame to flush the progress that the few have made down the cosmic toilet just because the many are just biological organisms, and poor hosts.

Kelly Jones wrote:Does anyone find this thread comical?

I find it comical that Elizabeth Isabelle has more posts than Kevin, and has been at Genius just 3-1/2 months. I wonder if her fingers get tired typing? She's writing a book here.

Carl G wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Does anyone find this thread comical?

I find it comical that Elizabeth Isabelle has more posts than Kevin, and has been at Genius just 3-1/2 months. I wonder if her fingers get tired typing? She's writing a book here.

What's the beef with the post count here? I need to be on the computer all day for options trading, so going to a message board for my breaks isn't that big of a deal... and honing detachment is helping with my skill. I happen to enjoy being someplace where I'm not referred to as "the wise one" or "the one that asks the really deep questions" so I come in in the evenings, too. I don't see people anymore except maybe once a week when I go grocery shopping since I'm transitioning from being an applied behaviioral scientist to an options trader, so you guys are pretty much the only people I speak with.

I'm not really sure how I got more comfortable here than at the other philosophy boards that I've been kindly linked to from here ;) Maybe it's just that I landed here first and that's all there is to it...

Well, at least I have amused Carl. That certainly makes it all worthwhile. :)
.

The more superficial chatter i experience, the more interested i am in a single clear, crystallised thought.

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't matter if their culture was fine for only a limited period of time. [1]To survive, a culture needs to be able to withstand natural changes in circumstances, like invasions.

A limited period? C'mon. The current culture in Australia is the limited one; its original inhabitants lived there for how many tens of thousands of years? Longer? A hundred thousand? Two? Three? Something that worked well for even 50 thousand years is not "limited." It's quite long-term and successful---what's the average life-span of an empire?

[1] True, yet what you're talking about is predicting the future, which is not possible---if invasions never happened there before, how can they be "natural" for those people? It's like expecting a fish to understand flying. Even if they are "natural," how could they possibly be predicted and therefore prevented?

How can a simple, spiritual people exist as such when they'd need to "get civilized" and thus overpopulate (farming, building cities, mining various materials, stripping the forests, destroying their way of life and their environment in the process) to develop the industry and technology to fight back on the same level to protect their way of life, which of course they themselves would need to destroy in order to sufficiently defend it?

Makes no sense to me---moreover, they wouldn't have the knowledge to do this without exposure to a "superior" culture (the violent, corrupt, techologically advanced, invading one) to learn from = not enough time to change in order to adequately defend themselves; adaptation always takes time.

They're screwed either way, no?---death by invasion, occupation, enslavement, or death by self-destruction, trying to be on the same level militarily as the soon-to-be invading empire.

Kevin Solway wrote: It's as natural as anything else in nature. Do you think nature can create something unnatural?

1. Civilization is not "in" nature; it is outside of it, using its materials, reformed into our current artificial environment.

2. I find it difficult to fathom how nature can create something unnatural: something unnatural can create something unnatural.

How can a species domesticate itself? Domestication isn't natural (animals enslave other animals, but domestication is a human construct), and yet here we are, no longer connected to the natural world, tamed, civilized, and thus no longer natural. (Our environment determines our nature, and humans now create their own nature, their own---unnatural---environments, and control their own evolution. By definition that is not natural.)

Kevin Solway wrote:Yes, it's natural for species to die out, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and go extinct.

Well, sure.

Back to your original point...after some more thought, I figure that it's quite possible to have a space program with a small population. Why not? How many people does it take, anyway? The population of an average town could be organized into one task: processing the materials necessary for the building of everything needed to make a space craft. Another group could focus on the fuel it will need. And so on. It doesn't take millions, or billions; it takes a coordinated focus on doing one thing by the majority of those able to contribute.

Actually, there are other ways to get into orbit other than the expensive and clumsy manner of rockets and absurd amounts of fuel; remember what Dr. Gerald Bull managed to do on a pitiful budget and not much manpower...? If not...

