Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and suffering

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:04:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I think that this may be an accidental by-product. Evolution is quite simple, but at the same time easy to misunderstand. You have to remember that evolution is a process of blind design by variable quality controls. It is not survival of the fittest but survival of whatever strands of DNA manage to reproduce. But I am slightly missing the point here.

Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief.

If grief if not enough of a handicap to breeding then it remains in the genepool.

Though I can see where you are coming from, and have had similar thoughts myself I dont believe it is sufficiently debilitating for evolution to have lessened it. I also think that modern society, not biological has greatly increased our innate emotional capacity. If... or maybe when there is an apolocalypse the first generation of survivors will be tougher. Not necessarily because of genetics but because they would be barbarians living in a tough and unforgiving world. Nothing indulges their emotions.

In a sense the intense grief we feel is a product of our decadence.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mikeee
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:05:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

Ultimately, suffering and inequality comes back to the development of agriculture, or the inability there of. Places that where geographically blessed where able to develop civilization and advancements, while in other places that could not support well nourishing grains and livestock, never, or slowly made advancements that others have been able to do long before. The Spanish was superior to the Inca because they had superior technology, while the Inca where barely starting to use bronze.

http://video.google.com...
Mikeee
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:09:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:04:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I think that this may be an accidental by-product. Evolution is quite simple, but at the same time easy to misunderstand. You have to remember that evolution is a process of blind design by variable quality controls. It is not survival of the fittest but survival of whatever strands of DNA manage to reproduce. But I am slightly missing the point here.

Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief.

If grief if not enough of a handicap to breeding then it remains in the genepool.

Though I can see where you are coming from, and have had similar thoughts myself I dont believe it is sufficiently debilitating for evolution to have lessened it. I also think that modern society, not biological has greatly increased our innate emotional capacity. If... or maybe when there is an apolocalypse the first generation of survivors will be tougher. Not necessarily because of genetics but because they would be barbarians living in a tough and unforgiving world. Nothing indulges their emotions.

In a sense the intense grief we feel is a product of our decadence.

" Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief."

This could not be further from the truth. Neanderthal buried their dead, which shows many things, one being that they grieve over death.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:09:12 PM, Mikeee wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:04:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I think that this may be an accidental by-product. Evolution is quite simple, but at the same time easy to misunderstand. You have to remember that evolution is a process of blind design by variable quality controls. It is not survival of the fittest but survival of whatever strands of DNA manage to reproduce. But I am slightly missing the point here.

Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief.

If grief if not enough of a handicap to breeding then it remains in the genepool.

Though I can see where you are coming from, and have had similar thoughts myself I dont believe it is sufficiently debilitating for evolution to have lessened it. I also think that modern society, not biological has greatly increased our innate emotional capacity. If... or maybe when there is an apolocalypse the first generation of survivors will be tougher. Not necessarily because of genetics but because they would be barbarians living in a tough and unforgiving world. Nothing indulges their emotions.

In a sense the intense grief we feel is a product of our decadence.

" Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief."

This could not be further from the truth. Neanderthal buried their dead, which shows many things, one being that they grieve over death.

I fail to see how this is a rebuttal?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mikeee
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:27:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
" Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence.."

This is false, traits such as intelligence are not genetic; not one has a monopoly on intelligence, learned knowledge and education is what is taught, but it does not naturally come.

"... Empathetic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief."

Ability to have complex communication is the cause of empathy. Bonding and forming alliances are bio products of sophisticated communication.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:43:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:27:01 PM, Mikeee wrote:
" Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence.."

This is false, traits such as intelligence are not genetic; not one has a monopoly on intelligence, learned knowledge and education is what is taught, but it does not naturally come.

So a chimp raised as a human has the intelligence of a human?

"... Empathetic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief."

Ability to have complex communication is the cause of empathy. Bonding and forming alliances are bio products of sophisticated communication.

