I would argue the opposite. This is a positive discovery for evolution. That the appendix has a function makes more sense than being just being detrimental to health.
Evolution would select out useless body parts unless a sudden change in environment/diet is observed which makes the body part useless/redundant. Such as the rise of human civilisation.
But only a god/gods would create an organ that is useless and has been useless for many many generations of our ancestors. This discounts a sudden change in environment as an explanation, since it should only affect the first few generations.
Despite the low probability of getting a reply, I'll persist.
What do you think gay promiscuous sex and mental illnesses are caused by in some gays?
1) Is it from being homosexual (homosexual gene/upbringing makes you more horny)?
2)No females to reduce sexual urges?
3) Or is it condemnation from society disallowing normal gay relationships, and the only escape for them is to have sex with strangers, while acting straight to everyone else?
I was brought up in a Buddhist country with an atheistic family, the society and family had no problems with my sexuality when I came out in my early teens. Yet I seem to have a low incidence of promiscuity/interest in sex relative to the gay community and general population.
I know anomalies exist, but I see that many gays have had a difficult childhood due to non acceptance in schools and society in general. I'm sure that kind of upbringing would cultivate aversion to normal healthy homosexual relationships (due to internal embarrassment, being closed off from friends and family,etc). Anonymous sexual encounters have no negative effects on the reputation on the person, so it becomes more desirable. Perhaps this thinking persists even after the person has come out fully, like they say, old habits die hard.
I do not confess to know the reasons why homosexuals have more mental problems on average, but the issue is not just black and white. The moment you start to see a group of people as undisirable is the moment you see them as people who need to be eliminated or "fixed". This is what has caused imprisonment, concentration camps, and death penalties for gays in the recent past.
As another homosexual. You must be a really shallow person if you think "glory days" were when people fucked anyone they wanted. What lasting pleasure can be derived from sex when it is with a total stranger?
Sex is a helping aid to bring people closer together in a relationship, something sacred between two people, it becomes something more than satisfying base instincts.
"More likely, in an infinite universe, we are of about average intelligence."
I believe that statement is incorrect. Intelligence has a finite limit when it diverges to stupidity. However you can't define an upper limit of Intelligence.
Intelligence starts off from 0 and shoots off into infinity.
Therefore in an infinite universe, you are always stupider than the rest of the Universe.
Life is suffering. If the mutliverse is true, then absolute hell really does exist in one instance of a Universe. If QI is true, is there ever really a way to escape 'reality'? Does everyone experience every form of existence for eternity? or instead do some of us go into loops of existence, and never escape the loop? Can we direct our path to a desirable loop?
Some forms of Buddhism teach something very similar to QI, except that Nirvana is the end of all suffering, and the end of the ego, the end of self, and that once Nirvana is reached it is eternal. Perhaps Nirvana is a way to achieve death in a deathless Universe?
The universe is a really scary place when you sit down and think about it. It puts your own desires into perspective.
The idea of the multiverse was the sole reason why I changed from a non-religious atheist to a Buddist, because I view it as a good way to describe reincarnation (or the eternity of conciousness). I think that death is not the end of consciousness, and is merely a transitory stage.
Consider a random sequence such as the "increasing decimal point" of the square root of two. The number sequence is random and runs on forever. If it is random then we can assume that all possible sets of numbers are contained within the sequence. If we ran a Universal Turin Machine on the square root of 2, and ran it for eternity , than the computer will emulate every single possible program. As Turing has proved that any "possible computer program" can be run on a Turing machine.
If we assume that consciousness can be encoded into a Turing compatible code, then all permutations of consciousness are contained within any naturally occurring infinite sequence.
With this in mind the universe is a highly recursive fractal pattern, infinite in all directions. This moment that you are perceiving is just part of an infinite collection of experiences of the same state.
We can deduce that a transitional state is one where only 1 bit changes in the sequence, or a new bit has been added to the sequence. For instance think of the sequence 101, the transitional states are therefore 001, 111, or 110.
Your state now (and your surrounding perceived environment) can be considered as a sequence of bits (if thinking of a Turing Machine). When any of those bits change it can be considered a change in time, and therefor a change in your state.
Total death of consciousness assumes that there are NO bits present in this system. Therefore death can not be considered a valid transitory state as it doesn't exist. If death was a state where you weren't conscious, you don't exist in that state, instead you continue onto another path where you are conscious.
