Humans: The Mind of God in the body of an Animal

[Octavia156]

You know, actually answering the questions I ask helps a little.

And yes we are actually biologically the same, I never biologically identical. I say biologically the same because we all come from the same place.

"the same" -- "identical" - any theasaurus could demonstrate why I made the connection..

We all came from the Sun. and We're all made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But 50% of our DNA is identical to a banana - clearly we're not all the same

If by the same you mean "alive" then yes - We're all "Alive" but we;re not all "artists". We certainly not ALL creating new things - in fact I only see one organism that is creating things for the sake of creation and not simply biosurvival, and its - you guessed it <US>

So you have an idea of what you're going to paint or draw 100% of the time every time, before you do it?

I reckon the first hominid who mixed pigments and drew an image of the bison he was about to kill knew 100% what he was drawing - yeh. But this is speculation.

Its not about knowing what you're about to create - its the fact you have the will to create in the first place - d'you get me?

How does this justify anything?

What product of pollution and sadism can you justify as being "art"? Lets also bring up intention here, its a strong point.

who said anything about justification - this is about the hypothesis that human kind has a unique faculty - the will to create for creations sake, something that it shares with no other beast.

But I just contradicted you with a more detailed outline than you have provided me. In what way do other animals not exhibit any of these things?

You have to understand what you're arguing here is not subject to fact or objective material, if your going to place humans on a pedestal you have to justify it, instead of simply saying "humans are the only animals that exhibit god like abilities or qualities".

show me an animal that has created ART for Art's sake (and not for fear of a whip or promise of a treat) and I will concede the argument.

 

[Orias]

"the same" -- "identical" - any theasaurus could demonstrate why I made the connection..

We all came from the Sun. and We're all made of protons, neutrons and electrons. But 50% of our DNA is identical to a banana - clearly we're not all the same

If by the same you mean "alive" then yes - We're all "Alive" but we;re not all "artists". We certainly not ALL creating new things - in fact I only see one organism that is creating things for the sake of creation and not simply biosurvival, and its - you guessed it <US>

But being biologically same and biologically identical insinuate two different things. Its no different than these statements...."I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe there is a God".

What I'm saying is that if we are the only thing that we could consider artists then whats stopping us from also considering other species of living animals "artists"?

I reckon the first hominid who mixed pigments and drew an image of the bison he was about to kill knew 100% what he was drawing - yeh. But this is speculation.

Its not about knowing what you're about to create - its the fact you have the will to create in the first place - d'you get me?

I understand but do you see how you contradicted yourself here?

Yes we all know that will plays perhaps the largest role in motivation for any animal, but if thats all it is then I could just as easily say that humans aren't the only beings that create art. With that said, we can't even be 100% sure that what we do is always intended or even a piece of our own original will.

who said anything about justification - this is about the hypothesis that human kind has a unique faculty - the will to create for creations sake, something that it shares with no other beast.

This hypothesis lacks justification. Do you see how easily I am poking holes in this argument?

It would be different if the argument wasn't so vague and metaphysical. This sort of justification should be easy enough for you to accomplish anyways, because if you haven't noticed I haven't actually been disagreeing with you.

show me an animal that has created ART for Art's sake (and not for fear of a whip or promise of a treat) and I will concede the argument.

So now you're saying that animals other than us have the knowledge of making art for the sake of reward or fear?

 

[Octavia156]

But being biologically same and biologically identical insinuate two different things. Its no different than these statements...."I believe there is no God" and "I do not believe there is a God".

What I'm saying is that if we are the only thing that we could consider artists then whats stopping us from also considering other species of living animals "artists"?





I understand but do you see how you contradicted yourself here?

Yes we all know that will plays perhaps the largest role in motivation for any animal, but if thats all it is then I could just as easily say that humans aren't the only beings that create art. With that said, we can't even be 100% sure that what we do is always intended or even a piece of our own original will.