Do rabbits have complex communication? How complex is the communication of dogs or the great apes?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 2:54:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:04:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I think that this may be an accidental by-product. Evolution is quite simple, but at the same time easy to misunderstand. You have to remember that evolution is a process of blind design by variable quality controls. It is not survival of the fittest but survival of whatever strands of DNA manage to reproduce. But I am slightly missing the point here.

Natural selection favoured the rise of intelligence, it favoured the development of empathy. Empathic creatures are more likely to form mutually beneficial bonds and alliances. It is from this intelligence and empathy we get grief.

If grief if not enough of a handicap to breeding then it remains in the genepool.

Though I can see where you are coming from, and have had similar thoughts myself I dont believe it is sufficiently debilitating for evolution to have lessened it. I also think that modern society, not biological has greatly increased our innate emotional capacity. If... or maybe when there is an apolocalypse the first generation of survivors will be tougher. Not necessarily because of genetics but because they would be barbarians living in a tough and unforgiving world. Nothing indulges their emotions.

In a sense the intense grief we feel is a product of our decadence.

Actually i was trying to make a parallel toward understanding the problem of evil, but it didn't really work out as i had thought.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 3:01:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are many theories as to why. One of my favorites is that early apes had to live socially for survival. Since we have to have forward facing eyes for the better depth perception of moving through trees (move herbavoires have side facing eyes to see preditors all around) we lived in social groups (as still seen in most apes). A part of keeping social groups tied strongly together a need for emotional connection was formed and evolution allowed that need to be filled. This is why Apes care more about each other than most other animals do. It is also speculated that this emotional and social interaction required greater use of our brain to set the early foundations for our higher level of intellegence. Though as to why only humans gained intellegence and not other apes, I don't know.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:04:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 2:54:43 PM, innomen wrote:


Actually i was trying to make a parallel toward understanding the problem of evil, but it didn't really work out as i had thought.

I see I so did not get that. So you are suggesting that apparent evil serves a function in God's plan?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:07:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:04:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:54:43 PM, innomen wrote:


Actually i was trying to make a parallel toward understanding the problem of evil, but it didn't really work out as i had thought.

I see I so did not get that. So you are suggesting that apparent evil serves a function in God's plan?

That there's a net benefit to the human being and society through the evolutionary development of empathy through suffering.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:20:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Suffering is caused by the cognitive dissonance between what one truly believes to be true, and what one wants to be true.

The quickest way out of suffering is to align yourself with how things are. While at a shallow glance, this may seem like an invitation to accept the status quo, when thought of on a deeper level, you'll find that it more has to do with acknowledging the various absurdities present in every day human life.

To really be happy, you've got to undo a lot of what has been programmed into you from the time you were born. You've got to re-examine everything you've already examined and re-examined. You have to question constantly, and adapt accordingly.

I don't think that humans are unique in our ability to suffer, however the nature of our brain makes us more susceptible to suffer for reasons of psychic imbalance. This is a sign of our intelligence, but at the same time, it also helps to highlight our own ignorance.

If people knew of the potential they have to change their brain, the world would be a remarkably different place.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 4:22:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 4:07:09 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/18/2011 4:04:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 2:54:43 PM, innomen wrote:


Actually i was trying to make a parallel toward understanding the problem of evil, but it didn't really work out as i had thought.

I see I so did not get that. So you are suggesting that apparent evil serves a function in God's plan?

That there's a net benefit to the human being and society through the evolutionary development of empathy through suffering.

Even if I was to buy that God is held to omni-blah blah... he could cut straight to creating empathic beings without such crude methods.

There are three awnsers to the PoE.
1: That 'evil' is necessary, and existence is as good as it could be. I don't buy that.
2: God does not exist.
3: God does exist but he is not possessed of all three omni-characteristics.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 5:07:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I still do not believe that change over time moves in a linear direction toward progress and perfection. If there's anything to be learned from the fact that improvements over time appear to be direct adaptations, it's that our interests and intentions may affect the course of our biological development as a species. However, as there remains imperfections, there will always remain imperfections, because as there will be evolution in the direction of progress, so too will there always be evolution that simply goes in the direct of change, with no regard to how adaptive it may be.

