Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists?

I know it sounds foolish, but one time I let the flip of a coin choose my destiny for me because I couldn't decide what to do. The coin said do it and I did. It didn't really turn out so well, but it wasn't so bad either. It certainly was an experience I'll never forget, and I don't regret doing it, but I'll never do it again. Stupid coin....
 
Honestly I think I agree with you. I mean, lets suppose things are determined - you're still on the hook, in some way, for living ethically, right?

That's an interesting take on it. I hadn't thought of that but I imagine out approach to ethics is largely predetermined too, eg. where and when you're born, your parents, your experiences in youth etc decide what being ethical means to you.

I think if we take the view that we are each smaller parts of a larger whole (which seems likely to me, even if the "whole" is undefined) then maybe "right behaviour" is analogous to what we'd consider "right behaviour" of our cells - our component parts. I would like my cells to work harmoniously with its neighbours, to not go rogue and cancerous on me, and for my soldier cells to put in a big effort.

So I try to be reasonable and pleasant, be it pre-decided by my history or not.

It's interesting reading this point [stock exchange] in the light of the controversy over high-frequency trading, along with your earlier point about the algorithmic/cyclic nature of human action. We've modeled our habits and focused them, allowed them to happen as if we were thinking outside of our bodies (or asleep).

Yes, our structures take on a life of their own. I expect that human consciousness is mappable and will be replicated by AI in the future. I think at some stage we will become entirely synthetic.

.... but, what if what we think/decide ... it's all your doing and you're deciding your own destiny and your faith through your life, while in fact you're just following your pre-destiny and you're not aware of it.

And we'll never know :)

What I don't understand is why people get offended when someone has a different POV.

This thread has been especially good natured as far as I can tell, apart from a cross comment by Duncan early on, and that's okay because he enjoys getting cross :)

As far as I can tell, the true meaning of life...is to reproduce. That's it. Simple. The rest is just fun, or torture, depending on your POV. But basically, the person with the most descendants wins.

That's perhaps true of other animals but for humans there's a cultural layer. More reading for your Larry - try Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. He has a chapter called "Memes - the new replicators". Basically, ideas in the "idea pool" act similarly to genes in a gene pool, so RD called them "memes" (not to be confused with jokey captions on images).

So someone who breeds may extend their sphere of influence in posterity to a few individuals. On the other hand, a person without children could have ideas that resonate throughout society. In a way, they live on through their cultural influence.

The drive is probably not wildly different in nature to the sex drive - there's lots of people seemingly compelled to throw in their two cents' worth on any given topic on the net - the "successful" ideas propagate and the rest fall back into the meme pool

But the weakest excuse for believing is that it will not hurt anything if they decide to believe. And so they believe in pre-destiny because it is easier than developing and puzzling out a personal proof of its non-existance.

I think you'll find most people with simplistic beliefs in this area have their hands full with daily contingencies. It is a luxury to have the time for contemplation, although many eschew their opportunities for "more useful" activities that lead them to running around in small circles that some focused thinking could avoid. I'm speaking from experience here ...

Determinism states that for everything that happens, there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. For example, I choose to punch someone in the face. There is a choice. Determinism dictates that since my fist contacted their face, they will feel the force of my fist on their face. This is what determinism states. Its A+B=C. But A and B have the option to be a choice.

How often do people choose to hit others? I imagine the "decision" is most likely made by flight or flight mechanisms. Making a choice would mean overriding the basic impulse ... and the making of that choice would depend on your history ...

I know it sounds foolish, but one time I let the flip of a coin choose my destiny for me because I couldn't decide what to do. The coin said do it and I did. It didn't really turn out so well, but it wasn't so bad either.

I'll get a bit offtopic (just for a change). The part I've bolded reminded me of research psychologist Dan Gilbert's TED Talk "Why aren't we happy?". He said we have mechanisms in our brains that allow us to predict outcomes, and an example he gave is that we don't need to look at, small or taste anchovy ice cream to know it's a bad idea.

