Humans are nothing more than objects.

[Sabaku no Ira]

OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).

[Near]

Are you planning on having kids?

[Sabaku no Ira]

That question is irrelevant to the topic, but no, I'm not.

[GSurge]

Fascinatingly cliche and boring.

[Kunoichi no Kiri]

To all would-be existentialist philosophers I respond: We're real enough to each other.

Chemicals, casings, or computer programs - does it really matter?

[Lord Yu]

So by the definitions given this thread gives out the price of murder should just be a fat fine? I think not.

[Near]

That question is irrelevant to the topic, but no, I'm not.

I had a feeling you would say something like that. I just dont understand what causes you to feel so much hate for humanity. Does it truely give you peace thinking that way? Is there something so haunting from your past that lead you to this point of reasoning?

I am not disagreeing with your statement, Everything in this world can fall under that description, yet there are differences, differences that dont seem to have an explaination. If Evolution was merely a way to insure survival, would cognition be necessary for that? Are Emotions that same guide to surivive for that cognition.

If you play chess the outcome is inevitable, someone wins, someone loses. Why do people play? People are born, People die. That is the fate of life. If you cant feel compassion, hate, love, fear, joy, etc, there is no point in playing the game.

[Ticking_Clock]

I'll just go back to what Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am"

[Danny Lilithborne]

Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).

I think everyone who is either completely anti-creationist or pro-creationist needs to watch "Inherit the Wind", think about what the movie said, and then shut the fuck up with their retarded hyper nihilist theories of life.

[Sabaku no Ira]

I had a feeling you would say something like that. I just dont understand what causes you to feel so much hate for humanity. Does it truely give you peace thinking that way? Is there something so haunting from your past that lead you to this point of reasoning?

Death and destruction are basically the only thing I'm comfortable with. The 2nd Law of Themodynamics must hold.



I am not disagreeing with your statement, Everything in this world can fall under that description, yet there are differences, differences that dont seem to have an explaination. If Evolution was merely a way to insure survival, would cognition be necessary for that? Are Emotions that same guide to surivive for that cognition.

You have evidence for that? Or it is just an irrational belief?



If you play chess the outcome is inevitable, someone wins, someone loses. Why do people play? People are born, People die. That is the fate of life. If you cant feel compassion, hate, love, fear, joy, etc, there is no point in playing the game.

Feelings and emotions only serve to obscure the rational mind and should not be allowed to exist.

To all would-be existentialist philosophers I respond: We're real enough to each other.

Chemicals, casings, or computer programs - does it really matter?

Oh, no. I'm not saying that we're not real: in fact it is because we are real that makes it so much fun to destroy each other. :):) An irrational belief, unfortunately.

[maj1n]

OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer.

Sorry this is incorrect, it is because we are the same species, that we feel for each other.
This directly ties to our chances of survival and our biological makeup.

And is inherent in most species, most mother's cares initially, care for its young.


Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

People are objects, they are a physical thing.
However your equatting objects with things like emotion and stuff, basically your saying that we, as objects, should have the same pity/sympathy whatever as other objects.
This is false, because we are humans, thus we treat humans differently.

Basically, our makeup wants us to increase the chances of survival, as a species the best way to do this is by caring for one another.

[Sabaku no Ira]

Finally I hear from you, maj1n. Now we can do this properly as we should in my humanity thread.

Sorry this is incorrect, it is because we are the same species, that we feel for each other.
This directly ties to our chances of survival and our biological makeup.

And is inherent in most species, most mother's cares initially, care for its young.

Care from parent to child is inevitable, since a child has no defense from dangers- that I can understand. What I don't understand is why should people care for those who would compete with them for resources? Rhinoceros mothers chase away their "young" when they grow up. Shark mothers potentially can even feed on their grown-up child. I don't see how that has threatened their survival (in fact, most of them has survived even longer than us without change). Why should we be different? Why shouldn't we kill off our weaker ones so that only the strong are left? As Tsukiyomi mentioned in his other thread, there are already too many of us here: kill some of them off so that the strong ones will live. Without mercy, without passion, we don't need to help those who need it: let them die to give us, the rational and the stronger, room. We have 6 billion people in this world: one more isn't many, one less won't be missed.


People are objects, they are a physical thing.
However your equatting objects with things like emotion and stuff, basically your saying that we, as objects, should have the same pity/sympathy whatever as other objects.
This is false, because we are humans, thus we treat humans differently.

Basically, our makeup wants us to increase the chances of survival, as a species the best way to do this is by caring for one another.
How can leaving the weaker ones behind increase our chance of survival?

[Yoshi]

Cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am. Computers do not think. Machines do not think. Humans do. I'm sure someone else can elaborate on this, but I don't have the time, maybe I will later.

[maj1n]

Finally I hear from you, maj1n. Now we can do this properly as we should in my humanity thread.

aww thats sweet, you should pm me so i could get in earlier


Care from parent to child is inevitable, since a child has no defense from dangers- that I can understand. What I don't understand is why should people care for those who would compete with them for resources? Rhinoceros mothers chase away their "young" when they grow up. Shark mothers potentially can even feed on their grown-up child. I don't see how that has threatened their survival (in fact, most of them has survived even longer than us without change). Why should we be different? Why shouldn't we kill off our weaker ones so that only the strong are left? As Tsukiyomi mentioned in his other thread, there are already too many of us here: kill some of them off so that the strong ones will live. Without mercy, without passion, we don't need to help those who need it: let them die to give us, the rational and the stronger, room. We have 6 billion people in this world: one more isn't many, one less won't be missed.

Because that would set a bad precedant, and with that mentality becoming popular, people would be killed and societal structure would collapse.
Consider war-zones, or even Pakistan and Afganistan, and you can see the 'kill them' attitude, when prevalent, makes two opposing communities worse off.


How can leaving the weaker ones behind increase our chance of survival?
Because it promotes the 'help each other' mentality which in turn we have all experienced, such as the government public services.

[Nybarius]

Quala implies quanta if the quanta in question is quala. -- Searle, in Children's Book Format.

Hey, ever read any Philip K Dick? I recommend "We Can Build You" for you at the moment.

[princesstaco]

I read a book that came to that conclusion too. I tend to disagree with it.

I don't think humans are objects and despite the astonishing lack of scientific evidence, I'd still like to believe in the soul. That we go somewhere after we die. Just a personal opinion though, not something I can argue for or try and make people believe.



...when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed.


The computer may be shut off but the programming hasn't been destroyed or changed! At the destruction of an instrument, its sounds may be gone but the music it could potentially play has not been changed one bit!

While the destruction of an instrument might momentarily stop the music, it doesn't prevent the playing of a good Mozart or Shostakovich. Maybe the mind is the same way. The desctruction of the body might momentarily stop a person's mind, but it doesn't necessarily stop the potential of that person's existance.

If you think about it that way, it kindof makes you change your perspective on humanity. Maybe 'humanity' is more of an abstract concept than a physical entity. Instead of being the computer, I think humanity is more like the program. I think a 'human' is a set of ideas and emotions produced by a mind.

Not trying to proove the existance of an afterlife or of the human soul here...just trying to justify in my mind that I am more than my physical make up.

[CoolBuu]

Read "The Chambered Nautilus" by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[Hellcrow]

I'm just happy my body is made of something, and not imagenary... like a dream...

[Nybarius]

I'm just happy my body is made of something, and not imagenary... like a dream...

If it were, how would you know? Perhaps a property of the dream-stuff is that it seems real to you.