Basically it's impossible to cease to exist, as existence always exists in some(every) form. There is allways a transition from your state to another, and the path must be taken.
Argh, I probably sound like a mad man, my belief may not make sense to most people, but I think Buddhism is the most spiritual one can get without denying scientific thinking. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality for more info about this idea.
When I was a small child, I used to think that the plants in my backyard had feelings. And when my mother started ripping out the weeds in the garden, I replanted them cause I thought they were being murdered. I think it was from watching a cartoon that had a talking tree in it.
IANAB, this is just a theory.
In evolution the only advantages of being 'nice' to another creature is when they are receptive or/and when they are in your immediate family. We have these instructions hard-coded in our brains. Unfortunately with evolution there is no foresight into how these instructions may affect other human behavior/qualities. As long as the faulty behavior has no evolutionary disadvantages it will remain in the genes as a by-product of the original instruction.
In the case of becoming attached to robots, as they were not present in our ancestral environment, our brains output a 'must reciprocate' command through the use of emotional attachment, which may be hard to override with logic. There is nothing in the brain that states 'reciprocation will not be required in producing future gain from this particular creature/object'. It assumes that most of the recipients have a similar brain structure.
I don't see why that would gross people out, as it's probably more hygienic. In fact I long for the day when vat grown meat is economically viable. Meat is so delicious but I don't eat it because of ethical reasons.
A natural herb used in asia for centuries, sold as a nootropic in the west. The research on it is a bit flakey, however it certainly does makes me feel more relaxed yet alert. However it can not compare to amphetamines.
Yes, I realised my error right after I posted it. I meant to say that not every country has the same average IQ when compared to the global average.
So the population of Country X with IQ below 100 may be higher than the population of Country Y with IQ below 100. (If considering global IQ average rather than country IQ average).
I believe in evolution and that my existence is just accidental. However, I also believe that displaying compassion to others and yourself is the only way to escape the suffering you experience from life. As being selfish means you are still controlled by your evolutionary desires and attachments. Evolution (or your primitive desires) doesn't have your own happiness in mind. It may be self gratifying for a while (lusting/sexing someone), but quickly turns into despair (attachment to appearance and therefor loss of self esteem) . (note: I'm a Buddhist/Athiest)
Interesting, I didn't know people have tried to have sex with dolphins. I agree completely with your points however there is marked difference between housed pets and wild animals. I have no problem with bestiality as long as the animal isn't harmed. I think it's hard to sexually abuse an animal, as they don't tend to have a conscience and think it's wrong.
But it is possible to violently rape an animal. In a sexual situation involving a housed pet the human has total dominance over the animal's welfare. There are less signs to know if the animal is being abused. However it is still hypocritical of society to reject sex with animals but allow murdering them.
I never stated there was anything wrong with brother and sister having sexual intercourse for pleasure. The only problem lies when they attempt to bear a child. For the sake of the child's welfare, it is best that it gets a diverse mix of genes to prevent genetic defects.
Some people have been known to 'switch' either way. Whether this is due to social pressures or an actual change in preference is unknown.
However observance of animals can be a good approximation of human sexuality. More communal animals tend to have a higher occurance of homosexuality/bisexuality. I think homosexuality exists in mammals because it glues the group together. In simple terms homosexuality is a group gene, rather than an individual gene. Imagine two species group A and B. In species A, homosexuality occurance is 2% in species B homosexuality occurance is 20%.
In group A as the males have lesser homosexuality tendencies then they are more likely to be competitive for females and resources, thus the bonds between them are weaker. Group B has a more cooperative nature, due to the bonds between the males (and females). In a dangerous environment group B is more likely to deter off predators as they can act as a group to warn them off. Thus the survivability of Group B is higher than group A.
However group A probably has a higher fertility rate, so the optimal homosexuality occurance is probably in between group A and B.
Using this logic you would presume that the homosexual percentage in human groups would be quite high, as we are incredibly social animals. This can be evidenced by studying ancient greece, as it wasn't considered taboo, and homosexuality was quite common. Only through abrahamic religions have the actual numbers been kept artifically low.
