|
|
|
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it.
|
On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it.
I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that 
The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure
|
so the purpose of life is to procreate so you can have more life. this is good news for me. as the local sperm whale all the bitches will be swimming in my primordial soup and i can see my descendants copying my winning formula.
reproduction bots are kind of primitive imo. i mean you're equating amoeba and humans arguing that their essential trait is "existence". it seems like you've gotta delve into the conscious experience a little more by defining human preferences.
i mean suppose you're some meditative yogi who has transcended all the primal urges and sees no real happiness gain from genetic reproduction. he's not a failure in any real sense and could probably be esteemed a lot more advanced than many reproductively "successful" humans. truthfully the humans who are most driven by their reproductive instincts aren't held to be the pinnacle of our species, at least not by sources whose opinion i value.
john stuart mill's utilitarianism i think is a pretty interesting counterpoint to the sort of dry deterministic feel you get from dawkins. realistically speaking carbon-based life doesn't really seem as durable as other forms of potential "life" like silicon-based life or hmm the various other forms of computing technology one could imagine emerging in the next hundred or so years. anyway my point is that as a human you've gotta go further with consciousness and happiness if you'd like to give meaning to our lives. if "existence" is the essential factor in your analysis then there's a good chance we and our children will be obsolete in a relatively short time. this obsolescence factor exists for pretty much all carbon-based biological life, and that encompasses the entire biologist's perspective as far as i understand your presentation.
when you arrive at the conclusion that according to this hypothesis the last four billion years are nothing more than a build up to skynet or jane the ansible creature from ender's game, it seems like dawkin's evolutionary hypotheses can all be disregarded. i mean if the sum total of meaning provided by dawkin's perspective is this sort of hard-boiled determinism that defines our ultimate "purpose" as the emergent product of a bunch of apparently arbitrary rules that govern the universe then you're not giving humanity much credit. i guess this is the biggest pitfall of the sort of science elitism that characterizes dawkins' presentations. if you're just seeking a sort of steady state equilibrium where some kind of "life" is satisfactorily robust withstanding environmental conditions then it seems like your ideal world really doesn't have any place for humans.
so yeah to summarize i think you should look a lot more at the conscious experience and conditions allowing for and encouraging happiness than at the expected life span of genetic material. do you really give a damn if it's your progeny who bear a direct genetic legacy to the first homoprotossian who lives a hundred thousand years from now? plus to my mind it's a lot more likely that cortana or the command center adjutant would pretty rapidly replace humanity in terms of efficiency and what you might call an immutable identity.
|
On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure
I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling.
|
On November 01 2014 17:03 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling.
You have a choice; correct your horrid English grammar or rip yourself in half...what do you choose?
|
On November 01 2014 16:10 YokoKano wrote:
so the purpose of life is to procreate so you can have more life. this is good news for me. as the local sperm whale all the bitches will be swimming in my primordial soup and i can see my descendants copying my winning formula.
umm...wat? That is not what I meant at all. The core, underlying reason that life exists at all has to do with the first self replicating molecule. The entire point of living organisms is to propagate genes and, hence, exist.
This is the objective meaning of life. What you are saying...is absolutely true lol. You can and should create your own meanings in this world. They are your own subjective and personal meanings. I'm saying that the reason anything exists rather than nothing is this innate need to exist and procreate. Within this framework, you can have all the sexy consciousness you like that gives your life meaning
Steve Pinker:
"The confusion between our goals and our gene's goals has spawned one muddle after another. A reviewer of a book about the evolution of sexuality protests that human adultery, unlike the animal equivalent, cannot be a strategy to spread the genes because adulterers take steps to prevent pregnancy. But whose strategy are we talking about? Sexual desire is not people's strategy to propagate their genes. It's people's strategy to attain the pleasures of sex, and the pleasures of sex are the gene's strategy to propagate themselves. If the genes don't get propagated, it's because we are smarter than they are. A book on the emotional life of animals complains that if altruism according to biologists is just helping kin or exchanging favors, both of which serve the interests of one's genes, it would not really be altruism after all, but some kind of hypocrisy, This too is a mixup. Just as blueprints don't necessarily specify blue buildings, selfish genes don't necessarily specify selfish organisms. As we shall see, sometimes the most selfish thing a gene can do is to build a selfless brain. Genes are a play within a play, not the interior monologue of the players.
So good news bro! You are correct...because we never had a disagreement in the first place....
so yeah to summarize i think you should look a lot more at the conscious experience and conditions allowing for and encouraging happiness than at the expected life span of genetic material. do you really give a damn if it's your progeny who bear a direct genetic legacy to the first homoprotossian who lives a hundred thousand years from now?
I appreciate you taking the time to post and everything, but I feel like you didn't know we agree....maybe my post was really confusing Summing up life in 2 pictures is quite a challenge. There is a general purpose of life...that is everything organic. It's purpose is to exist, from birds to snakes to Homo Sapiens. That is the underlying purpose. Then go have sex with condoms from there
|
|
|
On November 01 2014 20:23 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 17:03 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling. You have a choice; correct your horrid English grammar or rip yourself in half...what do you choose?
Rip myself in half, ez. Also, you should definitely use a colon instead of a semi-colon if you are introducing a list of options.
+ Show Spoiler +which do you choose > what do you choose 
On November 02 2014 04:45 beg wrote:
.