As a matter of fact, there are many convincing arguments to be made that "life is but a dream". Here's a tech-heavy version of the old hypothetical that caught my fancy (hat-tip to my partner in crime shiftedShapes for bringing this to my attention):

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Here's a crude version: the probability of a post-human society possessed of computing power capable of simulating our entire universe with relatively as few processor cycles as we today emulate NES games is non-zero, and thus an inevitability, given a vast enough space enough and time on the order of infinity. Since these conditions are met, the world as we know it is, indeed, a computer simulation. The author speculates that perhaps humanity is a science project on the nature of morality; just imagine how useful it would be to analytic-minded philosophers--and really scientists of every stripe--to be able to test their ideas about the human condition with a convicning simulation, perhaps reflective of their own society in its stripling days, although likely with variables tweaked as the investigative process demands.

This raises a grip of questions. Foremost among them: if the simulation argument were proved true, would it matter? Would we be any different than we are for knowledge of our genesis? (Incidentally, religious zealout and pathological narcissist alike are most rankled, not by meeting with a viciously opposed viewpoint--a competing sect, a hater--but by complete indifference.)




In the Bible, the Face of God is always brought up as an unknowable--despite the conversation Moses somehow had with him (consult your local Rabbi for some amusing, Talmudic explanations of this discrepancy). To behold the face of God! It would immolate Man, it is said. Just look at what became of the Nazis who tempted fate by glancing at his merest "to-do (and don't)" list for humanity, the Arc of the Covenant.*

Personally, I think this is a gnostic reversal of meaning, constructed so as to be comprehensible to only the wisest of the literate class of the day+, while yet providing a sop for the the masses; a sort of ideographic chiasmus inserted as an easter-egg for the metaphysical sort. First some foundation: God, like the realm of infinity from which he draws his pedigree (or vice-versa), is a delicate, carrot-dangling concept which only holds weight if it is kept just out of reach. God is any real number +1 ad infintum. Try to imagine you're more creative than you are, or really anything that it is beyond the capability of man to imagine fully: there is your God.

Fully fleshed out, He loses His form and devolves into a wraithlike absurdity; "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In short: to behold the face of God wouldn't singe an eyebrow on the face of man; rather, it is the face of God which would be ashen at the end of the encounter. Luckily, the fantastical imagery that forms the lingua franca of modern religion is so familiar at this point in history that they are typically left unexamined. In the same way that very few people sit around pondering the randomness of pairing a cluster of sounds with a concept, for language is a dead coin, only the most childlike among us would stop to ponder the epic suspension of consensus reality that reading religious writ in the spirit it was written entails. For most who self-report as religious, Faith is nothing more than self-serving superstition with society's stamp of approval. It brings them luck at casinos, when it comes, but they never attend church. All those baroque tales of Yahweh molding man from clay, oceans boiling, and Lott's underage spelunking daughters seducing him & sexx0ring his br41nz 0ut!!11!one! with some apparently very powerful wine are just the gilding on the envelope.

It's easiest to capture what I'm on about if you read early Christian writings, or writings from the foundational phase of any religion writings to be had, really. Or if you'd prefer a more personalized slant, try to procure the diary entries of an impressionable and hugely imaginative individual in his garden of youth attempting to grapple with the Serious issue of Religion. I found the experience similar to attending a standup comedy performance inspired by Philip Glass; infinite buildup--and break down, as well--no punch-line (despite a misleading succession of apocalypses).

Apparently the very Holiness of the writ--derived from none other than itself, hint hint--kept the enlightened sage who wrote the stuff from snickering, in the same way that people who rocked some of the more gauche fashions of the 1980's were totally serious about how cool it was at the time.



Now then, to address your initial post (which I feel I've already done in a roundabout way, but who knows, this post might get deleted for being off-topic): sure, humans are objects. So what? Morality is constructed: so what? Is it not possible to operate as both object and subject--if indeed there is any usefulness, let alone validity, in the distinction? And what precisely is your problem with Man, who I am led to believe you think was created in God's image, creating a system like Morality? Is "the creator" not a synonym for Our Lord?

*(you know, in Indiana Jones...)

+For the sake of argument, let's say the time of Ezra, since I don't buy the "J" argument Harold Bloom made such a fuss over, seeing as how he's a bloated crank whose main achievement--besided the abortive attempt to feel up Naomi Wolf's titties--is energetically attempting to convert the one good idea he had decades ago into a cultural monopoly (in a time when monopolies are in, but culture is anarchistically homogenous).

[Near]

WTF did you just say. jk, your a wordy bastard but I am finally getting use it.

[ezxx]

"No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more.""

Unlike a computer or a musical instrument, Humans are a natural part of this world. Therefore, how can you destroy an object that's a part of this world without a cause, unless of course you are a mad man. Killing another human isn't justifiable simply because we don't gain anything from it. Of course there are special circumstances when criminals need to be put to death, but that doesn't apply to the majority.

[Nybarius]

WTF did you just say.

Reader's Digest Version:

1. Some contend that 'life, the universe, and everything' is a computer simulation being run by an advanced civilization. The reasons they would do such a thing are speculative.
1a. Would this "ultimate answer" change anything about the human condition if it were true? It's still up to us to find meaning, even if we're just an advanced version of tamigotchi. If tamigotchi knew they were a passing consumer electronics fad, would they desire pixellated pellets any less for it?

2. Religion's greatest strength lie in its absurdity, however, this strength can only operate so long as the absurdity is regarded with the utmost seriousness; much like signing yourself into a hotel-room with the name "I M Dickless," you've got to keep a straight face for it to work.
2a. The more fully imagined your God, the more ridiculous he seems. Note the historical progression (in terms of popular appeal) away from the "pagan" tradition of lusty, human/all-too-human Gods such as Odin, Zeus, &c to an ill-defined question-mark which serves as a hatrack to hang superstitious sentiment on.
2b. The hat-trick of modern religion is most easily seen in its gestational stages. Vivid examples can be found in the writings both of young religions and religious youths, each making a newbie attempt at containing divinity in a prison of pen and paper.
2c. Luckily, once this work was done (it took centuries and in a sense is still ongoing, but the labor-pains and their accompanying funny faces and screamed profanities are over and the child-delivered), everybody who cares to can forget about the untenable axiom organized religion is founded on and just say "I have faith" or "I am spiritual" when asked about such matters on surveys, even despite displaying no outside evidence of such (IE, attending church regularly). If pressed about the matter, I suspect that most who claim to be religious (at least in the US, where I live) would say that the radical imagery in the Bible is just a nice window-dressing for their faith-based glee-club called The Church. Sort of like a porno having a good plot; a nice add-on if you buy the DVD, but not an essential feature by any means.
3. I see parallels between the invention of God & the invention or morality, and further the invention of the self (which must eternally be re-created, both on an individual and a species-wide level) and I am trying to tease them out, but I am afraid you'll have to make like a cokehead copy-editor for that, and read between the lines.

[Raistlin-sama]

WTF did you just say. jk, your a wordy bastard but I am finally getting use it.
Basically he is saying that the probability of us living in an artificially created world is higher then the probability of us living in a natural world.

This is due to the fact that computers are evovlving very fast, and scientists can foresee that they will be able to run an entire virtual world at some point (in the not to distant future). If this is true thousands upon thousands of these worlds will most likely be created. Therefore the possiblity of us living in such a world is 10000000...:1.

Unless of course you believe that more then one world exsists.

Ok, I guess that was more of my own knowledge in the area, then what he said, but oh well.

[Near]

I was kidding, really no need to make a reader digest version, but thanks I guess.

If we were in such a world created by other humans though, how hard would it be not to temper with the simulation. Would there be indications of false reality? since it was created by the species?

[metalanime]

Finally I hear from you, maj1n. Now we can do this properly as we should in my humanity thread.



Care from parent to child is inevitable, since a child has no defense from dangers- that I can understand. What I don't understand is why should people care for those who would compete with them for resources? Rhinoceros mothers chase away their "young" when they grow up. Shark mothers potentially can even feed on their grown-up child. I don't see how that has threatened their survival (in fact, most of them has survived even longer than us without change). Why should we be different? Why shouldn't we kill off our weaker ones so that only the strong are left? As Tsukiyomi mentioned in his other thread, there are already too many of us here: kill some of them off so that the strong ones will live. Without mercy, without passion, we don't need to help those who need it: let them die to give us, the rational and the stronger, room. We have 6 billion people in this world: one more isn't many, one less won't be missed.


