It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On Human Origins, I Am Right, and Here's Why:

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
alright cool, my bad again.
edit on 15-1-2011 by revolvingthought because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by revolvingthought
 


You're forgiven for the double posts - but, just so you know, clicking the "edit" button in the top right corner of the second of your double posts means you can change that one to the apology, rather than making a triple post.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The human being on Earth evolved as a hominid in (very likely) the manner that we've already determined through anthropology and archeology. My own belief is that the modern man version took a different evolutionary path (its brain developing as opposed to its body becoming more adapted to a variety of environs) due to its very early years as a semi-aquatic creature that spent millennia along the coasts of Africa, with little struggle for direct survival.

The real question may be - What caused the human being to become so completely distinct among Earth's mammals, and just how distinct is it?

The short answer is that the centuries that the human mammal enjoyed as a relatively predator-free hominid allowed its already significant brain to radically develop to a point where it became actively aware of itself in a true cognitive sense of fully understanding its own position relative to the contextual whole that it is part of. We call this consciousness, and the human brain - as soon as it became capable of this level of information generation and process - caused that generated information to become something unique as a full and accurate representation of the brain's activity - which is what all information is by definition. This was the origin of the eternal human being - the informational result of the corporeal human brain.

Once that information became "aware", the human mammal was no longer an epitome corporeal expression, but the generation mechanism of aware information that is both determinative and dynamic within its own physical realm. The generated "awareness" had - to its own primitive understanding of its unique relationship to the corporeal body - become the "spirit" that was now aware of the brain that works to generate it from instant to instant. This began humanity's quest to understand itself from an observational point of view.

And this is where we find ourselves today.

And yes, this is extremely distinct, relative to other mammals on this planet. The comparative balance between percentage of intellect (and its impact on the generation process) and naturally inherited DNA informational determination is revealed by the presence of natural instinct that a species possesses. Human mammals have very little natural instinct (relatively speaking) and require years of training and protection before being reasonably viable within any version of a corporeal environment. This is due to the intense influence that the generated awareness (Intellect) has on the brain's highest levels of functionality - those controlling choice and over all survivability-related judgment. Human mammals, as a result, don't make much sense with the rest of the world around them.

Just my own take on how humans became "human".



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So you say that human intelligence is genetic drift?

Interesting.

I favour the social intelligence hypothesis, generally speaking - living in ever larger groups (from low predation?) favoured those who could remember social intricacies and "win" socially by treating like with like, etc. It explains why the other highly intelligent groups - elephants, corvids, psittacids, dolphins - are also social (although it falls down a little when it comes to octopuses, I have to say).

Where you say that we are vastly different from other animals in that we show very little instinct, may I ask whether you assume that other animals are ruled primarily by instinct? If so, what had led you to adopt this rather Descartesian view?

Starred for a very interesting and informative read. I have a definite soft-spot for the aquatic ape hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
My own opinion on why this question arouses so much passion and psychic angst is that Humanity has "transcended" purely biological evolution (The quotation marks denote the fact that I think transcend implies a positive process, which I'm not at all sure is the case). Our intellect has placed us outside the scope of natural selection, or rather has imposed our terms on it. I think that once cultural evolution really took hold we began to lose site of our more fundamental instincts and a wound was caused. There is a growing awareness, it seems to me, that this is an aberation. The more keenly this is felt, the more stridently justifications for our existence are voiced, and the more irrational we seem in their defence.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Human beings evolved from earlier hominids.

What makes me believe? Well, setting aside that belief is irrelevant when dealing with objective facts and scientific evidence, everything.

Fossil hominids.

Genetic evidence, such as the genes found amongst Tibetan peoples allowing them to thrive at high altitudes and, of course, the fusion of one of our chromosomes linking us to Chimpanzees. Chimpanzee Genome Project

When you have actual scientific evidence you don't need belief or faith, you just accept what is evidently true about life on this planet.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


I hear - and for a large part agree with - what you are saying.

However, I would not say that we have transcended natural selection - we have altered its impact on ourselves with our hypersociality, and greatly reduced its effectiveness through mortality, but its impact can still be felt through reproduction.

