Dissident Philosophy Forum


 
Home­Register­Log in
Post new topic   Reply to topicShare | 
 

 What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
coberst
educator



PostSubject: What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?   Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:10 am

What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?

Quickie from Wiki: “The cheetah is a vulnerable species. Out of all the big cats, it is the least able to adapt to new environments. It has always proved difficult to breed in captivity, although recently a few zoos have managed to succeed at this. Once widely hunted for its fur, the cheetah now suffers more from the loss of both habitat and prey.”

The cheetah has adapted to its environment by making itself faster and faster. Unfortunately these adaptations have placed it in jeopardy of extinction because in the process of becoming faster it has lost its ability to protect its kill from other animals. The cheetah has become too specialized and thus faces extinction.

I would say that we humans have a similar problem. We have developed specialization to the extent that we place all of our focus upon technology with little knowledge or appreciation of the human sciences that will make it possible for us to manage this high tech world that we have created.

Both the cheetah and the human species face the same paradox. They both have so finely tuned their adaption to the world that their specialization will mean their extinction.

I suspect that within the next 200 years we humans will most likely bring an end to our species and possibly the end to all life on this planet.

I think that the only way to prevent this is for our species to become much more intellectually sophisticated than it is now; I see little evidence that this will occur. The problems we face today are enormous and while we have the brain power to prevent this we may well not have the necessary character traits to do so. I suspect our species is a dead end species.

Do you think that the human species might extinguish it self within a few centuries?
Back to top Go down
xponen
I ❤ color



PostSubject: Homo-sapien and Robo-sapien.   Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:44 pm

coberst wrote:

Do you think that the human species might extinguish it self within a few centuries?

I suspect homo-sapien will be non-existent but they will be replaced by a bio-machine-engineered species which can travel thru outer-space with ease.

Our current biology prohibit spaceflight and it was a consensus that world resources is not enough to sustain continuing human population growth. The next step is to colonize other world, or to shift habitation into the vast region of space.

One misconception about our view of any space-faring civilization is the need for every lifeform to retain a humanoid shape. Astronaut's experience of a prolonged space-station stay has shown that our humanoid body is quite unnecessary. Our muscle, our heart, our kidney (not sure), and our bone start to show degeneration in prolonged space-flight. It is possible that in the future we will see a synthetic brain to replace this biological brain but with similar performance and increase robustness in high radiation environment of outer-space (which can live without the presence of a humanoid body).

New electronic component called memresistor (which is a new discovery), a subtype of all kind of electronic component such as transistor, resistor, capacitor and inductor, can be used to create the first artificial brain. Scientist argue that this component is the perfect analogy to human synapse. At least we know that the future of artificial brain may be near.

One question that arise is: if we create an artificial brain, won't we be creating a new lifeform? (actually we would be creating an AI). But, in the process of transmitting one's thought into the machine, won't we actually merging consciousness?

I think that was a valid question.
(it remind me of the TV series Virtuality)
Back to top Go down
MagnetMan




PostSubject: Re: What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?   Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:40 pm

If
as science asserts
human evolution is the result of random event
then species extinction due to technological specialization
and lack of character adjustment
is certain
sooner rather than later

If our evolution of consciousness is by design
then 3 billion years of healthy character formation
will assert it self in due course
and allow design to complete its biological goal
of sagacious conscious development
and ultimate cosmic reunification

As to the extinction the cheetah
its skeleton
like our memory of the amazing dinosaurs before
will
I believe within my heart of hearts
be exhumed
and the marvel of its speed
recounted over and over again
throughout the myths of eternity
and thus remain as part of our consciousness
forever
Back to top Go down
coberst
educator



PostSubject: How do animals form categories?   Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:38 am

How do animals form categories?

Quickie from Wiki: “In metaphysics (in particular, ontology), the different kinds or ways of being are called categories of being or simply categories. According to the Aristotelian tradition, a being is anything that can be said to be in the various senses of this word. Hence, to investigate the categories of being is to determine the most fundamental senses in which things can be said to be. A category, more precisely, is any of the broadest classes of things - 'thing' here meaning anything whatever that can be discussed and cannot be reduced to any other class.”

Donald Schon, a researcher in the cognitive sciences, tells us of a group working on a difficult task of designing a satisfactory paintbrush made of synthetic bristles. In the middle of a discussion among the technicians designing the brush one of the group had that eureka moment and shouted “You know, a paintbrush is a kind of pump”. This insight Schon explains caused the designers “to notice new features of the brush and of the painting process”.

Cognitive science has introduced a new way of viewing the world and our self by declaring a new paradigm which is called the embodied mind. The primary focus is upon the fact that there is no mind/body duality but that there is indeed an integrated mind and body. The mind and body are as integrated as is the heart and the cardiovascular system. Mind and body form a gestalt (a structure so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts).

The human thought process is dominated by the characteristic of our integrated body. The sensorimotor neural network is an integral part of mind. The neural network that makes movement and perception possible is the same network that processes our thinking.

The unconscious categories that guide our human response to the world are constructed in the same way as are the categories that make it possible of other animals to survive in the world. We form categories both consciously and unconsciously.