How can leaving the weaker ones behind increase our chance of survival?


Thats pretty much what I said in another post, referring to a study of a cannabalistic african tribe, some began to get a mad cow disease like illness that eventually cause death. When they researched it, they found that the people that didnt experience it had a gene different than people who did. The disease is cause by eating another of the same species, cows get it in the same way, only through thier troughs, like when they are contaminated with another cows substance.

Anyway, they did tests on all different races and found that the place of the gene had 3 different variants. Two of which were immune to the effects of the disease. Upon that testing, they found that the mojority of the woulds population, in its distant past, probably took part in cannibalism and developed a resistance, and in that small detail, were stronger, than the ones who were effected by the disease.

This is something that I feel applies to alot of different thing. Like the way we choose our mates. I would try to avoid a person who has a genetic history of illness, or obesity or even an ugly family. Why? Because if I ever do have kids, I want to try and ensure that they are healthier, with less risks, better looking, and overall stronger than other kids. Its not selfish, its preservation. I will do what I can to make my bloodline remain strong.

[Nybarius]

I was kidding, really no need to make a reader digest version, but thanks I guess.

If we were in such a world created by other humans though, how hard would it be not to temper with the simulation. Would there be indications of false reality? since it was created by the species?

It wouldn't necessarily be humans. Perhaps the simulators are simulating all possible permuations on the "sentient life" concept, and, improbable as it may be, we had to be one of them, and it just so happens to be us.

[Sabaku no Ira]

aww thats sweet, you should pm me so i could get in earlier


Thanks. You are one of those whom I respect within the forums.



Because that would set a bad precedant, and with that mentality becoming popular, people would be killed and societal structure would collapse.
Consider war-zones, or even Pakistan and Afganistan, and you can see the 'kill them' attitude, when prevalent, makes two opposing communities worse off.

Most animal don't have societies. Tigers kill off each other if one invades another's territory;King snakes eats others snakes in order to reduce competition. You don't need a society, or even a community for that matter in order to function: we've been through a stage without society, and the fact that we're here proves that it isn't necessary for our survival.

Besides, even with us trying to kill each other, it doesn't mean that we cannot form temporary alliances- we will still need them for reproduction (unless the cloning technology becomes advanced enough to clone people: but that's another story). It is just that after the necessity is dealt with, the alliance is dissolved.


Because it promotes the 'help each other' mentality which in turn we have all experienced, such as the government public services.

Does that mean that it is a propaganda, then? :P

I was kidding, really no need to make a reader digest version, but thanks I guess.

If we were in such a world created by other humans though, how hard would it be not to temper with the simulation. Would there be indications of false reality? since it was created by the species?

Even if there are "glitches", we wouldn't notice them since 1) if it is very rare the individual will find his own explanation and pass it away or 2) if it is more common scientists will still just explain it away by adding certain conditions to their laws. Eg: in the mid-20th Century scientists suspected that the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Matter doesn't apply to particle physics since they find strange things going on: energies suddenly becoming larger, particles suddenly getting heavier, etc. It was until they discovered more and more different types of sub-atomic particles that they find that they can still keep the Conservation laws in particle physics. Now, with quantum physics, weird things can be explained away by probability.

[Near]

It wouldn't necessarily be humans. Perhaps the simulators are simulating all possible permuations on the "sentient life" concept, and, improbable as it may be, we had to be one of them, and it just so happens to be us.

Its funny how the thought of a simulated world has stimulated interest in it so quickly at a personal level for me, Yet religion has the opposite affect. Maybe that what you were talking about, I gave up with all your metaphors and complex words that I would never understand without a deep 10 hour analysis, with your reference to religion. I apologize in that case.

I dont want to get all matrix"y" but its interest to think of the world in that sense. Especially with mental disorders and drugs, you know glitches and all. People that arent "normal" could be a example of a mind rejecting the reality, I doubt it would that simple, but interesting possibilities.

With the whole tempering thing I meant that someone or something doesnt leave the system alone. The temptation to play "God" after the simulation has been created.

[opium4themasses]

The whole point he makes is that independent of the ultimate nature of reality the human condition remains the same.

Nihilism seems to have the same problem of those who wish to stop at Descartes's ultimate limit of doubt. Each of these points are interesting only as part of a path but serve as poor ending points.

We may live in a world devoid of any meaning that we don't give it but Who cares? We will still live and love and strive.

[maj1n]

Most animal don't have societies. Tigers kill off each other if one invades another's territory;King snakes eats others snakes in order to reduce competition. You don't need a society, or even a community for that matter in order to function: we've been through a stage without society, and the fact that we're here proves that it isn't necessary for our survival.

Not really the major point, animals that have society, are usually more advantageous to survive.


Besides, even with us trying to kill each other, it doesn't mean that we cannot form temporary alliances- we will still need them for reproduction (unless the cloning technology becomes advanced enough to clone people: but that's another story). It is just that after the necessity is dealt with, the alliance is dissolved.

Ahh but we can form even more alliances if we have the mentality of trust, love etc, so its still advantageous.

[Kurairu]

I believe that you are correct, though my opinion is a bit bias because I am, in fact an atheist.

[General Shino]

Were objects as we have souls, until you can disprove that i dont you cant only imply opinions....

[opium4themasses]

Now, with quantum physics, weird things can be explained away by probability.
Please, Please, Please, don't talk out of your ass.

[Yoshi]

If humans are no more than objects, do you object to someone just randomly killing you? If you are an object, and have no soul or such, who cares right? That's why I believe humans aren't just objects, because we love to live.

*prepares for flaming, hides behind fire prrof shield*

[RockLee]

As humans we possess something more. Perhaps our lives are not much more than chemicals generating electrical currents which control our body, which is nothing more than a sack of chemicals. However, there is an indescribable something which defines us as human, and not mere objects.
It could be a unique interaction of the substances of which we are composed of, but that alone cannot explain it. Let assume it does, though. This certain interaction has made us who we are, and there is enough similarity in most people within the same culture so that rules for conduct are established. This certain interaction has established certain things, such as:

*Working together can produce desirable results that could not be obtained alone. "Pack hunting" is an example.

*Displays of (proper and balanced) emotion make a person much more desirable than one who does not; a person with (proper and balanced) emotions is more likely to help
a mate.

*Killing off other members of the culture/clan is inappropriate unless for a reason widely accepted in the community. This varies from culture to culture, but most cultures seems to prohibit wanton kiling of members of the group, as this is a deteriment to the survival of the species.

So it doesn't matter much if the "soul" doesn't exist or not, because our primar interest is the survival of the species while maintaining a balance with our habitat. That is why we are

kind
compassionate
selective of mates
cooperative
restrained

I don't know if having a "soul" should matter that much, when our job is ensure that this planet and this race last as long as they can without destroying absolutely everthing around them.
Wanton killing of others, even if we are chemicals, is wrong because that is a deteriment to the race, even if the person killed is sub-par. That death marks the perpetrator as a menace to the survival of others, and could perhaps kill a very healthy male/female. So thus wanton killing is unacceptable.
Feelings and emotions are necessary for imagination, thus cooperation, sympathy, empathy, and the rituals for attracting mates.

I obviously disagree with the thread starter. Of course, this all in good fun, at least from my point of view. We are arguing about something that may undecidable. We all have our convictions, though. I just hope you don't go around culling the weak. ;)


I didn't even know a place like this existed on the forums. A philosophical debate? This is awesome!

[Sabaku no Ira]

"No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more.""