The problem with this is really highlighted to me in cases such as this woman. It is wonderful that she was saved from cystic fibrosis, and went on to lead a normal life, and can, with modern healthcare, have four children - but what if something happens to modern healthcare, and it's no longer available? She has knowingly passed a deleterious allele onto her children, and she's far from alone in that. If she married a carrier, half of her children would already have cystic fibrosis, if not, there is a one in five chance of each of her grandchildren suffering from it.

As I say, this isn't a problem with modern health care, but if something happens - well, in effect, she would have murdered one fifth of her grandchildren.

On a lighter note, if you haven't seen Idiocracy, with Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph, watch it. It gets away with putting many of the arguments against this reproduction-based-selection that we're currently undergoing by cloaking it in layers of slapstick which, when you look out of the window and realise that it's all true, just makes it all the more terrifying.
edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Now you see, this is why "evolutionists" win arguments.

Because their arguments don't rely on disproving someone else.

Star for you for saying what I wanted to in the OP.
edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So you say that human intelligence is genetic drift?

Interesting.

I favour the social intelligence hypothesis, generally speaking - living in ever larger groups (from low predation?) favoured those who could remember social intricacies and "win" socially by treating like with like, etc. It explains why the other highly intelligent groups - elephants, corvids, psittacids, dolphins - are also social (although it falls down a little when it comes to octopuses, I have to say).


I don't have any trouble including your hypothesis as well. In fact, the human intellect's strength is constantly on the increase as the technologies and discoveries alter its own version of what constitutes an environment. The human mammal is then affected directly by developments in the general level of intellectual capacity. The interplay between cause and effect is pretty fluid.


Where you say that we are vastly different from other animals in that we show very little instinct, may I ask whether you assume that other animals are ruled primarily by instinct? If so, what had led you to adopt this rather Descartesian view?


The true difference is what it is that has its "hand on the wheel". In the average mammal, the DNA (call it instinct, or, as I see it, the Residual Informational Continuum directly filed where it has the most access) determines how that mammal - in general - responds to the business of corporeal existence. They eat what they are supposed to eat, and live as they are supposed to live, since this sort of behavior has been programmed into them over their existence as a species on Earth. The human mammal - on the other hand - violates such survival directives in its pursuit of intellectual Identity expression. Smoking, drinking, self-destructive behavior, risk-taking, and a whole range of what should be instinctively rejected by the human mammal ends up defining many of them. This is behavior that suggests that the DNA imperative is not determinative within the decision suite of the human.

Since DNA directives are - basically - information at the helm of instinctive corporeal behavior, then it must be that some other source of information is at the helm when corporeal behavior is directly counter to what would clearly seem to be instinctive for the human mammal. The only other obvious source of information is the human brain itself, and this is where the notion of humanness comes from. The human brain's generated Intellect as the hand on the wheel, directing its own generational development, and employing the corporeal human mammal's brain to facilitate that generation.

DNA directed behavior is very easy to recognize. It shows up when the mammal is very young.

The difference between a kitten and a puppy is pretty stark. The puppy is clumsy and has to be taught how to function within what's become a very common human-dog environment, whereas the kitten pops out of the chute in a lot more viable state of environmental functionality. It can climb, run, and even use a cat box with little or no instruction. This is actually an indication of the puppy's relative lack of DNA dominance at the information generation level of its own brain, with the kitten's brain being more primitive and instinctive by direct comparison. Researchers generally agree that dogs are more intelligent than cats and this assumption is due to this very obvious dissimilarity in how they each start out life.

Generally, the more instinctive, the more completely prepared an animal is for viability on its own. I don't know if there are other animals that aren't primarily ruled by instinct, but beyond simple tool usage in primates, the evidence seems to suggest a very wide gulf between human mammals and the rest of the herd.


Starred for a very interesting and informative read. I have a definite soft-spot for the aquatic ape hypothesis.


I ran into that wonderful theory back in the late 70s, and was happy to see it making a small comeback in recent months. I totally believe that it explains more than it troubles, in reference to why humanity looks like it does and has developed as it has.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


When it comes to thought processes, it's about the the difference between Dennet's "Darwinian", "Skinnerian", "Popperian" and "Gregorian" creatures.