Thing is, he also said our predictive mechanisms are skewed and we usually predict good things will turn better than they actually do and we overestimate the negative effects of setbacks too. Basically, how good things are for us depend more on our attitudes than our external reality.

That's easy to say - developing enough mind control to override our instinctive silliness is far from easy. I hope one day to get there.
 
I'll get a bit offtopic (just for a change). The part I've bolded reminded me of research psychologist Dan Gilbert's TED Talk "Why aren't we happy?". He said we have mechanisms in our brains that allow us to predict outcomes, and an example he gave is that we don't need to look at, small or taste anchovy ice cream to know it's a bad idea.

Thing is, he also said our predictive mechanisms are skewed and we usually predict good things will turn better than they actually do and we overestimate the negative effects of setbacks too. Basically, how good things are for us depend more on our attitudes than our external reality.

That's easy to say - developing enough mind control to override our instinctive silliness is far from easy. I hope one day to get there.

Very true. My mother's whole life is just one tragedy after the next. I've spent my life trying not to be like her, but I also find myself being just like her. I'll have to ruminate on what you're saying here, but it speaks volumes; more than I can relay in a short post comment. Thanks for your pearls of wisdom.

The part that didn't work out was that I got fired for insubordination because of my big mouth, but I had enough of getting jerked around by this company by that time. Quite a few things didn't go my way when I moved to Indiana for a job, but I did manage to find a cool band for a few get-togethers, so there were some good times too. I met some real quality people out there, but I also met an over-abundance of turds too. I guess you'll find that anywhere you go, so no ill feeling toward Indiana.

I tend to hang on to the good things and forget about the bad. Learn from them, but forget it and let it go. It's just a cancer in the mind.

Anyway, back to philosophy...
 
How often do people choose to hit others? I imagine the "decision" is most likely made by flight or flight mechanisms. Making a choice would mean overriding the basic impulse ... and the making of that choice would depend on your history

This is a red herring.

Fight or flight is still a choice, hence the "or". You have a minimum of two options in this scenario. I agree that the choice is relegated to the scenario at hand, but more often than not I personally have had the will and opportunity to knock someones teeth out but haven't because rationality wins out in my mind and I either discuss the situation to end and solve it or just walk away when the other party is not being rational. But don't think the violent option isn't present in my mind and urging me to act upon it.

I don't think my example was too spectacular, after further review. I suppose I will be given a 5 yard penalty and a loss of down.
 
I'm sorry but your ideas of destiny and determinism are skewed. The definition of destiny is a predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control. By definition alone we humans have no say in our destiny, therefore our ability to make choices is mute. Something cannot be destined for you and still allow breathing room for choices.

We're not in disagreement. Destiny is always given a signifier: the thread, the omen, the event that fulfills the act. It has an important narrative element, because destiny is meaningful. Consider the concept of divine right, for instance, or the Greek gods and their interventions on earth: the force of destiny is the force of divine will on the actions of humans. Humans are able to act. But they are not able to overcome that force: Oedipus makes a number of choices only to find himself filling a destiny he knew to exist except in its particulars. But it is this belief in the need to act in order to fulfill a destiny that creates a sense of purpose in the man, but Oedipus' control over fulfilling the destiny is an illusion. Instead, there are a number of superhuman forces that bend him to their will.

In determinist systems, there is no choice; there is no purposive element. Things just happen after each other. An idea reflected in your next paragraph:

Determinism states that for everything that happens, there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. For example, I choose to punch someone in the face. There is a choice. Determinism dictates that since my fist contacted their face, they will feel the force of my fist on their face. This is what determinism states. Its A+B=C. But A and B have the option to be a choice. And in events of no choice, such as a car wreck, determinism only dictates twisted metal, not the fate of all those involved. Cars might be totaled, maybe not. People may die, maybe not.