Unlike a computer or a musical instrument, Humans are a natural part of this world. Therefore, how can you destroy an object that's a part of this world without a cause, unless of course you are a mad man. Killing another human isn't justifiable simply because we don't gain anything from it. Of course there are special circumstances when criminals need to be put to death, but that doesn't apply to the majority.
Heh. So you think that anything that's natural is good. Let me tell you this: ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states that the entropy, amount of chaos and disorder, can only increase in the universe, which makes life, being ordered, the unnatural part. The reason why life can exist at all is that it creates order by creating more chaos outside the system, so it is existing, in a way, at the expense of the order of the universe without life. Tell me, does that count as "natural"?

Not really the major point, animals that have society, are usually more advantageous to survive.


Ahh but we can form even more alliances if we have the mentality of trust, love etc, so its still advantageous.
Perhaps so, but that still doesn't mean that we NEED them to survive. More advantageous, yes, but not really necessary.

But then... it's logical to see those as "investments", I suppose. I be nice to you, and you help in the future. I invest my "goodness" to you so that you'll repay me with kindness when it becomes necessary. Then when you're no longer of any use, BOOM!, you're dead.

Please, Please, Please, don't talk out of your ass.
*Gasp* How did you know that I have been typing with my butt?

If humans are no more than objects, do you object to someone just randomly killing you? If you are an object, and have no soul or such, who cares right? That's why I believe humans aren't just objects, because we love to live.

*prepares for flaming, hides behind fire prrof shield*

Actually, I don't mind. I always want to verify what it is like to be dead: Is there an afterlife? Or is there just an endless void? What is it LIKE to be nothing? Questions, questions... that can only be answered when dead.

I'm not saying that life is meaningless: in fact, it is because it is meaningful that makes it so much MORE FUN to destroy. Otherwise... what difference is there between killing and throwing away the garbage, hum? :)

[maj1n]

Heh. So you think that anything that's natural is good. Let me tell you this: ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states that the entropy, amount of chaos and disorder, can only increase in the universe, which makes life, being ordered, the unnatural part. The reason why life can exist at all is that it creates order by creating more chaos outside the system, so it is existing, in a way, at the expense of the order of the universe without life. Tell me, does that count as "natural"?

No thats incorrect, the 2nd law of thermodynamics merely means that in general, a closed system will increase in entropy, localised area's can still increase in 'order' as long as the whole decreases more.


Perhaps so, but that still doesn't mean that we NEED them to survive. More advantageous, yes, but not really necessary.

But then... it's logical to see those as "investments", I suppose. I be nice to you, and you help in the future. I invest my "goodness" to you so that you'll repay me with kindness when it becomes necessary. Then when you're no longer of any use, BOOM!, you're dead.

You were asking why we should treat humans as more than objects, i have give an answer as to how (evolution) this probably came about.

As to why, because were humans, thus we treat humans, and by an extension ourselves, more than those not human, it is self-preservation.

[Yoshi]

"Humanity is not determined by your body or anatomy, humanity is a state of mind. Humanity is to be in the place where falling angel meets rising ape."

(A quote from my friend)

[Nybarius]

Since when did the "natural" become equated with the right or just? Nature, obviously, is amoral.

I will say it again: morality is a technological innovation, and a great one at that, dwarfing even the wheel or the plough. Our concept of self and community is ever-evolving. Quite recently, in a historical concept, women were almost universally considered to be sub-human beings who derived their personality through the graces of strong men. To draw an analogy with evolution: consider the development of respect for the individuality of women to be a "transition fossil" which strongly argues the case that all morality is a human invention, and not something handed down from Mt. Sinai. The fanciful stories of bearded patriarchs who gave their ear to God, who revealed the ethical code of nature, are merely inventions to impress a generally ignorant & superstitious populace with the value of "being good".

[Sabaku no Ira]

No thats incorrect, the 2nd law of thermodynamics merely means that in general, a closed system will increase in entropy, localised area's can still increase in 'order' as long as the whole decreases more.

Isn't that what I said about "creating order at the expense of the order outside the system"? But then that's a better worded explanation, so, meh.

You were asking why we should treat humans as more than objects, i have give an answer as to how (evolution) this probably came about.

Indeed, I'm convinced, not as why we should but rather how that comes about. I believe that strong are able to do anything without restrictions from themselves (that's a belief, I know. Damn, how many irrational beliefs I have?) and to be able to kill without hesitation when necessary, it's a gift.

As to why, because were humans, thus we treat humans, and by an extension ourselves, more than those not human, it is self-preservation.

I'm not quite sure that it will end up as "self-preservation" as you may think...

[Danny Lilithborne]

Isn't that what I said about "creating order at the expense of the order outside the system"? But then that's a better worded explanation, so, meh.How can you create order without a definition of order? Explain that.

Indeed, I'm convinced, not as why we should but rather how that comes about. I believe that strong are able to do anything without restrictions from themselves (that's a belief, I know. Damn, how many irrational beliefs I have?) and to be able to kill without hesitation when necessary, it's a gift.The strong aren't able to do anything without restrictions from themselves because they're strong. They're able to do anything without restriction because weak people let them.

I'm not quite sure that it will end up as "self-preservation" as you may think...If you haven't killed yourself, self-preservation is indeed within your interests. If you want to prove otherwise, then don't respond to this post.

[Sabaku no Ira]

How can you create order without a definition of order? Explain that.

Definition of entropy: A thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of the disorder of a system; related to the number of ways the components of a system can be arranged without changing the system's energy (Chemistry: The molecular Nature of Matter and Change, Silberberg, 3rd Edition)

This is defined in the formulat: S = k ln W, where K is the Boltzmann constant and equals to the universal gas constant R dvided by Avagardo's number, ln is the natural log, and W is the number of ways of arranging the components of the system.


The strong aren't able to do anything without restrictions from themselves because they're strong. They're able to do anything without restriction because weak people let them.
Are you sure that the weak people let Hitler and Stalin to kill millions of them?


If you haven't killed yourself, self-preservation is indeed within your interests. If you want to prove otherwise, then don't respond to this post.
You seem to like to ask people to kill themselves. Highly recommendable. However, I don't see how me killing myself at this moment is going to benefit the species as a whole, so not at the moment.

[Danny Lilithborne]

Definition of entropy: A thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of the disorder of a system; related to the number of ways the components of a system can be arranged without changing the system's energy (Chemistry: The molecular Nature of Matter and Change, Silberberg, 3rd Edition)

This is defined in the formulat: S = k ln W, where K is the Boltzmann constant and equals to the universal gas constant R dvided by Avagardo's number, ln is the natural log, and W is the number of ways of arranging the components of the system.Okay, but now you have to prove entropy isn't energy.

Are you sure that the weak people let Hitler and Stalin to kill millions of them?What do you think, that Hitler and Stalin had Mangekyou Sharingan and scared whole countries into doing their will?

...actually, now that I think about it, that would have been really fucking cool.

You seem to like to ask people to kill themselves. Highly recommendable. However, I don't see how me killing myself at this moment is going to benefit the species as a whole, so not at the moment.It's okay. "Kill yourself" is a test of your will to endure the insanity that is 21st century life.

[Kabuto_o]

Even if you hate humanity killing everyone off will not help so much, that would only end in chaos and everyone would kill each other and what happens then? No strong people will be alive unfortunately and if none of those strong people are alive, what's the point?

and are you one of those strong people by the way?

Are you sure that the weak people let Hitler and Stalin to kill millions of them?

When you said that i'm guessing you are considering hitler and stalin as one of those strong people, well they died..

I got to agree on one thing, some people are really pissing me off sometimes and that probably makes my life shorter and for the moment makes me wish they just died a painful death.

[Danny Lilithborne]

and are you one of those strong people by the way?Man, that is like Itachi asking random Konoha ninja "Hey, excuse me, I'm so sorry to trouble you but can I hypnotize you, stab you a million times and then kill you? Thanks so much."