The purely instinct-driven animal, where everything was encoded into its genes, would be Darwinian - its "thought" processes being entirely genetic. It's hard to show that anything is this simple

The Skinnerian creature, on the other hand, shows phenotypic plasticity - it learns from its mistakes, after B. F. Skinner's experiments with pigeons pressing buttons. I'm fairly sure I read a while ago that Goldfish can do this, too.

The Popperian creature is where it gets interesting, because the animal does not have to have experience to choose the best course of action. Observational learning - which even pigeons, I'm told, are capable of - is an indicator, and animals seem to test scenarios mentally before proceeding, and learn not to make the mistakes of others.

And then the Gregorian creature - the possession of learned predispositions to carry out particular actions. Problem solving ability puts animals somewhere between Popperian and Gregorian, and parrots, pigs, various dolphins, various primates, and corvids are known to show such. Of course, only humans are known to show true culture, although it is being investigated in dolphins and chimpanzees.

One thing that I would say is that I don't think that our cultural idiosyncrasies are actually as maladaptive as we think - all animals make trade-offs between survival and reproduction. The ultimate one is in insects such as the preying mantis, where the male may survive longer if he never mates, but then his genes will not be passed on. Risk taking behaviour draws attention, and while it might shorten survival, it might also mean greater levels of reproduction. Smoking was, and still is, in certain parts of society, considered "sexy" - which indicates quite graphically how that could be adaptive.

When it comes to drinking, well, it's certainly not unheard of for a child to learn that they exist because their parents drank rather more than they ought have done.

So, um, sorry for the ramble, it turns out I DO remember stuff from second year. If I'd only remembered it for the exams...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


All valid points. The big difference between creatures that learn, and the human mammal is the difference between response and initiation. All creatures that possess brains use those brains in the course of their lives. The specific DNA is instructive and generally determinative, but it's not dictatorial. Especially in higher functioning creatures. Still, being capable of actively choosing one button or the next is different than being capable of imagining the impact of applying a specific hue of red to the contextual balance within a visual statement that is being crafted to represent a very controversial view concerning the relationship between humanity and the concept of eternal truth presented in personification. Yes, the difference may be in degree of intellectual sophistication, but there is a point of demarcation between the functionality of these two brains that simply can't be denied, and that point is fully reflected by the information generated in direct response to the burst activity of each brain.

The sophistication of the information generated by the human brain is what causes it to be the existential breakthrough that it is. As to when this breakthrough occurred - the tipping point that transformed it from being merely representative to becoming actively self-determinative - can be debated, but the fact is that it became actively self-determinative, and we know that it did, because it's what makes you and me be who we are and drives every human mammal to be relatively unique and inimitable. We know that we do not merely respond to existence, but we create, ponder, recall, ruminate, and actively initiate the emergence of original and unrelated information. That information that we humans generate is conscious and aware of its own existence, and this is due to the very precise nature of information as representation and its direct contextual relationship with what it is that brings it into existence.

We are our thoughts, and our full collection of thoughts - each burst of brain-generated information as a unified mass (like cells in a body) - literally, is what we are being transformed into as we live these corporeal lives from moment to moment. The human being is the ultimate result of this information generation process, and is not the corporeal mammal itself. The corporeal human mammal is the means of human gestation, in a very real sense of what gestation is. This is the difference between the human mammal and all other creatures that exist as corporeal on this planet. This transformation in the human mammal, from end-product to gestational placenta, wasn't the work of any god or alien visitor. It was the level of brain sophistication itself that transformed the information it generates into what we know as conscious intellect. A tipping point reached, perhaps. This sophistication literally forces this aware information to reach back to the brain that generates it, and take charge of its own creation process with unique and inimitable Identity as the survival imperative.

I hope that this explanation is adequate. I've never tried to describe this in such a brief manner.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Well one scientist found out DNA can teleport:

www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/can-our-dna-electromagnetically-teleport-itself-one-researcher-thinks-so

Maybe we teleported to Earth from Mars when Mars died? Teleported from another Star System?

