[LHP only] What is left hand path?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Categorizing spiritual experience that was can get fuzzy. There is undeniably something unique about humans that allows us to step outside of, question, and manipulate nature in line with out will.

Well yeah, language and writing couldn't develop before an isolate intelligence.

It's called having opposable thumbs. Who knows what other species would be doing if they were bipedal and had hands like ours. Hopefully they would be using them in a more beneficial fashion than we are now...

 

[1137]

It's called having opposable thumbs. Who knows what other species would be doing if they were bipedal and had hands like ours. Hopefully they would be using them in a more beneficial fashion than we are now...

I don't think you can push everything like medication, philosophy, the internet, etc off on opposable thumbs. Where is the chimp internet? Why are thumbs necessary for language development?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think you can push everything like medication, philosophy, the internet, etc off on opposable thumbs. Where is the chimp internet? Why are thumbs necessary for language development?

You're going to have to demonstrate that those abilities were not possible through the unfolding of natural processes alone and provide evidence that it must have been some otherworldly intelligence that decided to tinker around with one group of apes, out of millions of other lifeforms on this planet alone. That's quite an incredible claim. It sounds eerily similar to creationist "God of the gaps" arguments, mixed in with vaguely ancient astronaut ideas. It really sounds like an emotional plea for humans to be special, above all other lifeforms.

Besides, even if some intelligence did mess about with us and gave us some sort of special abilities, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a great idea, in hindsight. If it happened, then I'd like to have a word with Satan/Lucifer/Set/Prometheus/whatever you fancy calling this being, just like I'd like to have a word with the other careless creator deities.

 

[1137]

You're going to have to demonstrate that those abilities were not possible through the unfolding of natural processes alone and provide evidence that it must have been some otherworldly intelligence that decided to tinker around with one group of apes, out of millions of other lifeforms on this planet alone. That's quite an incredible claim. It sounds eerily similar to creationist "God of the gaps" arguments, mixed in with vaguely ancient astronaut ideas. It really sounds like an emotional plea for humans to be special, above all other lifeforms.

Besides, even if some intelligence did mess about with us and gave us some sort of special abilities, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a great idea, in hindsight.

Humans are just the only example we know of with such a mind. Perhaps other species have one similar, or other life in the universe. In fact, a similar mind in species with drastically different brains would suggest even more highly that such a mind is unnatural. And by definition, something unnatural is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". A mind vastly different than other species fits this, and so does a mind capable of going against and manipulating nature.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Humans are just the only example we know of with such a mind. Perhaps other species have one similar, or other life in the universe. In fact, a similar mind in species with drastically different brains would suggest even more highly that such a mind is unnatural. And by definition, something unnatural is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". A mind vastly different than other species fits this, and so does a mind capable of going against and manipulating nature.

It's still on you to demonstrate that such minds are "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". Because nothing in science is saying that. We also cannot comment on the perspective of other species because we don't have the technology to experience things from their vantage point or communicate with them on such a level of complexity required to discuss such topics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well that assumption is amazing since there are no records from man until the Sumerians . . .

There's human artifacts that date back tens of thousands of years, FYI.

 

[EtuMalku]

I'm saying that we're stupid because we're destroying this planet along with a multitude of other lifeforms we share it with in the name of vain profit and greed, and we're arrogant morons who think we're somehow superior. Our cultures tend to be vapid and we allow ourselves to be enslaved and limited. Yes, humans are so wonderful. Hurrah, hurrah.

You're getting too hippie on me . . .

There's human artifacts that date back tens of thousands of years, FYI.

But that wasn't the point . . .

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're getting too hippie on me . . .

I wasn't aware that the hippies were nihilistic misanthropes. Well, maybe I'm more of a Manson Family or Process Church sort of hippie.

It's just a fact that humans in general are behaving as a parasite on this planet more often than not now. Our population needs to be halved, at the very least, and we need to change our relationship with the wider world. Otherwise we deserve to go extinct. Hopefully we'll be able to do this intelligently and peacefully, but it doesn't seem to be going that way since WWIII is at our doorsteps. Should be quite a show.