[Sabaku no Ira]

Okay, but now you have to prove entropy isn't energy.

What the hell? I never said that entropy is energy: it is a measurement of the amount of disorder within a system.



What do you think, that Hitler and Stalin had Mangekyou Sharingan and scared whole countries into doing their will?

...actually, now that I think about it, that would have been really fucking cool.

Actually they did something cooler: chucking all those oppositions into concentration camps where they will be tortured and murder and then brainwashing the rest with public announcements and constant reminder that their leader is awesome. :) BTW, only Hitler died due to unnatural causes. Stalin never actually got punished during his life and died a peaceful (not?) death.

[Danny Lilithborne]

BTW, only Hitler died due to unnatural causes. Stalin never actually got punished during his life and died a peaceful (not?) death.Nah, Hitler got punished.

Before he died, he got married. AFAIK, Stalin died single with innumerable mini-Stalins floating in the wombs of random Russian chicks.

[Sabaku no Ira]

Nah, Hitler got punished.

Before he died, he got married. AFAIK, Stalin died single with innumerable mini-Stalins floating in the wombs of random Russian chicks.

Which is why Stalin kicks Hitler's ass!

Hurray for Great Father Russia!

[Danny Lilithborne]

This is true. Russia produced Zangief, while Germany produced... uhh... Brocken?

[falconmain]

*cough* umm your slightly off topic guys *cough*


value is determined by the person possessing and/or the person desiring. I possess a human life and I place a value on it. even if humans are merely objects no more special then a piece of coal. I value my life and the life of others more then the piece of coal. to some maybe the coal is worth more but as a whole the vast majority of people choose to give some sort of value or meaning to human life so that just killing off the "weak" is considered unacceptable. Why? well that is hard to say, myabe it is because we associate with other humans and when seeing one being killed off for being weak we wil naturally place ourselves in their shoes and say "what if that was me?" the other problem I see is that we have loosely defined terms such as "weak" and "strong" even if these terms were to be defined do we need all "strong" types in society? no one wishes to grow up a garbage man but someone out there has to do it. at what point do we give up on a persons potential and "eliminate" them? who decides? etc etc

also killing people off has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Raistlin-sama]

BTW, only Hitler died due to unnatural causes. Stalin never actually got punished during his life and died a peaceful (not?) death.


Not excactly peaceful...Stalin was getting more and more paranoid on his old days. So nobody really wanted him to live. One day Stalin didn't come out of his room in the morning. Noone dared going in there to see why, however rumor says that it was rather that noone wanted to go in their because all goverment officials would be secretly glad when he died due to his paranoia and therefore danger he represented to them. If they had come earlier he could perhaps have survived, but fact is that they didn't. Wether this was due to fear, or rather on intention cannot be said...But personally I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Chamcham Trigger]

All I have to say is:
object
n.

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.
2. A focus of attention, feeling, thought, or action: an object of contempt.
3. The purpose, aim, or goal of a specific action or effort: the object of the game.
4. Grammar.
1. A noun, pronoun, or noun phrase that receives or is affected by the action of a verb within a sentence.
2. A noun or substantive governed by a preposition.
5. Philosophy. Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
6. Computer Science. A discrete item that can be selected and maneuvered, such as an onscreen graphic. In object-oriented programming, objects include data and the procedures necessary to operate on that data.

As you can see. Definitions 1 and 4 state how humans can in fact be regarded as objects due to either sentence structure, or by a class of things such as a CD or a tie. Thus in a sense humans are infact objects. The problem is the value you put on the word object which can affect how one would precieve being an object. We are material and thus we are objects.

People give it a meaning of lifelessness nowadays when that isn't fully the case (though it can be supported by some definitions of the word). Due to this meaning that is added on pertaining to lifelessness, we tend to get really agitated when we consider ourselves being objects, because of the fact that we have subconscious feelings that objects are usually owned by something. Just because we are walking objects, doesn't mean that we are owned by something (well some would argue that, but if they did then they'd just be proving my case even further). In the end, the only thing that makes this argueable is our, rightful, sense of pride, but we can't let it intefere with what the true meaning of the word is, and we also can't have our pride so high that it would be considered an insult when it isn't, because objects are not defined as being lifeless, just material (in the case of materialization and tangibility), which is what we are (the phillosophers meaning pertaining to tangibility is more of abstract thought and, thus doesn't apply due to the fact that it focus on something other than the subject of object we are dealing with, and if you were to try to use that in the purpose of this thread, then you'd be using it wrong and saying that even a plate and a cd aren't objects...which is clearly missing the purpose of that philosophy)....geeze that was the run on sentence of all run on sentences :laugh

[Cthulhu-versailles]

I have started hating humanity as well. I have been going through the phase the black guy describe in full metal panic the second raid. If you watched episode 12 you'd see that it's true- Sagara is becoming evil.:amazed :amazed :amazed


-There is no reason to feel for someone if you stab them except for the reason procured to you via the society and education enforced onto you as a child. To believe you were given some arbitray Morality, since you where born, shows your merely an idealistic bleeding heart faith pusher. The directions we recieve from being in a social chain of people is accelrated via the brain and chemicals in the body that slowly turn mere image or pereception from external to internal.

Now it is true we do have certain built in mecanism, however these are limited to instinctual things, such as the Bis system(flight or fight reaction when placed in danger).This is your BODIES immediate wish, your body registers one or the other before the neurotransmitters in your brain, even have time to send a message and grasp the situation. OMG if put your hand unknowingly on some uber hot stove, what happens? Your hand pulls back, out of a reaction- PAIN!- Not Shit I thought that was hot, so I needed to pull back. Now the two particular actions i've described are important because they allow us to make a parrallel between instinct and thought- and further exam the close interdependance between them.However one does proceed the other, this is certain and that is instinct.

What I am saying is Human feeling emotion and all that wishy wash stuff is cultivated, it did not exist and only came to exist due to the interdependance most humans place on one another. Hence developing things ideal of Moral via the perception of how to best be able to live externally contributed to the cultivation of this moral center.This is time specific, obviously but is more or less why humans need to be "moral with one another." Therefore are basic instict and are supposed evil comes from the chemical in are brain doing what they do and is then quenced by the overwhealming internalizes teaching of the species , that is exemplified through corrussive actions and suggestion and subjective beliefs.

BUT SHIKA what about serial killers. Well granted they are often raised in normal homes, however, there supposed inhumanity comes from the chemicals in the brain. Hence I believe sabaku point was that- Are the emotions we have coming from chemical working in the brain. The answer is yes, however, the emotion provide via chemical is only the BASE INSTINCT or the Id of emotions. Pure rage, pure lust pure anger. Due to the "Human" enviroment, most are lead to believe morals are fundamental. Note the chemical maturation of are own brains is also another area of interest, but would require more typing and I don't feel like it.

CONCLUSION- Morals are for the weak who need to relie on one another like little babies. If you lived without Morals the world would be chaoctic, and only those such as myself:smile-big would be able to survive the onslaught of mdk's.:P

ps: I AM STRONGER THEN YOU!:amazed

[Near]

Morals are survivial tools. Its to simplify the complexity of human interaction. We're getting to the point where we dont have to look at things from a subjective point of view since we understand alot more then we did, this is when we start to question the relativeness of morality. I think alot of people fear that if we demoralize ourselves that we will revert back to means of olden day reasoning, which is I want something, I am getting it, because I need it (survival). I think that stems from the biggest fear of wiping out each other all together. The end is envitiable right. Once you kill a human being, its does get up in a few hours. So I think logically at this time for the average human being its easier to say "killing a living human is bad, because we as a society have placed a value on it", then it is to say "killing/dieing is natural process, but there are several causes and affects that come with it". You try regulating a bunch of people with different ways of thinking, that have been freed from the wrongiful aspect of killing. Works in theory, but never works in reality. Basically Morals and feelings are the answer to ridding the world of chaotic patterns in the human interaction process. If the majority of people follow the same system, the ones who dont can be take out of the eqaution that causes chaos. Its one direction, predictible, or ultimately controllable. Untill humans become perfect in a global sense, I doubt there is a way of getting rid of the morality system. Maybe it should be revised, but with the way we have expanded its hard to as a species sit down one night and have a meeting about this sort of stuff.