With that in mind, I believe that humanity still suffers because it retains that emotion and refuses to release it. After all, withouts suffering, pleasure becomes banal.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 5:17:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 5:07:00 PM, Ren wrote:
I still do not believe that change over time moves in a linear direction toward progress and perfection.

Neither do evolutionists.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 5:38:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 5:17:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 5:07:00 PM, Ren wrote:
I still do not believe that change over time moves in a linear direction toward progress and perfection.

Neither do evolutionists.

Yeah, I doubt they do.

As intelligent as one must be to become a scientist, I'm sure they wouldn't make any broad speculations at all, much less regarding their entire field.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 5:45:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 5:38:31 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/18/2011 5:17:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/18/2011 5:07:00 PM, Ren wrote:
I still do not believe that change over time moves in a linear direction toward progress and perfection.

Neither do evolutionists.

Yeah, I doubt they do.

As intelligent as one must be to become a scientist, I'm sure they wouldn't make any broad speculations at all, much less regarding their entire field.

I remember you, have you been reading up on evolution?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 6:19:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I'm not sure what you mean by increased suffering.

There are birds species which will die when their mate is killed. Traumatic events can effect many animals brains in a similar manner to humans (puppies being beaten their entire lifes).

Something to keep in mind: evolution could give less of a crap about how much an animal suffers. What matters is the evolutionary fitness.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 6:51:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

I think a reply to this would be that the potential for suffering increases in conjunction with the various things that make us human. Our ability to be not only aware of our own suffering, but things like external suffering (other sentient beings in the past, present and future feeling pain), as well as the range of suffering (mental torture, for example) run in accordance with things like self-awareness, increased potential for perception, and so on. In short, the tools which set us apart from other animals leave us susceptible to not only more suffering, but increased awareness of suffering (and for all but psychopaths, this would involve yet more suffering: emotional suffering). Also, if the things which aid our survival cause a little more suffering (assuming the balance is right), it is not surprising at all on evolution.

I don't really see this as a viable response to the PoE. Anyone who used it so would essentially be adding to the huge list of suffering in the world, and it's hard to see how one justifies that in the typical way. How could one square the suffering of a cambrian species with God? Certainly not with human goods, like personal growth, knowing God or anything like that, so the theist would be strengthening the argument, and reducing their responses to it.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 6:58:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem of evil lies not in evil, but the preconceptions that people have about god.

There is no "good" and "evil" when it comes to god. These are human concepts.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 6:51:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 6:58:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The problem of evil lies not in evil, but the preconceptions that people have about god.

There is no "good" and "evil" when it comes to god. These are human concepts.

The PoE is specifically targetted against an external omni God... why on earth we ever assumed this was God I don't know. But it works to disprove that fictional construct.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brendatucker
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 3:59:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I might be able to assist with your thinking and rethinking of this subject. In 1995, I had what I refer to as an epiphany and ever since I have been trying to communicate to the public a new theory of evolution. You can read my webpage or find online work by searching the word: girasas.

This new theory of evolution reflects on our views of religion. It describes evolution as occurring differently than Darwin found it to occur and it agrees (in part) with the Genesis version of creation.

The basis for my thinking is the concurrent study of The Theosophical Society books and The Saint Germain Foundation books. The new theory can be called the 7 race theory of evolution. Why 7? Because it takes 3 races to descend into form, one race to life in our forms, and 3 races to ascend out of form. Why 3? Because as a "higher kingdom" becomes more and more material or enmeshed in matter, the "lower kingdom" becomes less and less able to keep control over the matter of the body and eventually relinquishes the form altogether.

Evil now becomes somewhat characteristic of the forces at work. If humans are in the 1-3 races, evolving (e.) animals are evil. During the 4th race, humans are evil and good, and during the 5-7th races, humans are evil since the higher kingdom, or girasas would be more qualified and more capable than humans are.