 

[EtuMalku]

I wasn't aware that the hippies were nihilistic misanthropes. Well, maybe I'm more of a Manson Family or Process Church sort of hippie.

It's just a fact that humans in general are behaving as a parasite on this planet more often than not now.

Well, look at WHO is . . . certainly not us on the LHP

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, look at WHO is . . . certainly not us on the LHP

Depends on how you define LHP, of course, which is what this debate is about. Some take it as meaning a sociopathic outlook and way of life. Well, the ones running the show in this world do seem to be full-blown psychopaths. The CoS would love them, since the CoS encourages greed, elitism, social Darwinism, etc. and has a long history with right-wing nuttiness.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wow, you finally get it.

OK, you've finally transcended the gap from mildly annoying to comic relief. I literally laughed when I read this.

 

[1137]

It's still on you to demonstrate that such minds are "contrary to the ordinary course of nature". Because nothing in science is saying that. We also cannot comment on the perspective of other species because we don't have the technology to experience things from their vantage point or communicate with them on such a level of complexity required to discuss such topics.

Well yes, only one species in all of known history has developed the ability to communicate I complex ways, so right there that ability is abnormal. As far as things going contrary to nature, I'm curious how the internet would arise, given any amount of time, without a mind like our? What about advanced civilization? Medication? From another angle, why won't cognitive behavioral therapy work on non-humans?

 

[1137]

OK, you've finally transcended the gap from mildly annoying to comic relief. I literally laughed when I read this.

Laugh all you want, you FINALLY acknowledged that the paths are unrelated, that's a huge step forward. Now the problem is you can't be ELHP either because of your obsession with tradition, but one step at a time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well yes, only one species in all of known history has developed the ability to communicate I complex ways, so right there that ability is abnormal. As far as things going contrary to nature, I'm curious how the internet would arise, given any amount of time, without a mind like our? What about advanced civilization? Medication? From another angle, why won't cognitive behavioral therapy work on non-humans?

That's not an argument. Obviously if it exists in nature, it's natural. There's no evidence that humans are endowed with some sort of supernatural abilities. If you want to believe in your form of creationism, that's fine. But it's not a fact. Certainly evolutionary biology, zoology, anthropology, etc. doesn't accept that theory.

 

[1137]

That's not an argument. Obviously if it exists in nature, it's natural. There's no evidence that humans are endowed with some sort of supernatural abilities. If you want to believe in your form of creationism, that's fine. But it's not a fact. Certainly evolutionary biology, zoology, anthropology, etc. doesn't accept that theory.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Something is defined as unnatural if it is abnormal, in other words if it's not in line with the flow of nature. Human minds count even if the mind is simply an emergent property. You know me Frank, throwing a straw man like creationism at me while you try to run away isn't going to work. And if you took the time to study both psychology (much more relevant to this discussion) and anthropology (which studies the UPR) you would see that there are no contradictions with my philosophy from an empirical standpoint.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You didn't answer any of my questions. Something is defined as unnatural if it is abnormal, in other words if it's not in line with the flow of nature. Human minds count even if the mind is simply an emergent property. You know me Frank, throwing a straw man like creationism at me while you try to run away isn't going to work. And if you took the time to study both psychology (much more relevant to this discussion) and anthropology (which studies the UPR) you would see that there are no contradictions with my philosophy from an empirical standpoint.

I'm not trying to run away, I'm waiting to see if you can offer an actual argument with evidence for your assertion. I'm also not strawmanning you, because what you're describing basically is a form of creationism, just with a sort of ancient astronaut bent. I used to believe in similar silliness, but I dropped it. We're talking about natural science, not social science, so your usage of the word "unnatural" isn't going to apply here. Psychology is irrelevant here. If something follows the laws of nature, then it is natural. Where's your proof that anything about humans is unnatural, or contrary to the laws of nature?

Of course your philosophy doesn't work from an empirical standpoint, because there's no empirical evidence of it. Just like there's no empirical evidence of any deity. Philosophy is not a science, anyway, (it's part of the humanities) so that has nothing to do with empiricism.