Only the Pope knows. I think the Catholic Church financed the Spanish Empire to scour the Earth for such information during their conquests hundreds of years ago.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Yep, that's pretty much the creationist mindset. It's why I ended up making three separate threads about the issue. Two on evolution (PROVE IT! and FALSIFY IT! respectively) and a separate one to allow people to attempt to prove creationism.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TheWill
 


Yep, that's pretty much the creationist mindset. It's why I ended up making three separate threads about the issue. Two on evolution (PROVE IT! and FALSIFY IT! respectively) and a separate one to allow people to attempt to prove creationism.


Both creationists and evolutionists skirt one fundamental issue. The initial emergence of physical existence. Now, keep in mind that anything that exists as possessing contextual association with anything else (including God, The All, Universal Consciousness, The Flying Spagetti Monster, and what-have-you) exists as physical, even if it's not molecular in physical structure. Raw, unaffected logic (concerning the nature of associable similars) demands that if anything that is physical emerged from a state of prior non-existence, then everything that is physical emerged from a state of prior non-existence, and that's just how simple and inflexible reality is. So, if one of yous wants to win, figure out where all of it (God included) came from. If not, then it's a good as a draw.

The battle between these two camps is like the battle between Evangelical Christians as to whether Jesus had blue eyes or brown eyes. Completely irrelevant to the real issue of whether either has any claim at all to knowing anything whatsoever about how we ultimately came into existence.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I know... the "not-particularly-original idea" bit was several paragraphs when I first wrote it out. Honestly, it had links and everything.

I wanted to get away from people saying "You're an atheist, you're just shallow and empty and going to hell because you have no soul", and just find out what said people - and others - actually thought about, well, people.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


you broke my brain.

"I think, therefore I am"?

I think I understand what you are saying - we think not only of situations in the abstract, but our actual selves in the abstract, too, more than just the ability to recognise that I, as a physical entity, am like another, and so what another can do, I can (observational learning), but the thought that I am in fact more than a physical entity, I am me.

Like I said, you broke my brain. I shall have to re-examine what you said after supper, and perhaps I'll make a little more in a second reply, once I've digested both food and text.
edit on 16/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Evolution concerns biodiversity and nothing else. Other issues regarding the emergence of the physical universe are the realm of physics, not biology.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I think we need a new word for people who aren't on the "Instant universe, just add God" bandwagon. Evolutionist is, well, limited in its usefulness. When it comes to the humans-as-apes debate, yes, describing one side of an argument as "evolutionist" is appropriate, but when talking anything other than the progression of life, it's a fairly useless classification.

"Processist" might work, or "Phenomenist". Scientist is taken for those who actually study it, as is Naturalist. Naturist would be a reasonable one if it wasn't already taken by naked people on greek beaches.

Logicist, perhaps. Although it's already taken up with a school of mathematical thought (according to Wiki), the basis of logicism could reasonably be extended thus. Plus, it makes no statement about religious leanings, which is the problem with just saying Atheist.

Point is, Evolutionist, while potentially useful to this thread, is limited in its usefulness.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I think we need a new word for people who aren't on the "Instant universe, just add God" bandwagon. Evolutionist is, well, limited in its usefulness. When it comes to the humans-as-apes debate, yes, describing one side of an argument as "evolutionist" is appropriate, but when talking anything other than the progression of life, it's a fairly useless classification.

"Processist" might work, or "Phenomenist". Scientist is taken for those who actually study it, as is Naturalist. Naturist would be a reasonable one if it wasn't already taken by naked people on greek beaches.

Logicist, perhaps. Although it's already taken up with a school of mathematical thought (according to Wiki), the basis of logicism could reasonably be extended thus. Plus, it makes no statement about religious leanings, which is the problem with just saying Atheist.

Point is, Evolutionist, while potentially useful to this thread, is limited in its usefulness.


How about autogenesisist? The examination that deals with it is as part of its overall premise validation suite is called AutoGenesisism. Doesn't roll off the tongue, but....



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
So i was watching the history channel the other day on the annunaki and ancient aliens and it seemed to make alot of sense, they needed gold from our planet and didnt want to mine it them selves, so the genetically engineered humans from them and the species on earth, basically just boosting our evolving because without them it would have took thousands of years for our beings to become smart. so basically evolution, the "annunaki" helped out alot. thats what i think anyways, not very well detailed but its too much to type...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join