This hypothesis lacks justification. Do you see how easily I am poking holes in this argument?

It would be different if the argument wasn't so vague and metaphysical. This sort of justification should be easy enough for you to accomplish anyways, because if you haven't noticed I haven't actually been disagreeing with you.



So now you're saying that animals other than us have the knowledge of making art for the sake of reward or fear?

Sorry but no - none can demonstrate any example of animal Art and im have to repeat myself in nearly every post!

None has picked a value hole -yet im afraid :-/

 

[Heathen Hammer]

some god-like qualities:
- Imagination
- Rationality
- Creativity - the focus of this debate
- Will

I suppose it's difficult to take any such list without a grain of salt, as you are naturally inclined to place on it, things only your species has, as far as you are aware.

 

[Octavia156]

What I'm saying is that if we are the only thing that we could consider artists then whats stopping us from also considering other species of living animals "artists"?

evidence. animals do not exhibit artistic intention - as this thread has discussed - their only creations are products of biosurvival or form necessary parts of an interdependent ecosystem

I understand but do you see how you contradicted yourself here?

Yes we all know that will plays perhaps the largest role in motivation for any animal, but if thats all it is then I could just as easily say that humans aren't the only beings that create art. With that said, we can't even be 100% sure that what we do is always intended or even a piece of our own original will.

i don't think I've contradicted myself once

And I've never said that will plays a part in animal behaviour - I've said the opposite. Animals act only out of instinctual biosurvival programming, the only things they create are as defined above. Man on the other hand appears to have a WILL to create things that serve no survival function and are thus unique from any other beast.
Again I ask you to look around you right now and ask yourself why you are arguing against this hypothesis?

This hypothesis lacks justification. Do you see how easily I am poking holes in this argument?

It would be different if the argument wasn't so vague and metaphysical. This sort of justification should be easy enough for you to accomplish anyways, because if you haven't noticed I haven't actually been disagreeing with you.



So now you're saying that animals other than us have the knowledge of making art for the sake of reward or fear?

I keep feeling you havin't read some of the previous posts fully.
My argument is not vague it is very specific. The inclination to make Art for pleasure, like the adoption of symbolic language stes us clearly apart from animals - surely noone can negating this
I'm going one stage further for the sake of discussion that this is actually quite god-like when god is defined as a creator:
Gods create universes. Man creates new universes. Man is like God.

 

[Orias]

evidence. animals do not exhibit artistic intention - as this thread has discussed - their only creations are products of biosurvival or form necessary parts of an interdependent ecosystem

But we are animals. Thats the whole point!

i don't think I've contradicted myself once

And I've never said that will plays a part in animal behaviour - I've said the opposite. Animals act only out of instinctual biosurvival programming, the only things they create are as defined above. Man on the other hand appears to have a WILL to create things that serve no survival function and are thus unique from any other beast.
Again I ask you to look around you right now and ask yourself why you are arguing against this hypothesis?

Will does play a part in animal behavior, its what defines their roles.

The problem with you're whole argument is you presume that the only animal capable of producing "art" and instincts necessary for survival is man.

Why should one animal speak out for all others? Just because we can kill it or manipulate it into a facility with a likeness to our persona?

I keep feeling you havin't read some of the previous posts fully.
My argument is not vague it is very specific. The inclination to make Art for pleasure, like the adoption of symbolic language stes us clearly apart from animals - surely noone can negating this
I'm going one stage further for the sake of discussion that this is actually quite god-like when god is defined as a creator:
Gods create universes. Man creates new universes. Man is like God.

I've been reading EVERYTHING, you just keep trying to undermine my defense that all living things share consciousness therefore are all apart of "God", not just man.

 

[idav]

As an Atheist and a Scientist I don't hold the belief that Natural Selection is "god-driven".

Then how is the mind of God in Humans when it is simply about genetic anomalies. BTW the great apes have shown to share these anomalies.