 

[1137]

I'm not trying to run away, I'm waiting to see if you can offer an actual argument with evidence for your assertion. I'm also not strawmanning you, because what you're describing basically is a form of creationism, just with a sort of ancient astronaut bent. I used to believe in similar silliness, but I dropped it. We're talking about natural science, not social science, so your usage of the word "unnatural" isn't going to apply here. Psychology is irrelevant here. If something follows the laws of nature, then it is natural. Where's your proof that anything about humans is unnatural, or contrary to the laws of nature?

Of course your philosophy doesn't work from an empirical standpoint, because there's no empirical evidence of it. Just like there's no empirical evidence of any deity. Philosophy is not a science, anyway, (it's part of the humanities) so that has nothing to do with empiricism.

I never thought you'd go as far as denying anthropological evidence to prove a point. We do, in fact, have empirical evidence of the rise of higher human thought / modern behavior, just as we later have the evidence for the creation of language and writing. Psychology actually couldn't be more relevant. In a purely natural existence someone with depression would experience their suffering, do battle with it for perhaps a small amount of time, and eventually succumb. In the world with humans, we can give them medication, help them learn to recognize and redirect depressive thinking, etc. Note that I'm not claiming the mind is necessarily supernatural, it simply doesn't line up with the flow of nature. When I google the definition for unnatural, it states that it's something abnormal (statistically far from the mean), in other words something that doesn't ordinarily take place in nature.

I'm curious as to what in that paragraph isn't accepted fact.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never thought you'd go as far as denying anthropological evidence to prove a point. We do, in fact, have empirical evidence of the rise of higher human thought / modern behavior, just as we later have the evidence for the creation of language and writing.

That's not an argument for deities tinkering with apes.

Psychology actually couldn't be more relevant.

Wrong field of study. This is under biology's purview.

In a purely natural existence someone with depression would experience their suffering, do battle with it for perhaps a small amount of time, and eventually succumb. In the world with humans, we can give them medication, help them learn to recognize and redirect depressive thinking, etc.

What does this have to do with magical powers from alien intelligences?

Note that I'm not claiming the mind is necessarily supernatural, it simply doesn't line up with the flow of nature.

That's basically what "supernatural" means - outside of nature or beyond it.

When I google the definition for unnatural, it states that it's something abnormal (statistically far from the mean), in other words something that doesn't ordinarily take place in nature.

Yes, words have different usages and your usage of it here doesn't fit. You have yet to show that there is anything about humans that couldn't have come about except outside of evolutionary processes.

I'm curious when anything in that paragraph is that isn't accepted fact.

Much of it.

 

[crossfire]

You didn't answer any of my questions. Something is defined as unnatural if it is abnormal, in other words if it's not in line with the flow of nature. Human minds count even if the mind is simply an emergent property. You know me Frank, throwing a straw man like creationism at me while you try to run away isn't going to work. And if you took the time to study both psychology (much more relevant to this discussion) and anthropology (which studies the UPR) you would see that there are no contradictions with my philosophy from an empirical standpoint.

LIFE is the natural mechanism for going against the flow of Nature, at least on planet Earth. {At least in my opinion based upon my observations.} Your mileage may vary.

 

[1137]

That's not an argument for deities tinkering with apes.

It wasn't supposed to be?

What does this have to do with magical powers from alien intelligences?

It's logically plausible to think something partly unnatural could not arise from nature.

That's basically what "supernatural" means - outside of nature or beyond it.

True, but the mind may be an emergent property. Being statistically far from average doesn't make something outside of nature.

Yes, words have different usages and your usage of it here doesn't fit. You have yet to show that there is anything about humans that couldn't have come about except outside of evolutionary processes.

I'm not trying to show that necessarily, I'm trying to show that since our mind came about, no matter how that happened, we've been able to do abnormal things that couldn't be done without us. This is simple fact.

Much of it.

Could I bother you too actually point some of these problems out?