Besides this occurring, there are also beings that involve. When the involving kingdoms or angels occupy the forms, we can refer to them as i. animals, i. plants, i. minerals, etc. When an evolving kingdom descends, it brings an entire population of involving lives (angels or nature spirits) with it. When the resident e. animals ascend off the earth, they take their angels with them and our angels begin to populate the earth with forms that humans help put them in.

There is also another occurrence that should be considered. Each race has a buried shista that is drawn forth at the proper point in the cycle to serve as the starting point of the race. Adam was drawn out of its burial place to serve as the starting point for a 5th race that was improved during the last Round on earth. The last Round was a watery round where our lives were spent in waters. To change the Adam that was buried at the completion of the 5th race during that Round into something that we could use on n Earth-based 4th round, we had to adapt the form to breathe air and to walk. When the form had been worked into something that could exist on our earth, it was also a minority as the 4th race still occupied the word. The 4th race had to recede in numbers until it finally died out meanwhile the 5th race (from Adam) grew in numbers and currently on earth we are all in 5th race form. The 5th - 7th forms will be those that can be occupied by two kingdoms: the human and the girasas. They are evolving, but the natural forms on earth are used by involving lives, except for fossil evidence that we may have of actual evolving animal kingdoms. The 5-7th races of e. animals took place simultaneously with the 1-3 human races. E. Animals are now completely gone from our earth and have been for some time. However, E. Girasas are now with us and as a result, sometimes we find ourselves to be the evil side of the coin.
brendatucker
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 4:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

If you think it is an increase of suffering for humans, how much more would a girasas kingdom feel the pain of having to live in the same body that humans use? The exchange that occurs between the two kingdoms would be unique and nearly individual, but for the most part, they are able to do the forgiving (for the both of us) and humans may need to experience the joy and happiness of life (for both kingdoms) because they are severely limiting themselves to accomplish our ascension.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 2:16:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
It would seem that suffering is a greater part of being a human being than a non-human animal. One would think that we would evolve toward greater protection of suffering than what we currently have. I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened? If anything it would seem that it has increased.

What evidence do you offer for the premise that suffering is greater in humans? Wild animals are mostly killed as defenseless young, and should they survive youth they only live so long as they are in perfect health. Even animals such as lab rats live longer than their counterparts in the wild. Natural cycles of famine cause wild populations to vary as much as 60:1. Too many predators decimate the population of prey, then the predators starve and the prey overpopulates. Your premise is false.

Nonetheless, there are new emotional problems in human society. I think evolution conditioned humans to endure with extended families and relatively small tribal small tribes. That type of existence is gone. Some want big government to replace family and small tribe; others want the freedom form new small tribes in various forms. DDO is one of a new type of small tribe, for example.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:49:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 1:34:12 PM, innomen wrote:
I understand the utilitarian purpose of pain, but would it not be more evolutionarily expected for emotional pain, and other forms of suffering that animals typically don't deal with, be lessened?

I don't see why.. :/

as you said.. there's utilitarian purpose for the pain (given "evolutionary goals")

Pain's useful..

sometimes it can also inhibit you from doing things you Ought to do (given those evloutionary 'goals') but that just means not to have Too Much pain.

if your experience is painful that doesn't mean it's bad (in terms of Evolutionary fitness)... It can be good or bad...

It would make sense that people shouldn't be predisposed to having useless and cripplin pain..

However.. in today's age... there's not much pressure to keep us "evolutionarily sharp" and over a lot of time going as we are now, given the lack of Evolutionary pressure, we'll probably start to dull...

and people Might end up being born with Useless, crippling pain :/
so long as the drugs can help you deal with it enough to successfully reproduce your stand-alone "evolutionary fitness" isn't an issue.

who knows?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 4:19:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 3:59:43 PM, brendatucker wrote:
I might be able to assist with your thinking and rethinking of this subject. In 1995, I had what I refer to as an epiphany and ever since I have been trying to communicate to the public a new theory of evolution. You can read my webpage or find online work by searching the word: girasas.

This new theory of evolution reflects on our views of religion. It describes evolution as occurring differently than Darwin found it to occur and it agrees (in part) with the Genesis version of creation.