Chimps can problem solve which shows proof of imagination. There is no telling what they consider art without them telling us. Art is subjective.

[youtube]ySMh1mBi3cI[/youtube]
Chimpanzee Problem Solving - YouTube

 

[Madhuri]

Chimps can problem solve which shows proof of imagination.

Yep, loads of animals are able to problem solve even if only on an elementary level.

 

[Noaidi]

some god-like qualities:
- Imagination
- Rationality
- Creativity - the focus of this debate
- Will

Interesting to note that these god-like qualities are exactly what we humans possess too. Wow.
Who'da thunk it?


(and what species defines the gods as possessing these qualities, I wonder.....)

 

[Octavia156]

But we are animals. Thats the whole point!

Yes we are - with god-like minds :help:

Will does play a part in animal behavior, its what defines their roles.

The problem with you're whole argument is you presume that the only animal capable of producing "art" and instincts necessary for survival is man.

Why should one animal speak out for all others? Just because we can kill it or manipulate it into a facility with a likeness to our persona?

[/quote[
I'm not presuming - I'm hypothesising.
When I hypthesise that increasing the surface area of a substrate will increase the rate of reaction, i'm not presuming - I'm stating a theory based on prior observations.

I observe that animals do not read books - I obersve they do not make art for pleasure.
I propose that these faculties are god-like as opposed to beast like, based on these observations.

I've been reading EVERYTHING, you just keep trying to undermine my defense that all living things share consciousness therefore are all apart of "God", not just man.

never mentioned shared consciousness or being part of PAN. i'm not trying to undermine you - im'm trying to keep reiterating my point until you understand it - your argyuments make it sound like you are misunderstanding the point. when you bring in other concept like defining 'life' or 'will' 'self awareness or learning - this is a different argument altogether - I'm looking at one specific thing -
The creation of ART for Arts sake

I'm using the literary term god - to emphasise the willfull, creative and ever increasing effect humans have on the world as one that is extremely powerful - how can one man change the course of existance on this planet - cause he's a god.
Biology is a beautiful foundation - but where is the animal that chews off his bollox cause he didn't believe if paw=-pirnt of sunflowers was good enough.


Once this is understood, i'd want to further ther discussion as to where this discintion falls in our evolutionary journey - but again I'm stumped as to why after 9 pages people are still stuck on the obvious.:sleep:

 

[Orias]

Yes we are - with god-like minds :help:

Ok, so you understand that. How you are not understanding the rest of what I'm saying?

I'm not presuming - I'm hypothesising.
When I hypthesise that increasing the surface area of a substrate will increase the rate of reaction, i'm not presuming - I'm stating a theory based on prior observations.

Ok, so you're presuming. Since when it comes to the metaphysical concepts like God or divine being one could not do anything else other than assume that the powers that be are specified for one species of animal.

I observe that animals do not read books - I obersve they do not make art for pleasure.
I propose that these faculties are god-like as opposed to beast like, based on these observations.

So then the people that don't know how to read or write or make art are excluded from this equation then?

never mentioned shared consciousness or being part of PAN. i'm not trying to undermine you - im'm trying to keep reiterating my point until you understand it - your argyuments make it sound like you are misunderstanding the point. when you bring in other concept like defining 'life' or 'will' 'self awareness or learning - this is a different argument altogether - I'm looking at one specific thing -
The creation of ART for Arts sake

It doesn't matter if you mentioned shared consciousness or not, I did in essence that consciousness IS SHARED with ALL living species. You keep reiterating your point because I don't think you understand what you're saying.

I've moved on already, what point do you think I'm trying to make here? And don't you think that actually answering my questions may support your cause? But no, you keep ducking and sticking to the same boring transparent argument that I've already moved beyond. Once you stop trying to force words down my throat and you actually read what I say you'd see that I'm actually agreeing with you given one exception - we aren't the only animals with God like minds in animal like bodies. But don't worry, I can say that as many times as you can bring up your point.