Why do we feel that both our consciously created and unconsciously created categories fit the world?

Our consciously formed concepts fit the world, more or less, because we consciously examine the world with our senses and our reason and classify that world into these concepts we call categories.

Our unconsciously formed categories are a different matter. Our unconsciously formed categories fit our world because these basic-level categories “have evolved to form at least one important class of categories that optimally fit our bodily experiences of entities and certain extremely important differences in the natural environment”.

Our perceptual system has little difficulty distinguishing between dogs and cows or rats and squirrels. Investigation of this matter makes clear that we distinguish most readily those folk versions of biological genera, i.e. those “that have evolved significantly distinct shapes so as to take advantage of different features of their environment.”

If we move down to subordinate levels of the biological hierarchy we find the distinguishing ability deteriorates quickly. It is more difficult to distinguish one species of elephant from another than from distinguishing an elephant from a buffalo. It is easy to distinguish a boat from a car but more difficult distinguishing one type of car from another.

“Consider the categories chair and car which are in the middle of the category hierarchies furniture—chair—rocking chair and vehicle—car—sports car. In the mid-1970s, Brent Berlin, Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn Mervis, and their coworkers discovered that such mid-level categories are cogently “basic”—i.e. they have a kind of cognitive priority, as contrasted with “superordinate” categories like furniture and vehicle and with “subordinate” categories like rocking chair and sports car” (Berlin et al 1974 “Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification”; Mervis and Rosch 1981 Categorization of Natural Objects, “Annual Review of Psychology” 32: 89-115))

The differences between basic-level and non basic-level categories is based upon bodily characteristics. The basic-level categories are dependent upon gestalt perception, sensorimotor programs, and mental images. We can easily see that these facts make it the case that classical metaphysical realism cannot be true; the properties of many categories are mediated by the body rather than determined directly by a mind-independent reality.

“Try the following thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture a chair. Now, close your eyes and try to picture a furniture. You cannot—at least not one that isn’t a basic level object such as a lamp, table, or chair. The reasons are, first, that one can perceive lamps, tables, or chairs in terms of a single overall shape, but there is no overall shape for pieces of furniture in general…Second we have special motor programs for interacting with basic-level objects such as lamps, tables, and chairs but no motor program for pieces of furniture in general.”

In humans basic level categories are developed primarily based upon our bodily configuration and its interrelationship with the environment. For other animals almost all, if not all, categories are basic-level categories.

Quotes from A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind by Steven L. Winter
Back to top Go down
coberst
educator



PostSubject: Have we replaced our animal instincts?   Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:31 am

Have we replaced our animal instincts?

We are also creatures “prone to anxiety, extremely helpless in his natural state, almost entirely devoid of instincts.” Therein lay the paradox. ”Instead of remaining free and broadly adaptive, the new symbolic animal immediately became ‘symbolically re-instinctivized’ almost as solidly as the other animals were physio-chemically instinctivized.”

Sapiens evolved into creatures with symbolic structured modes of behavior. Human consciousness extended wo/man’s reach to infinity—wherein infinity is within the extended reach of human imagination. We are creatures with the ability to create symbolically a virtual reality that extends out to the limits of our imagination.

Evolution has programmed the animal world to act automatically in certain ways under certain conditions. Humans have lost a good bit of these programmed responses because we have an ego that places our responses on hold until we have had time to reflect and construct a non-programmed response.

Humans create the world we live in; it is a virtual world constructed principally because of the neurosis we have developed in the first five years of our life.

If we try to think about a virtual world I think we must start with a natural world so that we have a starting point, something with which we can compare. What is a natural world? Is it what we ‘see’? Is it the ‘thing-in-itself that Kant tells us about? Depending upon which is a natural world I think we can begin to realize that the world we live in is a virtual world. We are creatures who create symbolic worlds that are more important to us than the world we ‘see’.

Water boarding is a good example of what we feel about death. Being sentenced to death for a crime is a good idea of what we think about the importance of death. The things people do to prolong their life one more day is a good example. We have been very successful about hiding these anxieties from our self that we have created an inferior culture in our pursuit after something that we do not allow our self to think about. Self deception is our greatest enemy and our closest companion.

I am claiming that the reaction we feel when water boarding or claustrophobia is that very fear of death. If someone asks me what is the fear of death I will say that if they can imagine the feeling of being water boarded they are feeling the fear of death. Our rather blaze attitude that we say we feel about dying is our self deception.

This fear of death that we work so hard to hide from our self is one of the major reasons that we have created a virtual realty and this virtual world we have created is going to kill us. Now ain’t that ironic?

Quotes from Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker

Do you think that humans have replaced the basic animal instincts with symbolic type instincts as the author notes?
Back to top Go down
Judah and I




PostSubject: Re: What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?   Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:17 pm

Quote:
C: Our rather blaze attitude that we say we feel about dying is our self deception.


How frustrating that all the death fearers try to claim it is a true fear.
Not death but pain.
Always only pain.
Back to top Go down
 

What does the Cheetah and the human have in common?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions of this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissident Philosophy Forum :: Philosophy-
Post new topic   Reply to topic