The basis for my thinking is the concurrent study of The Theosophical Society books and The Saint Germain Foundation books. The new theory can be called the 7 race theory of evolution. Why 7? Because it takes 3 races to descend into form, one race to life in our forms, and 3 races to ascend out of form. Why 3? Because as a "higher kingdom" becomes more and more material or enmeshed in matter, the "lower kingdom" becomes less and less able to keep control over the matter of the body and eventually relinquishes the form altogether.

Evil now becomes somewhat characteristic of the forces at work. If humans are in the 1-3 races, evolving (e.) animals are evil. During the 4th race, humans are evil and good, and during the 5-7th races, humans are evil since the higher kingdom, or girasas would be more qualified and more capable than humans are.

Besides this occurring, there are also beings that involve. When the involving kingdoms or angels occupy the forms, we can refer to them as i. animals, i. plants, i. minerals, etc. When an evolving kingdom descends, it brings an entire population of involving lives (angels or nature spirits) with it. When the resident e. animals ascend off the earth, they take their angels with them and our angels begin to populate the earth with forms that humans help put them in.

There is also another occurrence that should be considered. Each race has a buried shista that is drawn forth at the proper point in the cycle to serve as the starting point of the race. Adam was drawn out of its burial place to serve as the starting point for a 5th race that was improved during the last Round on earth. The last Round was a watery round where our lives were spent in waters. To change the Adam that was buried at the completion of the 5th race during that Round into something that we could use on n Earth-based 4th round, we had to adapt the form to breathe air and to walk. When the form had been worked into something that could exist on our earth, it was also a minority as the 4th race still occupied the word. The 4th race had to recede in numbers until it finally died out meanwhile the 5th race (from Adam) grew in numbers and currently on earth we are all in 5th race form. The 5th - 7th forms will be those that can be occupied by two kingdoms: the human and the girasas. They are evolving, but the natural forms on earth are used by involving lives, except for fossil evidence that we may have of actual evolving animal kingdoms. The 5-7th races of e. animals took place simultaneously with the 1-3 human races. E. Animals are now completely gone from our earth and have been for some time. However, E. Girasas are now with us and as a result, sometimes we find ourselves to be the evil side of the coin.

What a CrazY! :o)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 4:40:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The PoE is specifically targetted against an external omni God... why on earth we ever assumed this was God I don't know.

Not everyone did. Zen Buddhists believe people who have accumulated particularly large amounts of good karma can be reincarnated as Gods in the highest level of reality. However, those Gods are not omnipotent and can be reincarnated as lower lifeforms if they accumulate negative karma.
brendatucker
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 5:40:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 4:19:14 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:


What a CrazY! :o)

But think of it: humans, angels, girasas! Involution and Evolution! Two kingdoms trading places. Since when is there only one force? The forces - in physics - are entwined with each other, moving. An evolving animal such as the dinosaur would go extinct, but our earth would still be populated with involving animals! Humans are given as the 7th kingdom in this chain and no further kingdom is required to make rounds and evolve by 7 races. Do you think that if there is a kingdom beyond the human (7 rounds of 7 globes beyond the human) that they are still limited to existing on one planetary body? Or would they have evolved beyond the need to take a form on a single planet?

How am I crazy if I read this idea and tell you about it?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 1:16:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 6:58:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The problem of evil lies not in evil, but the preconceptions that people have about god.

There is no "good" and "evil" when it comes to god. These are human concepts.

If so, either morality is not absolute or God did not make man in his own image, or both. Otherwise the same morality would apply to both.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:39:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 1:16:03 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/18/2011 6:58:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The problem of evil lies not in evil, but the preconceptions that people have about god.

There is no "good" and "evil" when it comes to god. These are human concepts.

If so, either morality is not absolute or God did not make man in his own image, or both. Otherwise the same morality would apply to both.
If God made man in His own image, that has nothing to do with how He will act toward humankind. Explain what you think by God creating man in His own image.