[Sabaku no Ira]

*cough* umm your slightly off topic guys *cough*

*points finger* NO ONE DESECRATES THE GREAT FATHER RUSSIA! NO ONNNEEEE!!!

:P

value is determined by the person possessing and/or the person desiring. I possess a human life and I place a value on it. even if humans are merely objects no more special then a piece of coal. I value my life and the life of others more then the piece of coal. to some maybe the coal is worth more but as a whole the vast majority of people choose to give some sort of value or meaning to human life so that just killing off the "weak" is considered unacceptable. Why? well that is hard to say, myabe it is because we associate with other humans and when seeing one being killed off for being weak we wil naturally place ourselves in their shoes and say "what if that was me?" the other problem I see is that we have loosely defined terms such as "weak" and "strong" even if these terms were to be defined do we need all "strong" types in society? no one wishes to grow up a garbage man but someone out there has to do it. at what point do we give up on a persons potential and "eliminate" them? who decides? etc etc

My definition of a "weak" person here refers to those who get themselves killed. In the natural world, you either get killed or kill or avoid being killed. Those who do the latter two proves themselves to be strong and get to reproduce strong offsprings, those who do the former is weak. Simple as that. It's not like "You're poor so you're weak"; it's more like "You suck because you got killed."



also killing people off has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics

The reason that death exists is that it is natural for any system to raise its entropy due to the 2nd Law of Themodynamics. By killing people we are helping the natural course. :)

Morals are survivial tools. Its to simplify the complexity of human interaction. We're getting to the point where we dont have to look at things from a subjective point of view since we understand alot more then we did, this is when we start to question the relativeness of morality. I think alot of people fear that if we demoralize ourselves that we will revert back to means of olden day reasoning, which is I want something, I am getting it, because I need it (survival). I think that stems from the biggest fear of wiping out each other all together. The end is envitiable right. Once you kill a human being, its does get up in a few hours. So I think logically at this time for the average human being its easier to say "killing a living human is bad, because we as a society have placed a value on it", then it is to say "killing/dieing is natural process, but there are several causes and affects that come with it". You try regulating a bunch of people with different ways of thinking, that have been freed from the wrongiful aspect of killing. Works in theory, but never works in reality. Basically Morals and feelings are the answer to ridding the world of chaotic patterns in the human interaction process. If the majority of people follow the same system, the ones who dont can be take out of the eqaution that causes chaos. Its one direction, predictible, or ultimately controllable. Untill humans become perfect in a global sense, I doubt there is a way of getting rid of the morality system. Maybe it should be revised, but with the way we have expanded its hard to as a species sit down one night and have a meeting about this sort of stuff.

That fear is irrational. Think other animals: tigers are constantly at each other's throats (unless it's the mating season) just because that to a tiger, another tiger is a competitor for food and other resources; by attacking aggressively other tigers that entered its domain it is ensuring its own survival. I don't see how the tiger as a species has disadvantaged itself by behaving this way. I don't see why that doesn't work for humans either.

[falconmain]

The reason that death exists is that it is natural for any system to raise its entropy due to the 2nd Law of Themodynamics. By killing people we are helping the natural course. :)



well first let me comment on the weak part then I will get to the entropy statement. weak being defined as getting killed is really a rather stupid notion in todays world...No offence... we do not live in the jungle or the wild, we do not hunt for our food, we have no need be "strong" if by your definition we would all be stronger if we could kill the "weak" which is anyone that can be killed then all we will have left is mass murderers in a mass paranoid society of loners. human nature like it or not is a communal based existance. people form groups naturally and use each others skills and expertice to further the cause of the group.

secondly even though you say it is more like you got killed you suck , rather then your poor you suck. who do you think are going to get killed? the rich? of course the poor are going to get killed first, last, and everywhere inbetween because they have the least access to the items that would help them survive, the least training, access to knowledge, etc etc

We do not live in the wild period, so the law of the wild does not relate and it will not relate. if you look now at what is most valuable to society it is the smart people, not the strong(physically). they hold the keys to shaping and forming the future much more then someone that can kill with ease. if we kill off these people who also tend to be less then physically apt then most likely society would start to slow and maybe even stop to which there would be much harm done to everyone and everything. our current population would go crazy if technology came to a stop, as it is right now they are barely able to keep up with the worlds demand for resources. simply put survival of the strongest is best left for the creatures that depend on being strong, human are not one of them.

about the 2nd law of entropy killing someone has no effect on the entropy of the system just as giving birth does not lower the entropy of the system. a living human will cause far more entropy by burning fuels, breathing, comsuming resources, etc etc then a dead human feeding the bugs and fertilazing the ground for plants to grow etc etc would ever do.

[zabuza-22]

humans are nothin more than objects, like zabuza said...muaghahhas

[road_rash]

Humans are objects, our feeling and emotions don't matter, the weak don't matter, just kill off the weak, death and destruction bring pleasure to you.......


How the FUCK can you call yourself a christian? Take that damn signature off right now. Before you start blabbering about how I can't tell people what religion they can't be, you are not even following it. All just because you're some cold emotionalless bastard doesn't mean you can call other people programed computers. If you actually had any emotions, you'd realize that there is a lot more to life then that.

[Near]

That fear is irrational. Think other animals: tigers are constantly at each other's throats (unless it's the mating season) just because that to a tiger, another tiger is a competitor for food and other resources; by attacking aggressively other tigers that entered its domain it is ensuring its own survival. I don't see how the tiger as a species has disadvantaged itself by behaving this way. I don't see why that doesn't work for humans either.

I am not saying either or. With tigers though, they are nearing extinction lol. I understand what your saying though. Our intelligence has evolve far past the "tigers". Thats great advantage, but other times it can be destructive. A tiger hunts to eat, tigher kills to protect, but tigers dont understand that they have the ability to kill, just for the sake of killing. Imagine a bunch of tigers just going around killing, because well, they know they can. Its not likely thats for sure, buts a scary thought irrational or not. I dont think many people would take that chance.

I am just saying its much easier method for a society to control mass amounts of people, that all think differently. If we could regards ourselves as just objects, and still live in harmony, that would be great, but I doubt that will ever happen with the current...."reality". Its working somewhat, I mean were still alive so...

[ezxx]

Heh. So you think that anything that's natural is good. Let me tell you this: ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states that the entropy, amount of chaos and disorder, can only increase in the universe, which makes life, being ordered, the unnatural part. The reason why life can exist at all is that it creates order by creating more chaos outside the system, so it is existing, in a way, at the expense of the order of the universe without life. Tell me, does that count as "natural"?



It may not sound natural, but it is. I did not know of this law, but I have looked it up and done a little bit of reading. From what I've learnt so far, it seems only natural.

And no, I don't like all things 'natural', I was just trying to make a point :P

"no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage"

And if no one knows the exact meaning of entropy, how come you use that term so much? :laugh

[falconmain]

if humans only viewed themselves as mere objects then there would be less order not more. people would merely off someone they didn't like or agree with. much like a disposable person there would be no reason to get along with one another if we are simply an object with no more value then a rock or a piece of wood.

[road_rash]

All those "laws" were made by humans, you know? They could easily be wrong, since in the end, they are stating that something THEY made up is complete and utter fact. You put your faith in science too much, quit being such an emo.