But of course determinism doesn't dictate anything, because that would create some sort of destined or purposive element. Determinist physics are results of prior causes (a better example is "Since my fist contacted their face, they shot me, and I died, and they went to jail" and that would go on as an inevitable chain that whose constituents only come into existence as a result of their causes, but are necessary as opposed to probable - otherwise it's as if you're making a point about the efficient cause). Or, as you say, nothing else could happen - but because if something else could happen, there is a chance that it would. There's no maybe/maybe not. Cars are totalled if they are totalled; people die if they die. A deterministic system says: the car crash that happened was the only car crash that could have happened, and in the presence of the car crash, the only result could be that people died. How do we know? Because the cars crashed, and people died. That something happened is proof that it must have happened.

For this to work, choices must be the necessary results of a causal chain. For the compatibilist, this doesn't preclude free will.

It is cause and effect, with philosophical ideas behind it.

Well, what are these "philosophical ideas" - are we talking final causes or just efficient causes, or what? Under whose theory are we defining the event? The discussion is not an either/or, that you have free will or the world is determined (though quantum mechanics makes the strictest form of the latter difficult to argue). "Free will" - as poorly defined as it is, "conscious agency" is probably better - is compatible with determinist or indeterminist schemes. It's fully possible to claim agency in a determinist system. What's at issue in questions of will (free or other) is the just-ness of your actions and how we rationalize them. How are we responsible for the events we're discussing, and what effect does our relative level of agency have on our obligation to act responsibly?
 
But it is this belief in the need to act in order to fulfill a destiny that creates a sense of purpose in the man, but Oedipus' control over fulfilling the destiny is an illusion. Instead, there are a number of superhuman forces that bend him to their will.

Thank you, you just solidified my point about no free will in destiny. It's the superhuman force that control Oedipus, not Oedipus himself, regardless of his beliefs.


But of course determinism doesn't dictate anything, because that would create some sort of destined or purposive element. Determinist physics are results of prior causes (a better example is "Since my fist contacted their face, they shot me, and I died, and they went to jail" and that would go on as an inevitable chain that whose constituents only come into existence as a result of their causes, but are necessary as opposed to probable - otherwise it's as if you're making a point about the efficient cause). Or, as you say, nothing else could happen - but because if something else could happen, there is a chance that it would. There's no maybe/maybe not. Cars are totalled if they are totalled; people die if they die. A deterministic system says: the car crash that happened was the only car crash that could have happened, and in the presence of the car crash, the only result could be that people died. How do we know? Because the cars crashed, and people died. That something happened is proof that it must have happened.

Again, me hitting someone in the face doesn't GUARANTEE they will shoot me. Choices are involved. Look at it this way, earlier you mentioned social determinism. Social determinism says that ideals are set in place and upheld (hopefully) to benefit the whole of a certain society. Yet these ideals are set in place by others who are entrusted to set in place rules that are deemed acceptable to their society. So therefore they CHOSE what is to be accepted. However, we can always break the rules. Or we can even decide to leave said society and join another. Yet another choice. Even in determinism, a chain of events is always a series of causes and effects. The chain would never go: I made red kool-aid. Therefore there was a car accident out on the street. Finally, three children got their hair cut.

Well, what are these "philosophical ideas" - are we talking final causes or just efficient causes, or what? Under whose theory are we defining the event? The discussion is not an either/or, that you have free will or the world is determined (though quantum mechanics makes the strictest form of the latter difficult to argue). "Free will" - as poorly defined as it is, "conscious agency" is probably better - is compatible with determinist or indeterminist schemes. It's fully possible to claim agency in a determinist system. What's at issue in questions of will (free or other) is the just-ness of your actions and how we rationalize them. How are we responsible for the events we're discussing, and what effect does our relative level of agency have on our obligation to act responsibly?

Unless you are talking about Brain in a Vat, I don't see that it matters what philosophical branch you are referring. Look at Utilitarianism. The Utilitarianist judges moral worth by the resulting outcome of their actions. They must exercise free will and make a choice, but yet their actions don't necessarily conform to what we would deem acceptable. Here is an example: You are a doctor in a fertility clinic, and the building is on fire. Inside the building is you, a three year old girl, and 100 test tube babies. You can either save the girl or the test tube babies, but not both. The girl is already alive, but the test tube babies all have the potential for human life, and there are 100 of them. Who do you save? If you choose to answer this question, than you have used free will to make a decision, be it rational or not, and even only saving yourself still is a choice that you have made. Not answering this question is also a choice.