Kevin Solway wrote:Being wise is about controlling anything that can be controlled, if useful.

Well, I disagree: I've never met a "wise" control freak. Humanity is a collective control freak and there is nothing collectively wise about humanity.

"A wise man adapts himself to the world; a fool tries to adapt the world to himself." Controlling and manipulating things is not adapting to them.

I'd say that a masculine thinker controls only that which is absolutely necessary to his survival, and nothing more. Less is more, and that means less control, not more.

Kevin Solway wrote:All life on this planet can be viewed as parasitical, or a disease on the planet. Humans are no different. There have been plagues of other organisms, such as bacteria, which radically changed the composition of our atmosphere, oxygenating it.

True enough.

Kevin Solway wrote: You don't know that. I'd rather do it now and be sure of it.

I'd rather it be done as soon as humanity straightens itself out; but it doesn't seem likely---no one really gives a shit. Interest motivates the will to guide the intellect, and collectively there is more interest in TV than space exploration, or in getting our act together here before we're deserving of venturing out there. As I said, there's no point if we're just going to do the same old shit out there---better we screw up only one planet.

Kevin Solway wrote:Not all people are insane. I see hope in intelligent, truthful and courageous people.

I do as well---however, humans as a species are not sane. That's what I mean by "human insanity"---what we've done to this world, and continue to do, through civilization. It's what we will inevitably do to another world because we have not learned---or have forgotten---how to coexist with other life forms, in balance, or even with members of our own species.

Kevin Solway wrote:It makes all the difference. It takes fear out of the equation and enables you to make wise choices and actions.

If you are destroyed by a superior physical force, then your inner strength obviously wasn't enough to protect you. But the greater your inner strength, the less vulnerable you are to all physical forces. You will have greater means of defence, not only technology, but also greater skills of averting conflict.

Hmm. Again:

A man kicks in your door and points a gun at your head, saying, "You have five seconds until I blow your head off." And immediately begins counting down. "Five..."

Spirituality, religious beliefs (---"four"---), inner strength...none of this (---"three"---) is going to prevent (---"two"---) you from being shot (---"one"---). A wise man feels the bullet enter his skull the same as an ignorant man would.

How is inner strength going to prevent the fatal damage the bullet causes as it rips through your brain?

Kevin Solway wrote: Having spiritual wisdom means thinking truly and without fear. It can't achieve everything, but it can achieve more than any other way of life.

I completely agree---I'm simply saying it cannot prevent your death, your murder, being imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit, or the destruction of people you may love or care for..., nor could it prevent being invaded, conquered, and assimilated.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Part of what Kevin's talking about here is the ability of wisdom to be proactive rather than reactive. The wise enough would not get in a situation where an AK-47 was pointed at their and their families heads, or wait for an A-bomb to be dropped, or wait for an asteroid to strike the planet, or wait for the molten core to cool to the point that the planet becomes an uninhabitable rock.

So, women who get raped are simply dumb and could have prevented it?

This "wisedom" of which you speak sounds exactly like afore-thought to me...anticipating the unknown, seeing into the future, which no one is able to do. How can one know something unknown and unknowable? We can't even predict the weather for crissakes...

Nordicvs wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Part of what Kevin's talking about here is the ability of wisdom to be proactive rather than reactive. The wise enough would not get in a situation where an AK-47 was pointed at their and their families heads, or wait for an A-bomb to be dropped, or wait for an asteroid to strike the planet, or wait for the molten core to cool to the point that the planet becomes an uninhabitable rock.

So, women who get raped are simply dumb and could have prevented it?

This "wisedom" of which you speak sounds exactly like afore-thought to me...anticipating the unknown, seeing into the future, which no one is able to do. How can one know something unknown and unknowable? We can't even predict the weather for crissakes...