[Sabaku no Ira]

well first let me comment on the weak part then I will get to the entropy statement. weak being defined as getting killed is really a rather stupid notion in todays world...No offence... we do not live in the jungle or the wild, we do not hunt for our food, we have no need be "strong" if by your definition we would all be stronger if we could kill the "weak" which is anyone that can be killed then all we will have left is mass murderers in a mass paranoid society of loners. human nature like it or not is a communal based existance. people form groups naturally and use each others skills and expertice to further the cause of the group.

That still doesn't explain why should bonds in between people exist. I can just form a temporary alliance with you and use your ability and still stab you in the back when it is going to benefit me.


secondly even though you say it is more like you got killed you suck , rather then your poor you suck. who do you think are going to get killed? the rich? of course the poor are going to get killed first, last, and everywhere inbetween because they have the least access to the items that would help them survive, the least training, access to knowledge, etc etc

Stalin started off as a poor country boy, yet he was able to take his opportunity and became powerful.



We do not live in the wild period, so the law of the wild does not relate and it will not relate. if you look now at what is most valuable to society it is the smart people, not the strong(physically). they hold the keys to shaping and forming the future much more then someone that can kill with ease. if we kill off these people who also tend to be less then physically apt then most likely society would start to slow and maybe even stop to which there would be much harm done to everyone and everything. our current population would go crazy if technology came to a stop, as it is right now they are barely able to keep up with the worlds demand for resources. simply put survival of the strongest is best left for the creatures that depend on being strong, human are not one of them.

Not being in the wild doesn't mean that resources are not limited. Destroying another human being means that I can have more share of the resources. As for technological advances, most technological advances are made when people try to find a better way to fight each other. The Internet was developed by the military; the first use of nuclear power was a nuclear bomb; etc.


about the 2nd law of entropy killing someone has no effect on the entropy of the system just as giving birth does not lower the entropy of the system. a living human will cause far more entropy by burning fuels, breathing, comsuming resources, etc etc then a dead human feeding the bugs and fertilazing the ground for plants to grow etc etc would ever do.

The reason why we need food is that we need energy for most of the chemical reactions in the body. These chemcial reactions are not thermodynamically favourable (ie they decrease in entropy) and hence require energy to just simply react. Producing a baby, just like any other bio-chemical reaction in the body, lowers the entropy of the system, and hence requires a LOT of energy to go. You know that pregnant mothers need a lot of food, right?

"Burning fuels, breathing, consuming resources" etc are the means of humans increasing entropy of their surroundings as they try to keep lowering the entropy within their system and survive. A dead human is at equilibrium, which is chemically and kinetically favourable, a living one is not. This is why death is inevitable, because life itself tried to avoid the most favourable outcome, which is unnatural and impossible.

[kakako petja]

true spoken from a scientific point of view. we might have radiation in us with certain frequencies that then travel through the universe and go in black holes and go into a other universe. this we will call our soul. hehe but anyway what i think is a big issue here is: what if we are made of just sand and water does that makes us less special? well yes it means that man is not above nature and that we are not some kind of god. because this is what you would be if you would think of yourselfs as more special than the atoms that made us.
what do I think? that science is the language of the universe because logic is a means of seeing a connection between a and b and what did science reveal? that everything is balancing itself so everything can go its own way. balance is a and b.
everything outside our universe is pure fantasie it could be anything. god the matrix another dimension. but the point is we are part of the world and in our lives shit happens then we die.

[kakako petja]

i didnt read your post to the end. hehehe
so people are objects that you can push around huh? well you could but since everything could turn out for the bad this would be dangerous. i mean if you anoy someone expect a punch in the face! this means you have to be smarter. when you become a dictator and you dont want to depend on your ""loyal"" generals you need to become smarter. then you become bored. lets suppose that you already have learned about big bang and this makes sense to you. so why do we exist isnt a real interresting thing anymore. so you are bored and no one wants to beat the dictator in a game of chess so you stay bored. when you go play tennis against a wall you kinda know what is going to happen.
why do we get bored? because everything around us moves so we must move too like our blood makes us wanna jump jump and our mental needs in this way stimulation too.
so why would you want to push someone around? probable out of greed. i want money, everyone loves me, i am not the loser that used too cry allot. hehe. have you seen this scenerio?: you want something real bad and another person helps you but then screwes everything up and you take all your frustrations of not beeing able to get it on him. greed makes one loco.

but you are true to say that emtions are grounded upon facts that you create for yourself. so basicly you can become a commando with the intention of becoming superman going at it 24/7

[Lord Itachi]

no... everybody chooses their own path meaning we are not just objects

[RockLee]

We are all objects. The starter of this thread is an object. Therefore, nobody would object if I were to remove this unnecessary object from the face of the Earth.

Oh my, seems that the thread started has feelings, ideas, and dreams and objects to this. Oh well, he's just and object. *Squish goes the object*

[Sabaku no Ira]

We are all objects. The starter of this thread is an object. Therefore, nobody would object if I were to remove this unnecessary object from the face of the Earth.

Oh my, seems that the thread started has feelings, ideas, and dreams and objects to this. Oh well, he's just and object. *Squish goes the object*

Bring it on! Let's see who's going to squish who in the end. :evil

*squish goes to Rock*

[Chamcham Trigger]

We are all objects. The starter of this thread is an object. Therefore, nobody would object if I were to remove this unnecessary object from the face of the Earth.

Oh my, seems that the thread started has feelings, ideas, and dreams and objects to this. Oh well, he's just and object. *Squish goes the object*
lol well remember that there are degrees to everything. The level of importance can't ever fully hide what it really is in it's most basic sense. An object with life is just that, and object with life. The value we put on our existence is just something that is used to try to mask being an object, when there's nothing really wrong with being one. We tend to look at the word object in a negative sense, solely because of what we usually use the word "object" in reference to (which is usually something that is lifeless or a posession).

I guess an easy way to put it would be to say "I'm not anyone's object, but I am an object".....hmmm or did that just make things sound more complicated or dummer. Well in the end, I can still get squished like any other object :laugh
j

[kapsi]

Well you can't escape human nature (feelings etc)

[Chamcham Trigger]

Well you can't escape human nature (feelings etc)
That's very true, and there's no big reason to try to escape from them. Overcoming feelings that may be seen as a hinderance may be good, but that can only be done, by confronting those feelings and not running away from them. In the end, feelings just make us objects with feelings.

The problem isn't really us being objects, but us not accepting the fact that the word object is just that, a word. It has a broad definition that we just happen to fit into, but just because we fit into a certain part of the definition, doesn't mean that we're lifeless or anything like that. That just makes the word overpower us for no reason whatsoever. So in the end, we just fit into a section of the definition of object, and not every definition of the word object.

[kakako petja]

humans are made of objects so we are objects. emotions are not part of genes directly, they are part of psychology. going the right way, solving problems has no emotions. not able to solve a problem and giving up but still wanting to get rid of it one gets fear, dipression. just like when someone attacks you are afraid when you stand still but when you run, you only have that. all other emotions stem from that. Also views of self and others. example: "he is such a bastard, i hate him". so we are just objects.
But beeing an object with a brain means that killing and stuff would be pointless because you can go to jail or you are doing it because you have feelings. if you are hungry and you need to kill you will figure out a way to survive. Anyway it is smart to have the smallest amount of risk.

[diglossiablues]

OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).

Nah. If we are 'computers' we're on the whole designed to feel passion, have mercy, and all those other pesky human feelings. That's reason enough to not treat people as objects.

Also -- you might find Merleau-Ponty's arguments about 'embodied trancendence' interesting.

[Zoro]

This is true. Russia produced Zangief, while Germany produced... uhh... Brocken?
Brocken Jr. he is the man, one of the coolest characters I ever seen!