Your analogy is flawed. Homosexual love is harmless and consensual, unlike the beastialy or pedophilia. An estimation of 3-10% of the population is gay, you can't deny them the freedom to love someone else for the rest of their life.
There is nothing wrong with a brother and sister getting married, however there is a problem with them having offspring, as genetic defects are more common. However evolution has prevented most humans from falling in love with their close kin (or any one they have grown up closely with).
I believe I read somewhere, that human hair was useful for babies/small children to grab onto.
Think of a woman with long hair. When she is wadding through a river trying to catch fish, she has her hands free while the baby is hanging onto her hair. Instead of leaving the baby by the riverside where it could get eaten.
Also imagine what happens when a predator starts chasing the female, the child/baby can not run and thus has to hang onto her hair. She has her hands free to keep her balance.
This theory may also explain why male hair is shorter/courser.
Exactly. Considering that it's impossible to experience non-existence. Then the argument "our existence is highly improbably, therefore God created us" becomse highly absurd. We are experiencing this universe because the other uncountable Universes that exist can't support life, and stable physics.
So the Universe is an exponential recursive function? But, still doesn't explain how the function was first initiated though and "God did it" is not a sufficient answer.
Existence is such an strange thing, guess I'll find out when I die.
Does anyone think this could be due to a case of changing ocean currents? Which in turn causes different volumes of water to have drastic tempurature differences than normal. If this shark navigates waters based on temperatures rather than tempature/pressure, than this is plausible.
I don't understand why a shark would surface if it was sick, that would just make it more vulnerable to unforeseen predators.
I don't understand American culture. I'm puzzeled what's so wrong with a male carrying a bag? It's a basic necessity, I do it all the time to my local Sainsburys. If anyone thought that was odd here, then consider them crazy.
The Fermi Paradox seems to be telling something important about the Universe. If only we knew what it is...
My hunch is that once a civilisation reaches a certain stage in their evolution when they can simulate reality completely, then they find very little need in continuing to exist in the present Universe, and migrate into this simulated reality.
What's the point in travesing a Universe that will take billions of years to get basically nowhere, when you can create your own Universe, with it's own rules, having total control of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution would select out useless body parts unless a sudden change in environment/diet is observed which makes the body part useless/redundant. Such as the rise of human civilisation.
But only a god/gods would create an organ that is useless and has been useless for many many generations of our ancestors. This discounts a sudden change in environment as an explanation, since it should only affect the first few generations.
What do you think gay promiscuous sex and mental illnesses are caused by in some gays?
1) Is it from being homosexual (homosexual gene/upbringing makes you more horny)?
2)No females to reduce sexual urges?
3) Or is it condemnation from society disallowing normal gay relationships, and the only escape for them is to have sex with strangers, while acting straight to everyone else?
I was brought up in a Buddhist country with an atheistic family, the society and family had no problems with my sexuality when I came out in my early teens. Yet I seem to have a low incidence of promiscuity/interest in sex relative to the gay community and general population.
I know anomalies exist, but I see that many gays have had a difficult childhood due to non acceptance in schools and society in general. I'm sure that kind of upbringing would cultivate aversion to normal healthy homosexual relationships (due to internal embarrassment, being closed off from friends and family,etc). Anonymous sexual encounters have no negative effects on the reputation on the person, so it becomes more desirable. Perhaps this thinking persists even after the person has come out fully, like they say, old habits die hard.
I do not confess to know the reasons why homosexuals have more mental problems on average, but the issue is not just black and white. The moment you start to see a group of people as undisirable is the moment you see them as people who need to be eliminated or "fixed". This is what has caused imprisonment, concentration camps, and death penalties for gays in the recent past.
Sex is a helping aid to bring people closer together in a relationship, something sacred between two people, it becomes something more than satisfying base instincts.
I believe that statement is incorrect. Intelligence has a finite limit when it diverges to stupidity. However you can't define an upper limit of Intelligence.
Intelligence starts off from 0 and shoots off into infinity.
Therefore in an infinite universe, you are always stupider than the rest of the Universe.
Life is suffering. If the mutliverse is true, then absolute hell really does exist in one instance of a Universe. If QI is true, is there ever really a way to escape 'reality'? Does everyone experience every form of existence for eternity? or instead do some of us go into loops of existence, and never escape the loop? Can we direct our path to a desirable loop?