I'm using the literary term god - to emphasise the willfull, creative and ever increasing effect humans have on the world as one that is extremely powerful - how can one man change the course of existance on this planet - cause he's a god.
Biology is a beautiful foundation - but where is the animal that chews off his bollox cause he didn't believe if paw=-pirnt of sunflowers was good enough.

Here is where you are mistaken though, one man could not possibly change the course of existence on this planet, this is because there is at least 7 billion other people that have to be affected in order for this course to take action.

Once this is understood, i'd want to further ther discussion as to where this discintion falls in our evolutionary journey - but again I'm stumped as to why after 9 pages people are still stuck on the obvious.:sleep:

This is my third time saying, I'm not, but you apparently are. As for the rest of the conversation, you can thank me later for it coming this far. I've said many things that have probably gone over your head because all you insist is what you think. Trust me, I've been there!

 

[Octavia156]

Ok, so you understand that. How you are not understanding the rest of what I'm saying?

I do understand what you saying, but your points don't go anywhere to proving or disproving the idea, and some are not relevant to the OP.
You keep arguing animals must have god-like faculties as well but you can't demonstrate it.

Ok, so you're presuming. Since when it comes to the metaphysical concepts like God or divine being one could not do anything else other than assume that the powers that be are specified for one species of animal.

When using terms like god, the most important step is defining what is meant by the concept 'god.' There is no faculty i can attribute to god that I can't to man, but there are plenty I can't attribute to animals.
yes god is a human construction (again - evidence towards my OP) but so is any form of classfication - we do it to help us understand and develop ideas.
If thinking of ourselves as gods helps us understand ourselves better - then why is it any different to calling us mammals.

bacteria>algea>insects>fish>amphibian>reptile>bird>mammal>god?

So then the people that don't know how to read or write or make art are excluded from this equation then?

not out of the equation, just not participating. Show me a human who can't draw a picture in the sand with a stick. Show me an animal that can (without training)

It doesn't matter if you mentioned shared consciousness or not, I did in essence that consciousness IS SHARED with ALL living species. You keep reiterating your point because I don't think you understand what you're saying.

Oh I totally agree with you - its just not relevant - unlesss you are saying that mere consciousness is god-like, which in this arguament i'm saying its not.

This is my third time saying, I'm not, but you apparently are. As for the rest of the conversation, you can thank me later for it coming this far. I've said many things that have probably gone over your head because all you insist is what you think. Trust me, I've been there!

Yes it does seem like we're the last men standing on this one
*pours Orias another drink*

I am insisting what I think for a reason, I'm a Thelemite - Human God-Head is the foundation of my belief system - "There is no god but man".

I'm not looking to change my mind - unless someone can show me some evidence Then I'll enjoy a good rethink. I just enjoy talking about Thelemic ideas and seeing if they can actually be challeneged.

Everyone should do this - make sure you've not fallen prey to dogma.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

I think there are clear aspects of the human mind that separate us distinctly from the world of beasts.

One of them is the abilty of the human mind to Create both physical Art and non-physical Ideas

I think this makes us Gods.

It seems, Christ is a lamb with a special name and also the keeper of the flock, in Christianity. I didn't know you were talking about an atheist concept, perhaps, before I replied.

 

[Orias]

I do understand what you saying, but your points don't go anywhere to proving or disproving the idea, and some are not relevant to the OP.
You keep arguing animals must have god-like faculties as well but you can't demonstrate it.

Trust me everything is relevant. And I have demonstrated it, I've already explained that we are humans.

Also, to say one thing and then ask for a demonstration is different. I would ask you to demonstrate that we have God - like faculties but all you would say is what you've been saying. Which doesn't really accomplish anything because its been in my mind this whole time that we aren't the only exception.