Tell you what. The title of this thread is: Can there be free will in a world where pre-destiny exists? No, I don't think there can, and that is my opinion.

Just a thought, but isn't the idea of pre-destiny a little silly? Is pre-destiny the waiting room you sit in before you actually enter destiny? And if that is the case, you are not yet destined for anything?
 
Fight or flight is still a choice, hence the "or". You have a minimum of two options in this scenario. I agree that the choice is relegated to the scenario at hand, but more often than not I personally have had the will and opportunity to knock someones teeth out but haven't because rationality wins out in my mind and I either discuss the situation to end and solve it or just walk away when the other party is not being rational.

Some choice, eh? Choose your compulsion. Seems to me that we are compelled to do things all the time - by our bodies, our instincts and our conditioning. Did I post that link about studies done in the way we behave when influenced by what is fresh in our unconscious mind.

I'm not saying our compulsions are done by a deity (or whatever) but it is interesting the level of compulsion we have in our makeup and how little control we actually have over our lives.
 
Determinism states that for everything that happens, there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. For example, I choose to punch someone in the face. There is a choice. Determinism dictates that since my fist contacted their face, they will feel the force of my fist on their face. This is what determinism states. Its A+B=C. But A and B have the option to be a choice. And in events of no choice, such as a car wreck, determinism only dictates twisted metal, not the fate of all those involved. Cars might be totaled, maybe not. People may die, maybe not. It is cause and effect, with philosophical ideas behind it.

I think this is called compatibilism? The idea that free will (choice) can co-exist with determinism. The idea that they cannot co-exist is, I believe, called incompatibilism.

Not that I'm an authority or can even particularly keep up with all the variants.
 
I think this is called compatibilism? The idea that free will (choice) can co-exist with determinism. The idea that they cannot co-exist is, I believe, called incompatibilism.

Not that I'm an authority or can even particularly keep up with all the variants.

Ah, a bridge! I guess I might be some kind of a compatibilist too because it seems to me that both free will and inevitable causes and effects exist. Not that it seems to matter, as per a previous post.

It's all about the Peoples' Front of Judea.

No, I'm sure its the Judean People's Front ...
 
The slippery slope is an argumental fallacy that debunks the random series of events. The user who linked these events is guilty of using a slippery slope. Perhaps my wording left a bit to be desired.

Perhaps we lack the perspective to join all the dots, like some dotard infant that's having difficulty with his colouring book. Ability to grasp something does not mean we simplify it to whatever we're capable of explaining.
When I use the words, perhaps, I leave open the door to debate or rather, to an alternative proof. Do we indeed have all the answers? Highly doubtful, even our basic laws of physics are coming unravelled every passing day.

Show me an effect that has no cause.

Some children are born deformed for no fault of their own or their parents. They are genetically sound, they don't do drugs, well fed and bred and haven't been exposed to chemicals. Is it evolution? Random mutation? God's love and God's play?


I swear those things behave as though they are scared shitless when the Sandal of Destiny comes crashing down. They pick up their dead and wounded (presumably waste not want not). They adjust their trail when I make one trail too hazardous. They keep trying to get in the house - and after I wipe the intruders out they stop for a while. Then they try again later.

Don't sweep the floor to spare the ants. Cover the lamps to spare the moths.

If the ants are coming toward the house, just take a little sugar and sprinkle it away from your property and they will go there instead. Maybe a daub of honey if you're feeling generous.

Always remember the little people. Life in their limited lifespan, with all of its pleasures and pain from their unique sensory perspective. If you prick us, we bleed, if you wrong us, shall we not avenge? Maybe that's why they keep trying to get in the house. To get you! :p


Chaos theory and quantum strangeness seem to defy the notion of destiny, but chaos theory is really just a practical means of black boxing things that are too complex to understand ... at the moment. I suspect we will one day make sense of the factors (and formulas) behind quantum strangeness too.

