Is god a code monkey?

[Titanic]

or monkey

 

[savagewind]

What is a code monkey anyways?

There is something I learned not to do. I might have posted in a thread before reading the conversation. Doing so does not lead to looking shrewd. It is why I usually do not comment on threads that are very long. This one isn't. My point is the answer has been given. If you read the thread (it is relatively short) you will fine the answer.

 

[savagewind]

That would be pretty odd, given that we share genetic material and traits with all species on the planet, plus fossil evidence suggesting many different variations of human like species through history.
That along with evidence of microevolution through the known history of humanity.

I don't think man is that different. Our brain is more complex and better capable of abstract thought and causal relationships than any other species, but there are perfectly plausible evolutionary reasons for that.

You say it would be odd that we have not evolved like all other things as we have the same genetic material and traits. OK. That sounds right. But after some time thinking about it I have a theory. God making us virtually the same as the animals is a wise move imo. It is good for at least a few reasons. One important reason is that to know they are like us is to love them. Another reason is that by observing them we get to know ourselves better.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The majority of human communication is non-verbal, like animals. It's interesting you used language as an example, because language is the only human behavior that is directly linked to biology. All others are learned.

1) Every human behavior is directly linked to biology. When you find a human who doesn't have any biological systems, and exhibits some sort of behavior, then let me know.
2) Language is most definitely learned. Whether or not there is "universal grammar", a "language faculty", or some other innate capacity specific to learning language doesn't change the fact that it is learned. Nowhere in Chomsky's perhaps best known and groundbreaking work (Syntactic Structures) is there any suggestion of such a thing. The earliest suggestion is in a 1958 paper in which he states “to account for the ability to learn language, we must ascribe a rather complex ‘built-in’ structure to the organism” (emphasis added). It wasn't until the early sixties that "poverty of stimulus" and other arguments were put forth to suggest that there must be some innate ability humans have to learn language. However, as Bundy commented, "One may wonder why, if even young children have ready access to universal grammar, its properties have been so difficult to discover and to describe."
from Bundy, D. (2006). On the origins and early developments of Chomskyan linguistics: The rise and fall of the standard model. In S. Aurour, E. F. K. Koerner, H-J Niederehe, & K. Versteegh (Ed.) History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present (Vol. 3) (pp. 2034-2039). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

3) It wasn't long before the belief that humans have a special "mental organ" or "faculty" to learn language was challenged or ignored. It is explicitly rejected in cognitive linguistics and most functional approaches in linguistics.

4) Sex is far more instinctual than language. People have to learn the mechanics, but the drives are there. So-called "feral children" whose exposure to language is seriously limited are unable to learn to communicate. Individuals with certain disorders (e.g, autism spectrum disorder) may have very limited ability to communicate linguistically, or have none, but still have sexual drives.

 

[savagewind]

Language is most definitely learned.

I think the side that says "language is instinctual" is based on the inherent human need to reach out to be understood. They are not talking about the mechanisms of how to do that.

 

[savagewind]

Now I have thought about another reason humans are like evolved DNA by God. If we were different then eating would do us no good, would it?

 

[sonofdad]

Now I have thought about another reason humans are like evolved DNA by God. If we were different then eating would do us no good, would it?

I don't see how being made up of a different information system would prevent us from metabolizing chemicals from other lifeforms. I'm not even saying a different system, just a completely different DNA sequence, unrelated to any other species.

 

[Titanic]

There is something I learned not to do. I might have posted in a thread before reading the conversation. Doing so does not lead to looking shrewd. It is why I usually do not comment on threads that are very long. This one isn't. My point is the answer has been given. If you read the thread (it is relatively short) you will fine the answer.

Going from a computer programmer to a code monkey is a long stretch dude.

 

[savagewind]

Going from a computer programmer to a code monkey is a long stretch dude.

It's funny how language doesn't work sometimes.

 

[savagewind]

I don't see how being made up of a different information system would prevent us from metabolizing chemicals from other lifeforms. I'm not even saying a different system, just a completely different DNA sequence, unrelated to any other species.

Wow! Your major must be English rather than Science I see.

 

[Titanic]

It's funny how language doesn't work sometimes.

I know it's funny cause i am right.

 

[freethinker44]

Going from a computer programmer to a code monkey is a long stretch dude.

Code monkey is a term for the lowest level of computer programmers. They don't design or solve anything, they just write code.

 

[Titanic]

Code monkey is a term for the lowest level of computer programmers. They don't design or solve anything, they just write code.

well then by definition GOD is must certainly not a code monkey. cheers!

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it possible to imagine that life, except for one kind, originated according to evolution? Man may have been different. Man IS different, is he not?

Yes. Man is different. And so was Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor, and many more. Many non-"man" yet man-like and with man-like abilities were different, special, and existed at some point in time before "man".

 

[savagewind]

Yes. Man is different. And so was Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor, and many more. Many non-"man" yet man-like and with man-like abilities were different, special, and existed at some point in time before "man".

Were the computers of Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor and the rest as good as Apple's? Those creature may have looked the same and even made wheels and stuff but what kind of car did they drive?

 

[Ouroboros]

Were the computers of Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor and the rest as good as Apple's? Those creature may have looked the same and even made wheels and stuff but what kind of car did they drive?

Huh? What kind of argument is that? Did Jesus make an iPhone?

Things evolve. There were no computers 150 years ago even. So I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[savagewind]

Huh? What kind of argument is that? Did Jesus make an iPhone?

I don't know.

 

[savagewind]

Man is the only species that we know of that has the influence to determine Earth's future. Man can ruin it or man can save it. Some people believe it cannot be saved. I believe it can.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know.

You said man is different. Many species were and are different.

Sure, man is different. Neanderthals were different too because they started to bury their dead, before Homo Sapiens even existed. They were also different in their brain size (much larger brain than ours, but it consumed too much calories, 6,000 cal/day I think it was). Earlier homonoids used tools and weapons. It's how evolution works. Things evolve. Knowledge expands. If it wasn't "man" it would have been (maybe) some other species, and if not... well, then it wouldn't have.

Cockroaches are very unique, btw. They're probably one of the few species that would survive a nuclear war.

 

[Ouroboros]

Man is the only species that we know of that has the influence to determine Earth's future. Man can ruin it or man can save it. Some people believe it cannot be saved. I believe it can.

Sure.

It would be interesting if we would encounter an alien race that also have intelligence and destructive weapons, but that could be the last we would know. Then they would tell themselves how great and unique they are.