When using terms like god, the most important step is defining what is meant by the concept 'god.' There is no faculty i can attribute to god that I can't to man, but there are plenty I can't attribute to animals.
yes god is a human construction (again - evidence towards my OP) but so is any form of classfication - we do it to help us understand and develop ideas.
If thinking of ourselves as gods helps us understand ourselves better - then why is it any different to calling us mammals.

We are only God, when we are God. I guess status is all a matter of how everything is dealt with. Thats why its easier to justify "God" as "everything" , or invocation.

bacteria>algea>insects>fish>amphibian>reptile>bird>mammal>god?

Or just God>

not out of the equation, just not participating. Show me a human who can't draw a picture in the sand with a stick. Show me an animal that can (without training)

So then whats stopping other animals from "participating" besides us? Does their consciousness not affect our own recognition of things?

Oh I totally agree with you - its just not relevant - unlesss you are saying that mere consciousness is god-like, which in this arguament i'm saying its not.

Consciousness is God(like), what you claim to be arguing is not supported by anything you've said!

Yes it does seem like we're the last men standing on this one
*pours Orias another drink*

I am insisting what I think for a reason, I'm a Thelemite - Human God-Head is the foundation of my belief system - "There is no god but man".

There is no God but God, other than that I guess we share a similar rock.

I'm not looking to change my mind - unless someone can show me some evidence Then I'll enjoy a good rethink. I just enjoy talking about Thelemic ideas and seeing if they can actually be challeneged.

I challenge everything!

Everyone should do this - make sure you've not fallen prey to dogma.

Not others dogma at least.

 

[Octavia156]

Trust me everything is relevant. And I have demonstrated it, I've already explained that we are humans.

Also, to say one thing and then ask for a demonstration is different. I would ask you to demonstrate that we have God - like faculties but all you would say is what you've been saying. Which doesn't really accomplish anything because its been in my mind this whole time that we aren't the only exception.

to be scientific you need evidence to justify your argument. in my OP made a hypthesis based on my observed evidence.
I feel that this coverstaion is demonstration enough that we are very differnt from our animal ancestors.

We are only God, when we are God. I guess status is all a matter of how everything is dealt with. Thats why its easier to justify "God" as "everything" , or invocation.

I see god as a perpetual quantum-like state of everything and nothing simultaneously.
Existance is the result of *consciousness fixing this quantum state into something.
There for you have ALL, NONE and ONE.
We are ONE of MANY.

If *consciousness is therefore the sumblimation of god - ONE manifests out of the NONE - the point in the circle - possibility becomes actuality.

Like you, I see conscious - quatum fixation - going my every conscious entity on the planet. God [ALL and NONE} being percieved by the ONE.

Sorrry this is probably not making sense.

What my argument suggestes is that by creating new ARTificats, thus adding to the ALL we are closer to it.

So then whats stopping other animals from "participating" besides us? Does their consciousness not affect our own recognition of things?

nothing is stopping them other than yes - they inability or lack of cognitive ability. there is no evidence anywhere that aniamls have created Art.

Consciousness is God(like), what you claim to be arguing is not supported by anything you've said!



There is no God but God, other than that I guess we share a similar rock.

see above - we're getting woolly...
perhaps the Satanist and the Thelemite should call it a day - seems we're not going to:areyoucra agree on whether man is a god or not

 

[idav]

Yes we are - with god-like minds :help:

You've been shown other animals with as much intelligence as humans. In fact chimps excel in some of that list as well as us lacking in strength and endurance. I can very easily make arguments that other animals are more god-like cause humans are weak creatures.

You also have yet to show why you consider evolutionary advantages as god-like rather than getting lucky in the gene pool.

Really the problem everyone has had is putting humans above all animals. It has been shown that we are not alone in self-awareness. And sure we are god-like but so are other animals. What if an advanced alien race came down and said we are pathetic and nothing like their god-like status that come from their own subjective opinions of status. Self appointed glory isn't really all that.