Kind of funny how there are "no straight lines in nature". I think we should perhaps consider a philosophical view of that truth, rather than a geometric one. I certainly think that events can be considered random to the extent that we cannot predict every single possibility, except perhaps esoterically. And even then, with no great precision and with the possibility that a sky dragon will one day arrive and wipe us out in our beds.

I'm sorry but your ideas of destiny and determinism are skewed. The definition of destiny is a predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control. By definition alone we humans have no say in our destiny, therefore our ability to make choices is mute. Something cannot be destined for you and still allow breathing room for choices.

Determinism states that for everything that happens, there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen. For example, I choose to punch someone in the face. There is a choice. Determinism dictates that since my fist contacted their face, they will feel the force of my fist on their face. This is what determinism states. Its A+B=C. But A and B have the option to be a choice. And in events of no choice, such as a car wreck, determinism only dictates twisted metal, not the fate of all those involved. Cars might be totaled, maybe not. People may die, maybe not. It is cause and effect, with philosophical ideas behind it.


Destiny does not take away your power of choice. It merely means that whatever choice you make, you will inevitably happen on a singular event or circumstance that is in your path. Thinking of time as being linear makes sense. But the scale can be subdivided in many ways.

You may punch someone in the face. You may be involved in a car wreck. Was it written? Perhaps you're not important enough to be kept in the loop on the behind the scenes cosmic comedy.

I said perhaps again, because I accept that I don't have all the answers and I seriously doubt anyone else on this planet does. To reiterate the point about science in no way being absolute truth, I think Stephen Hawking lost a bet in 2004, Einstein's theories are still being contested and gravity might not be exactly the way we envisage it if we go by black holes.


The thing that confuses me with "everything is an illusion" and the holographic principle etc is that if a piano drops on your head from a first storey balcony it makes no difference whether you perceive it or not ...

This is a really weird "theory", but I believe a lot of people view life this way.

There's an awesome Pearl Jam song called "I'm Open" where the narrator in the song says when he was a boy, he thought that the moon was always following him. "Centre of your own universe" is what I'd call that kind of thinking, not because it's factually wrong, but because we often internalise what's happening around us to the most basic "what does it mean to me?"

Or to stretch it further "everything is happening because of me, this is all being done for MY benefit or detriment." When the "dreamer" dies, everything and everyone else ceases to matter. They are, for all practical purposes, dead, at least from the dreamer's perspective.
 
"Freewill" went out the window when Adam & Eve were told not to eat from the tree of life.
 
Don't sweep the floor to spare the ants. Cover the lamps to spare the moths.

... Always remember the little people. Life in their limited lifespan, with all of its pleasures and pain from their unique sensory perspective. If you prick us, we bleed, if you wrong us, shall we not avenge? Maybe that's why they keep trying to get in the house. To get you! :p

You are a kind man, Reggae (or pragmatic). Jain Buddhist by any chance?

Pretty sure the ants are flowing like water into my place, simply pushing out in all directions but when the trail to my place keeps resulting is soldier ants MIA they gravitate to more productive trails ... until a wekk or two later when they try again, just in case the murderous ogre's gone away.


Kind of funny how there are "no straight lines in nature". I think we should perhaps consider a philosophical view of that truth, rather than a geometric one. I certainly think that events can be considered random to the extent that we cannot predict every single possibility, except perhaps esoterically. And even then, with no great precision ...

Never mind no straight lines in nature, there are no straight artificial lines either. Zoom in enough on the straightest line we can devise and it will start to look bumpy.

The other side of this that what we call "artificial" is actually "natural" ... after all, humans are part of the biosphere and our outputs (including plastics) are as much part of nature as anything else. "Natural" does not = "good", nor does it = "good for other species or the environment". It just means "not made by people".
 
...