[Uchiha_Akira_2005]

Humans may be living objects by nature, but did you know that humans are far greater than that? If you believe in Angels, Archangels, and God then let me tell you something. All Angels don't have souls while humans do. We humans are actually much stronger than any Angel there is. Angels were meant to protect us, so we do have some kind of authority over them.

[earthshine]

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

we dont know what happens when we die, and while i agree that you should not feel sad at death, for it is inevitable, but we humans have these damn things called emotions, they are there to prevent logic freaks like you from blowing up the world. without emotions, we would have no restraint, while some emotions like anger actually lessen our restraint, others like guilt and fear keep us in line. we have pity in order to keep ourselvs from killing tohusands and thousands of people to find out somthing about the human body. emotions ensure preservation of the species, for even now, you are experiencing emotions, you are feeling desire. a desire to know, to learn, to find out our thoughts,m to express your own. emotions give us fuel, the will to ask "why?" somthing works, not simply to see that it does anmd leave it at that. without emotion, we would not be where we are today, since there would be no desire to go the extra mile for knowledge, we would learn as much as it takes to live, then leae it at that, since we have no reasons to do more

[Heldensheld]

HOWEVER, we are objects who can think for ourselves, feel more complicated emotions and better yet, control our lives because we have a choice!

We are objects at the top of the world and we are the chosen objects. We rule other objects and have the ability to discover more microscopic objects!


WHO'S WITH ME? OBJECTS OF THE WORLD! WE ARE THEM!

[Superking]

Care from parent to child is inevitable, since a child has no defense from dangers- that I can understand. What I don't understand is why should people care for those who would compete with them for resources? Rhinoceros mothers chase away their "young" when they grow up. Shark mothers potentially can even feed on their grown-up child. I don't see how that has threatened their survival (in fact, most of them has survived even longer than us without change). Why should we be different? Why shouldn't we kill off our weaker ones so that only the strong are left? As Tsukiyomi mentioned in his other thread, there are already too many of us here: kill some of them off so that the strong ones will live. Without mercy, without passion, we don't need to help those who need it: let them die to give us, the rational and the stronger, room. We have 6 billion people in this world: one more isn't many, one less won't be missed.

How can leaving the weaker ones behind increase our chance of survival?

I find this amusing.
The reason we protect our "young" even after they grow up is; under normal circumstances, we die before our "young", and they are the successors of our genetic code. Prolonging our own survival after a certain point, is a futile effort, we'll die eventually, no matter what. For whatever reason, we can only prolong the passing of our genetic code, that seems to be a natural goal, so we all do that.
Killing off those that are weaker? The strong feed off of the weak, the strong would not completely diminish their source of power like that. The strong can't as easily feed of the strong, the conflict would make them weaker. The suggestion of killing off the weaker, is a natural desire of those that are weak themselves or otherwise not of the strong. If the weak others were killed off, it would benefit any of the weak ones leftover. Giving a better increased percentage chance of a more prosperous survival, equivalent that of what was wiped out. However, the strong would be weakened in that same equivalent.
Anyways, I choose to not let it bother me, who wants to spend time worrying about technicalities? I'd rather enjoy myself while it lasts.

[hesd]

The thread starter is very reductionist. umm..try to think in a multi-layered manner.. you're meta-thinking right now, yes you are..and you did by coming up with this claim..which only proves that you're no object (it its denotative sense)..and so are we.

[Random_Shinobi]

Humans are biological machines. But you must notice that we have invented such things called ethics and morals. Those things are invented to ensure that humans can live in society. If we were to abadon ethics and morals, human society would collapse. Reducting us to mere animals.

Someone could argue that humans too are animals. And that's true in biological sense. But unlike animals, humans are sentient and intelligent. Thought many animals do posses some sort of intelligence, they are nowhere near humans in that matter.

Heh. So you think that anything that's natural is good. Let me tell you this: ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It states that the entropy, amount of chaos and disorder, can only increase in the universe, which makes life, being ordered, the unnatural part. The reason why life can exist at all is that it creates order by creating more chaos outside the system, so it is existing, in a way, at the expense of the order of the universe without life. Tell me, does that count as "natural"?

Life doesn't always increase enthropy. Sunlight is created by fusion reactions in the core of the sun. This progres, in accordance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, increases enthropy. But plantlife in the Earth utilices this released energy to produce things, decreasing enthropy. If plants wouldn't have used that energy it would have simply dispersed as a heat, increasing enthropy.

Natural means something that happens without human meddling, right? If that is true, then life is natural, even thought it is abnormal.

[datchapin]

OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).
You know what I think I agree with you. I must say though what I agree with the most is the should part. It should be that way, but it isnt since birth ppl are ingrained with the belief to value others. Theres nothing wrong with that but I think we as a species are narrowminded. Caring only of our species how we're superior to animals and this and that, but how is that. Were supposed to be smarter than animals but what do we really accomplish, destruction of our enviroment thats all really. We arent superior to animals at least animals can live within their surroundings. We cant or wont we destroy what is around us to create our comfort. We cant or wont eat food raw, we have to cook it and whatnot. You argue about our superior intellect but so what what have we accomplished with our intellect that is so great. Im not an enviromentalist but i get tired of hearing the same views all the time. Chaos theory and whatnot holds no ground. we created our form of order would it really be missed i mean what is chaos lack of order, well tell me what is order and is it really been accomplished. we all die and when those around us die we have to move on the beneficial thing would be to cut ties with that which no longer exists and dont benefit, thas what i think. All these people argue about our emotions but are emotions really that great yeah i got them but you know what thas it thas all i think ill say for now.

[datchapin]

OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

"People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).

I agree with you. I mean not to belittle ppl but what is the point of feeling sorry for ppl when they die. They lived their lives and ppl should move on. I think alot of ppl are reading to deep into this statement and making it more than what it really is.

[GayNinja]

Sorry Sabaku no Ira, you are trying to sound smarter than you really are. The difference between humans and objects is that humans are aware of themselves, which puts us on a far higher platform than just mere objects. If you don't agree, why don't you just provide some evidence that can convince me that humans are just worthless objects. And no, spouting the 2nd Law is not enough. Entropy only deals with energy and the natural tendency for matter to become disorganized, it has very little to do with humanity. For some reason, your thread is really annoying to me. I think you are just some punk who thinks he/she is so dark and deep and just too good for this world. Instead of debating meaninglessness of human life, why don't you go hang yourself, have someone take a picture of it, and post it on the forum as proof of your adherence to your beliefs.
You are kind of sounding like Hitler. I think you are a dangerous, unethical, and evil human being if you really believe what you are saying.

[Pestilence]

No, humans are not just objects. No, you do exist. No, there is a point to life.
Existentialism is only meant for interesting conversations among college students.
The reality of things is that what you think the reality of things is doesn't matter.
You are already locked into who you are, and what you think about it won't change a thing. You live your life a certain way regardless of whether you think you exist or not.

You say you are completely rational and enjoy death and destruction. But we all know that more affraid of death than any of us. You brought all this up to attempt to frighten us so that we may have the same fears as you, and then sympathize with you to make you feel better. There is no amount of pretending or sympathy in the world that will make you comfortable with the idea of your own death.

But this all started with a question of existance. Well, I do exist, and if you want to waste your existance wondering whether you do or not, then you don't deserve to. Go out and do something useful, because hopefully, you exist for a reason.

[Superking]

That reminds me... He treats objects like women, man... Something from the Big Lebowski. That's a great movie.

[rimpelcut]

the only thing that makes people think that they are not objects is that they have a will. That will is formed by previous thoughts, previous experiences even if they were a second ago. those thoughts come from external places: the world around you and consciousness(feeling,muscle,thought). So it comes not from a internal place which in these respects would be a person that creates his own will, his own thought. I say this because our brain, our subconscious brain to be precise, interpates different outside factors and forms your will and consciousness.