 

[Orias]

to be scientific you need evidence to justify your argument. in my OP made a hypthesis based on my observed evidence.
I feel that this coverstaion is demonstration enough that we are very differnt from our animal ancestors.

I'm not disagreeing that we are very different from other animals, just that this difference does not justify and is not justified scientifically that humans are Gods.

I see god as a perpetual quantum-like state of everything and nothing simultaneously.
Existance is the result of *consciousness fixing this quantum state into something.
There for you have ALL, NONE and ONE.
We are ONE of MANY.

If *consciousness is therefore the sumblimation of god - ONE manifests out of the NONE - the point in the circle - possibility becomes actuality.

Like you, I see conscious - quatum fixation - going my every conscious entity on the planet. God [ALL and NONE} being percieved by the ONE.

Sorrry this is probably not making sense.

What my argument suggestes is that by creating new ARTificats, thus adding to the ALL we are closer to it.

Now this is something else, I'll agree that we are certainly closer to what is perceived as "God", but I will not concede that it makes us more "God like".

nothing is stopping them other than yes - they inability or lack of cognitive ability. there is no evidence anywhere that aniamls have created Art.

We went over this, if we are animals then there is evidence that animals have created art.

see above - we're getting woolly...
perhaps the Satanist and the Thelemite should call it a day - seems we're not going to:areyoucra agree on whether man is a god or not

The only thing we disagree on is that we are more "Godlike" than other animals. I agree with the notion that some of us are Gods trapped in animal bodies, but they are not THE God which I believe we are closer to than other animals.

Man is apart of God, and being a God is different than being just "God".

 

[Octavia156]

You've been shown other animals with as much intelligence as humans. In fact chimps excel in some of that list as well as us lacking in strength and endurance. I can very easily make arguments that other animals are more god-like cause humans are weak creatures.

You also have yet to show why you consider evolutionary advantages as god-like rather than getting lucky in the gene pool.

Really the problem everyone has had is putting humans above all animals. It has been shown that we are not alone in self-awareness. And sure we are god-like but so are other animals. What if an advanced alien race came down and said we are pathetic and nothing like their god-like status that come from their own subjective opinions of status. Self appointed glory isn't really all that.

Again - I've not denied self awareness or intelligence is evidence in animals - it has been proved in chimps.
Even symbolic understnading has been demonstrated in bonobos and other chimps - i.e. they can actually conceptualise - I'll find the clip.

F-ing amazing stuff..


However - ART is next level imo

So thats why I say it sets us above animals.

Orias is hung up on the fact we are animals therefore we must be no diferrent from any other animals - but are you saying you are on an equal plane to an ant? if so fine good on you - but I don't - I see humans as far more evolutionaarily superior than ants - yeh ants are sick at carrying reletively heavy stuff - but can they paint the sistin chapel or design an iPhone? no.


why is everyone so keen to put humans down

 

[Octavia156]

I'm not disagreeing that we are very different from other animals, just that this difference does not justify and is not justified scientifically that humans are Gods.

Well we won't agree then - I posit that ART is the evidence and justification of our difference. if you don't accept that then we're at a dead end, brother.

I'll agree that we are certainly closer to what is perceived as "God", but I will not concede that it makes us more "God like".

The only thing we disagree on is that we are more "Godlike" than other animals. I agree with the notion that some of us are Gods trapped in animal bodies, but they are not THE God which I believe we are closer to than other animals.
Man is apart of God, and being a God is different than being just "God".

am i really talking to a Satanist!? :slap:

 

[outhouse]

not really

I spoke to Dawkins himself about this.... evolution is gradual - so if you go back 10,000yrs you could mate, 20,000 still oK, 30,000 getting improbable, 40,000 not possible.

we share ancestral genes with fish - doesn't mean we can mate with them or that we're the same species

Homo sapiens mated with neanderthal, this is a fact

homo sapiens were almost identical for the last 200,000 years


stop the nonsesne, unless you have a source to back it up with.