This thread is making me feel like the time I was driving an old Volvo on the autobahn in Germany,doing about 85/90 mph when 2 BMW motorbikes whizzed by me and became 2 little dots on the horizon in 5 seconds flat.

I've completey lost you guys, but hey this is the funnest thread on the forum in a long time.

If musicians dont philosophize, who will. Just because we're drummers does'nt mean all that we are 'allowed' to talk about is1ply heads and Demon Drives.

Grea, Mangle,Polack, and the rest of you... I dont know what the *** y'all are talking about but I love it.


...
 
You are a kind man, Reggae (or pragmatic). Jain Buddhist by any chance?

Pretty sure the ants are flowing like water into my place, simply pushing out in all directions but when the trail to my place keeps resulting is soldier ants MIA they gravitate to more productive trails ... until a wekk or two later when they try again, just in case the murderous ogre's gone away.




Never mind no straight lines in nature, there are no straight artificial lines either. Zoom in enough on the straightest line we can devise and it will start to look bumpy.

The other side of this that what we call "artificial" is actually "natural" ... after all, humans are part of the biosphere and our outputs (including plastics) are as much part of nature as anything else. "Natural" does not = "good", nor does it = "good for other species or the environment". It just means "not made by people".


Thank you. Jains are one thing, Buddhists are another and I'm neither ;)

Haha, I remember my English teacher demonstrating something similar to me about "straight lines", how it it was impossible to write on one. I'll have to differ on our outputs being "natural" though, think cloned beef and other weird stuff they're doing in labs now.

I think natural would just mean a lack of an outside interference in something. Or in the modern world, where humans outnumber bears by 7 billion to 1000000, lions by 7 billion to 500000 and tigers by 7 billion to 5000, the absence of HUMAN intervention.

My parents bought my brothers and me a lot of comic books about God(s) when I was young -- Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Moses -- so I grew up a self-styled polytheist. They all seemed like wonderful and powerful beings.

I'm not welcome in most organised places of worship though, because I like to filter out all the crazy stuff. You know, like all this stuff like beheading people, racism on either side of the colour spectrum, oppressing women and homosexuals, genital mutilation, debauching children and getting away with it. For deviating from that straight and narrow, I'm a radical. And it suits me fine. God is great, even as a concept or figment of my imagination, just keep the hypocrites at arm's length. I want more of that kind of positive thought in my life - God, human rights, liberty, equality. Bring it on!


...

This thread is making me feel like the time I was driving an old Volvo on the autobahn in Germany,doing about 85/90 mph when 2 BMW motorbikes whizzed by me and became 2 little dots on the horizon in 5 seconds flat.

I've completey lost you guys, but hey this is the funnest thread on the forum in a long time.

If musicians dont philosophize, who will. Just because we're drummers does'nt mean all that we are 'allowed' to talk about is1ply heads and Demon Drives.

Grea, Mangle,Polack, and the rest of you... I dont know what the *** y'all are talking about but I love it.

...

Hehe, aydee, The best thing about these kinds of discussions is that everyone is there's no right or wrong point of view, it can be interpreted differently by different people. Glad you're amused ;)

The Drummerworld "Oprah Winfrey" Show :p
 
If musicians dont philosophize, who will. Just because we're drummers does'nt mean all that we are 'allowed' to talk about is1ply heads and Demon Drives.

For sure, Abe. Music and philosophy have hung around each other for years ...