I strongly disagree. I think that `
|
On November 02 2014 06:50 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2014 20:23 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 17:03 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling. You have a choice; correct your horrid English grammar or rip yourself in half...what do you choose? Rip myself in half, ez. Also, you should definitely use a colon instead of a semi-colon if you are introducing a list of options. + Show Spoiler +which do you choose > what do you choose I strongly disagree. I think that `
Haha I hope you picked up the sarcasm here
|
On November 02 2014 07:00 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 06:50 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 20:23 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 17:03 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling. You have a choice; correct your horrid English grammar or rip yourself in half...what do you choose? Rip myself in half, ez. Also, you should definitely use a colon instead of a semi-colon if you are introducing a list of options. + Show Spoiler +which do you choose > what do you choose On November 02 2014 04:45 beg wrote:
. I strongly disagree. I think that ` Haha I hope you picked up the sarcasm here
I honestly don't know what 'sarcasm' is. I even googled it and still don't understand what it is, but I *think* it's like you say the opposite of what you're trying to say on purpose or something. But how do I know when something is sarcasm and when something is not? It's very confusing to me and I'm trying hard to understand this concept.
|
On November 02 2014 07:57 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2014 07:00 firehand101 wrote:On November 02 2014 06:50 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 20:23 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 17:03 ninazerg wrote:On November 01 2014 14:48 firehand101 wrote:On November 01 2014 14:39 ninazerg wrote:
I am existing so hard right now. It's tough, but someone's gotta do it. I hope you are aware you can take absolutely 0 credit for that The hard work started 4 billion years ago, and unless you keep it going you are a genetic failure I get ALL the credit for existing. I told my parents to make me and they complied, out of fear and respect. Also, single-cell organisms didn't work hard. All they had to do is rip themselves in half to reproduce. They don't know about the struggle of having to do things like avoiding lactose and correcting their spelling. You have a choice; correct your horrid English grammar or rip yourself in half...what do you choose? Rip myself in half, ez. Also, you should definitely use a colon instead of a semi-colon if you are introducing a list of options. + Show Spoiler +which do you choose > what do you choose On November 02 2014 04:45 beg wrote:
. I strongly disagree. I think that ` Haha I hope you picked up the sarcasm here I honestly don't know what 'sarcasm' is. I even googled it and still don't understand what it is, but I *think* it's like you say the opposite of what you're trying to say on purpose or something. But how do I know when something is sarcasm and when something is not? It's very confusing to me and I'm trying hard to understand this concept.
Haha dude ill step you through it! Lots of people say I can make things very clear, and say I'm a great teacher. It'll be a piece of chocalate cake!
First, go to encyclopedia Britannica and look up the word sarcasm
Sarcasm:
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy sarcasm"
synonyms: sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More
antonyms: sincerity
a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: sarcasms
"the sarcasm is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms: paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the sarcasm of the situation hit her"
a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatics sarcasm; plural noun: tragic sarcasm
Then you type the word in google and it shows the general consensus of what people feel when you use that word!!
+ Show Spoiler +
Hope that helped Nina!
Remember, never give up on English, and all the nuances of grandma there are! You can do it!
|
I don't understand... if you say something that is insincere, isn't that lying? That seems wrong to lie to people. Everyone I talk to says sarcasm and lying are not the same, but then they basically tell me it's like being insincere (lying) as a way of being funny...?
|
This thread got so meta so fast.
|
On November 02 2014 14:31 ninazerg wrote:
I don't understand... if you say something that is insincere, isn't that lying? That seems wrong to lie to people. Everyone I talk to says sarcasm and lying are not the same, but then they basically tell me it's like being insincere (lying) as a way of being funny...?
Yes, if i say something insincere I am withholding the real truth for one purpose or another(see my post where I use 2 separate meanings that don't relate to sarcasm at all, which conveyed insincerity)
I would argue they are different degrees of lying. Sarcasm implies that the listener knows that the comment is a lie. An actual lie is more malicious and the listener is usually unaware (unless they have good body language reading skills)
|
How do you know if the listener is aware that you're lying if you hadn't told them yet?
|
On November 02 2014 16:17 ninazerg wrote:
How do you know if the listener is aware that you're lying if you hadn't told them yet?
Great question! It's usually quite obvious to tell, and relates to varying degrees of intellect and the generic consensus between two individuals or a group.
If we had people of similar intellect and understanding of the world, it would be quite obvious to each of them (most of the time) when something was sarcastic. In the case of an intellect vs someone not quite fully cognitively abled, it becomes slightly more challenging.
The intellect may very well assume the lesser cognitively abled individual does not understand the lie supposed to be made obvious with the use of sarcasm. They can react either by trying to explain it is supposed to be a lie, or relish in joy at the obliviousness of the lesser.
The intellect has a trickier task of differentiating sarcasm from lies if the lesser's degree of cognitive malfunction is relatively unknown. They could surprise the intellect with sarcasm when they were previously thought of not capable of producing, or produce sarcasm completely unknowingly so that the lesser party did not realize it was sarcasm. This technique can be applied not only to sarcasm, but many other forms of expression such as irony and certain types of humor.
In the case of you and I, it is quite hard to distinguish which party you belong to, as I have never met you and it is quite hard to decipher tones from text with little to no background information.
So TLDR: you can assume it in some circumstances, and others you have to make calculated guesses and act accordingly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/The_Selfish_Gene3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thelincolns.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fb-alienman-cosmos-man.jpg?w=579&h=421)
![[image loading]](http://brokeassstuart.com/wp-content/pictsnShit/2014/08/Sad-Dog-Cute-Broke-Ass-Stuart-NYC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://picpulp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/sad-quotes-1024x768.jpg)
