Thread: Trinity and the holy nothingness of 0

Its a poor argument to sate that wolves can't function in a human society. They aren't human! You are comparing two different systems of social structure.

But, isn't there the oportunity to "re-socialize" the "wild-child", and have him adapt to human society, and become a human as we know them? Where as, with a wolf for example, you can never expect it to learn how to function as an active member of a human society.

I'll answer your question with another. Why can't wolves type on a computer? No thumbs. Its the same premis. I can't function properly or fully in an Indian village because I don't know their customs or speak their language. We still hunger, love and hate, traits all humans share. I can't convey that through language, maybe hand gestures.

Anyway, my point is that a rock is a rock is a rock. Wolves are as self aware as a human, because it recognizes its hunger, and feeds itself. Its much more simple than human self awareness, because I'm sure that wolves don't spend nights wondering about philosophy.

I know that I am self aware because I'm afraid of other possibilities. Does that make me less aware than "I think therefor I am"? I doubt it. I'm aware through my method of self awareness, as those wolves who are self aware through their own. It doesn't matter what method of awareness you use, its still self awareness. You can't measure that.

SWM, I don't think it is a poor argument because in the case of a wild child, a human is functioning in a social structure that is not human. To get my point across I wanted to make clear that the oposite was not possible, and that that displays the fundamental difference between humans and other animals.

Ok, it seems we all agree. Humans have a heightend awareness of self compared to other animals, the potential for which we are born with. This differentiates us from other animals.

Where we disagree is upon the degree of self-awareness in other animals. This is a very difficult subject to talk about, seeing as we can't really put ourselves into their paws, hoofs, etc. But, something I feel a lot of people do is project human characteristic onto other animals, and highly overestimate their ability to think/feel. In my opinion, instinct plays the dominant role in the way they act. Even behavior that may seem like love, or empathy, are in my opinion instinctual. For example, no one can deny the importance of love in humans. It takes around 16-18 years for a human child to be fully grown, in which time it is dependent on the protection and care of it's parents.

I am not trying to reduce love to that level. It certainly goes beyond that for us as a species, but I doubt whether it is so for most other animals. I am simply trying to explain the possible origin of an emotion like love.

To SWM, yes, you can function fully in an Indian village despite language barriers. A smile is a smile, laughter is laughter, tears are tears. The basics you are still able to express. I spent one month on a farm in Rajastan, India where no one spoke a word of english, and after a fews days we could at least communicate on a very baisc level with gestures, as you said.

Also, I feel you are reducing the impact something like a thumb has had on the development of our species. Some say it is the mutation that brought us to this point. You are right, of wolf would have troubly typing on a keyboard because it has no thumbs, but I say a wolf can never grasp the concept of what a keyboard is. And that is not only because we can't communicate properly, but because a wolf doesn't have the capacity to understand things of that nature.

I guess we have missunderstood eachother because I was certainly not trying to make it seem like humans were vastly different, I was just trying to get at what is actually different.

I agree with you on the topic of love, and on the fact that awareness must be cultivated. I feel like I said both of these in my previous posts, but I guess it didn't get through. I'll have to rephrase things next time.

Originally Posted by zoomare

I guess we have missunderstood eachother because I was certainly not trying to make it seem like humans were vastly different, I was just trying to get at what is actually different.

Wasn't it though? I think you misunderstood my point. I was referencing to the meaningless trait of being able to type for communication. Its a trait. The basic function is still the same, we communicate. The method is meaningless. I can communicate in an Indian village because of hand gestures and general human body language. Communication doesn't promote self awareness. It promotes awareness of others.

My point is in short, that humans aren't very different from our less evolved brothers, or different at all in terms of self awareness. A wolf can't type just as much as I can't bark. This doesn't detract that the wolf knows that he exists, or that I know I exist. The wolf having a "lesser" self awareness, is nullified by the fact that it has an inkling of self awareness.

You can't 'sort of realize' that you exist. You either exist or you don't, and you are aware or you are not. There is no middle ground, whatever method you are using to justify said existence.

Again, I still think you are simplifying the ability for humans to communicate compared to other animals. There have been experiments made in this field, and it has been show that humans alone have a complex grammatical structure and syntax. And certainly the complexity of communication makes it possible to express more complex ideas. This doesn't mean we are more self-aware, but we again have the capability to express awareness with more depth. This may give us the ability to behave in ways that go against our biology, our instict. For exaple, suicide seems to contradict everything we know about evolution and instinct.

If your comments regarding suicide were true, then I would assume that mental illnesses such as depression are genetic. They are in some cases, but not all. It would be interesting to see what percent of those who commit suicide have inheritted their depression genetically.

Originally Posted by zoomare

If your comments regarding suicide were true, then I would assume that mental illnesses such as depression are genetic. They are in some cases, but not all. It would be interesting to see what percent of those who commit suicide have inheritted their depression genetically.

again, you are looking for too much. Just because "some" depression is genetic doesn't discredit that virs theory is true. The shoe fits so to speak.

I didn't negate anything vir said with my post.