More extremism out of Nordicvs. If someone is not wise enough and proactive enough to figure out how to stop crime or create worls peace, then it must be a dumb woman who deserves to get raped? How about: If you can't figure out how to make a billion dollars by the time you are 40, you should just starve to death, naked on the street? That makes equal sense. The point isn't about extremism in this thread either - it is about considering what the best course of action is and taking the best course.

Furthermore, meteorology has significantly improved, so weather can now be reasonably well predicted - but if you're going to take the extreme of "everything isn't 100% predictable to 100% accuracy, so we can't know anything" how about if you stick your hand on a red hot burner? You can't know what is going to happen. What? That hurt? You burned your hand? Well, try the other one - no one is able to predict what is going to happen - the future is unknowable.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
More extremism out of Nordicvs.

Perhaps---and more nitpicky pettiness from Elizabeth...? Hmm.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
If someone is not wise enough and proactive enough to figure out how to stop crime or create worls peace, then it must be a dumb woman who deserves to get raped?

You're not getting this, or you just tend towards obfuscation...

You said:

"The wise enough would not get in a situation where an AK-47 was pointed at their and their families heads, or wait for an A-bomb to be dropped, or wait for an asteroid to strike the planet, or wait for the molten core to cool to the point that the planet becomes an uninhabitable rock."

Try this instead, since it's equally as ludicrous yet not more extreme:

"The wise enough would not get in a situation where a sexual predator could violate and harm them, or trip over a fold in the rug and break their arm, or choke on a fish bone and die, or be unable to make a relationship work out, or lose control of their vehicle on a late-night winding mountain road."

We're both talking about things no one can predict, control, or even influence without prior knowledge. I used the "extreme" wording in my example to express how extremely silly I find the notion that one only needs wisdom to avoid unforseeable events (this---"The wise enough would not get in a situation where an AK-47 was pointed at their and their families heads"---is especially absurd, as absurd as saying a woman is control over whether she gets raped or not, hence my example).

If one can employ wisdom to avoid being in the situation in which he or she would get shot (like in a war), then a female can employ wisdom to avoid being in the position to be raped (and you're the one who mentioned "deserving" of that, not me---I don't know where you got that from). Again: agree or not?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: How about: If you can't figure out how to make a billion dollars by the time you are 40, you should just starve to death, naked on the street? That makes equal sense.

No, that analogy doesn't fit at all with the ones above, mine or yours.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The point isn't about extremism in this thread either - it is about considering what the best course of action is and taking the best course.

It's about many things, one of which is the notion that things like inner strength, spirituality, and wisdom prevent accidents and random, impossible-to-predict (or to defend against, or to avoid) events. Specifically this relates to the above subject of Natives and Aboriginals being conquered because they were "spiritually weak."

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Furthermore, meteorology has significantly improved, so weather can now be reasonably well predicted - but if you're going to take the extreme of "everything isn't 100% predictable to 100% accuracy, so we can't know anything" how about if you stick your hand on a red hot burner? You can't know what is going to happen. What? That hurt? You burned your hand? Well, try the other one - no one is able to predict what is going to happen - the future is unknowable.

That analogy doesn't fit either---you're talking about a foreseeable cause and effect (and common sense, really); the examples you gave above were unforeseeable; they are dependent upon impossible levels of awareness.

(When the hell did I say "everything isn't 100% predictable to 100% accuracy, so we can't know anything?" By the way, only basic patterns of weather (jet stream tendencies according to seasonal trends, roughly where a tornado may appear, et cetera) can be vaguely predicted; overall, meteorology comes down to odds, basically a 50-50 guessing game, on average. Half the time they're right, half wrong. It depends largely upon scale, as well; local weather is harder to predict compared to regional weather. There's no way to predict where lightning will strike, or which direction a hurricane will travel or how strong it become, for example.)

Weather is chaos and therefore impossible to predict or logically infer. As is the unknown and the unforeseeable, obviously it's the same with "acts of God." Therefore, one's level of spirituality or wisdom or inner strength or inner peace or sanity or insanity is utterly irrelevant in terms of defending oneself or others against that which cannot be known, and thus cannot be prevented.