A Day in the Life. A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. A Love Supreme. Alabama. All You Need is Love. Always Look on the Bright Side of Life. Another Brick in the Wall. Aqualung. Ashes to Ashes. Berlin. Blowin’ in the Wind. Bridge of Sighs. Candle In the Wind. Candles in the Rain. Cat in the Cradle. Changes. Closer to Fine. Crime of the Century. Do What You Like. Don't Worry, Be Happy. Driva Man. Eve of Destruction. Face the Face. Fools. Freewill. Games Without Frontiers. Give and Take. Grey Seal. Hallelujah. I Talk to the Wind. If Six was Nine. Imagine. It Don't Mean a Thing if it Ain't Got That Swing. Life's Been Good to Me So Far. Love and Understanding. Macarthur Park. Mad World. Making Plans for Nigel. Mirage. More Trouble Every Day.. My Ever Changing Moods. My God. Piano Man. Power and the Passion. Power in the Darkness. Put On a Happy Face. Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head. School. Sense of Doubt. Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll. Ship of Fools. Shock the Monkey. Sign o' the Times. Sound of Muzak. Spirits in the Material World. Stairway to Heaven. Strange Fruit. Synchronicity. Take a Walk on the Wild Side. The Distance. The Inner Light. The Logical Song. The Message. The Real Me. The Real Me. The Royal Scam. Thick as a Brick. Time. Tomorrow Never Knows. U2's Pride. Vital Signs. Walking in Your Footsteps. War. We've Got to Get Out of This Place. What a Wonderful World. When the River Runs Dry. Wishing Well. Working Class Hero. You Are Beautiful. You Can't Always Get What You Want. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away ...

Sorry about the long list but once I got started it turns out there are more than I expected!

I'll have to differ on our outputs being "natural" though, think cloned beef and other weird stuff they're doing in labs now.

I think natural would just mean a lack of an outside interference in something. Or in the modern world, where humans outnumber bears by 7 billion to 1000000, lions by 7 billion to 500000 and tigers by 7 billion to 5000, the absence of HUMAN intervention.

Agree Reg, when it comes to food and lifestyle. Otherwise I think of "nature" as the biosphere, which includes both living things and the elements. Is humanity included as part of nature? Or are we an invasive plague? Or maybe humans an inevitable consequence of life forms becoming increasingly complex over the last few billion years?

After all, every now and then in nature a species will have a "breakthrough". For instance, trilobites were the first animals to develop eyes. Freaky to think that for millions of years all living things on Earth were blind. Trilobites used their vision advantage to dominate the Earth for a while. Now they are fossils. I have a small one at home.
 
Agree Reg, when it comes to food and lifestyle. Otherwise I think of "nature" as the biosphere, which includes both living things and the elements. Is humanity included as part of nature? Or are we an invasive plague? Or maybe humans an inevitable consequence of life forms becoming increasingly complex over the last few billion years?

After all, every now and then in nature a species will have a "breakthrough". For instance, trilobites were the first animals to develop eyes. Freaky to think that for millions of years all living things on Earth were blind. Trilobites used their vision advantage to dominate the Earth for a while. Now they are fossils. I have a small one at home.

That's an interesting thought right there! Suppose in our midst is born a different child. The hope of the species of survival.

Would we allow him to date our girls? No! Would we allow him to be our friend? No! Would we allow him to live in our neighbourhood? No!

Because humans have come to the conclusion that *this* is the chosen form, the pinnacle of our existence, the epitome of creation.

Of course, if my understanding of evolution is correct, the poor misunderstood kid would destroy us all and go on living. Since it's evolution, there's absolutely no way this kid could be killed.

Which seems to be another common thread in most religious texts, i,e. the Day of Judgment, the coming of the Anti-Christ or Mehdi or Kalyug.

We'd *try* to kill him from the moment he was born. Or maybe even before, hahaha ;)
 
That's an interesting thought right there! Suppose in our midst is born a different child. The hope of the species of survival.

Would we allow him to date our girls? No! Would we allow him to be our friend? No! Would we allow him to live in our neighbourhood? No!

Because humans have come to the conclusion that *this* is the chosen form, the pinnacle of our existence, the epitome of creation.

Ha - I wouldn't want to be a saviour born in today's world! Everyone would think you were a nutter unless you pulled out a bag of miracles.

I suspect the next breakthrough in human evolution will stem from our relationship with technology. We are definitely a work in progress. We're already taller and more robust than people even back in the middle ages. We live longer and our knowledge is far greater. And we don't usually ritually sacrifice virgins or keep slaves any more.
 
Back
Top