Some forms of Buddhism teach something very similar to QI, except that Nirvana is the end of all suffering, and the end of the ego, the end of self, and that once Nirvana is reached it is eternal. Perhaps Nirvana is a way to achieve death in a deathless Universe?
The universe is a really scary place when you sit down and think about it. It puts your own desires into perspective.
Consider a random sequence such as the "increasing decimal point" of the square root of two.
The number sequence is random and runs on forever. If it is random then we can assume that all possible sets of numbers are contained within the sequence.
If we ran a Universal Turin Machine on the square root of 2, and ran it for eternity , than the computer will emulate every single possible program. As Turing has proved that any "possible computer program" can be run on a Turing machine.
If we assume that consciousness can be encoded into a Turing compatible code, then all permutations of consciousness are contained within any naturally occurring infinite sequence.
With this in mind the universe is a highly recursive fractal pattern, infinite in all directions. This moment that you are perceiving is just part of an infinite collection of experiences of the same state.
We can deduce that a transitional state is one where only 1 bit changes in the sequence, or a new bit has been added to the sequence. For instance think of the sequence 101, the transitional states are therefore 001, 111, or 110.
Your state now (and your surrounding perceived environment) can be considered as a sequence of bits (if thinking of a Turing Machine). When any of those bits change it can be considered a change in time, and therefor a change in your state.
Total death of consciousness assumes that there are NO bits present in this system. Therefore death can not be considered a valid transitory state as it doesn't exist. If death was a state where you weren't conscious, you don't exist in that state, instead you continue onto another path where you are conscious.
Basically it's impossible to cease to exist, as existence always exists in some(every) form. There is allways a transition from your state to another, and the path must be taken.
Argh, I probably sound like a mad man, my belief may not make sense to most people, but I think Buddhism is the most spiritual one can get without denying scientific thinking. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality for more info about this idea.
Because then that would be a flawed comparison, bonobos are obviously too civilised for us.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hcmHvczBGqg
IANAB, this is just a theory.
In evolution the only advantages of being 'nice' to another creature is when they are receptive or/and when they are in your immediate family. We have these instructions hard-coded in our brains. Unfortunately with evolution there is no foresight into how these instructions may affect other human behavior/qualities. As long as the faulty behavior has no evolutionary disadvantages it will remain in the genes as a by-product of the original instruction.
In the case of becoming attached to robots, as they were not present in our ancestral environment, our brains output a 'must reciprocate' command through the use of emotional attachment, which may be hard to override with logic. There is nothing in the brain that states 'reciprocation will not be required in producing future gain from this particular creature/object'. It assumes that most of the recipients have a similar brain structure.
I don't see why that would gross people out, as it's probably more hygienic. In fact I long for the day when vat grown meat is economically viable. Meat is so delicious but I don't eat it because of ethical reasons.
A natural herb used in asia for centuries, sold as a nootropic in the west. The research on it is a bit flakey, however it certainly does makes me feel more relaxed yet alert. However it can not compare to amphetamines.
So the population of Country X with IQ below 100 may be higher than the population of Country Y with IQ below 100. (If considering global IQ average rather than country IQ average).
Excuse my stupidity.
Incorrect. Some countries have a higher average IQ than others.
I believe in evolution and that my existence is just accidental. However, I also believe that displaying compassion to others and yourself is the only way to escape the suffering you experience from life. As being selfish means you are still controlled by your evolutionary desires and attachments. Evolution (or your primitive desires) doesn't have your own happiness in mind. It may be self gratifying for a while (lusting/sexing someone), but quickly turns into despair (attachment to appearance and therefor loss of self esteem) . (note: I'm a Buddhist/Athiest)
Interesting, I didn't know people have tried to have sex with dolphins. I agree completely with your points however there is marked difference between housed pets and wild animals. I have no problem with bestiality as long as the animal isn't harmed. I think it's hard to sexually abuse an animal, as they don't tend to have a conscience and think it's wrong.
But it is possible to violently rape an animal. In a sexual situation involving a housed pet the human has total dominance over the animal's welfare. There are less signs to know if the animal is being abused. However it is still hypocritical of society to reject sex with animals but allow murdering them.
I never stated there was anything wrong with brother and sister having sexual intercourse for pleasure. The only problem lies when they attempt to bear a child. For the sake of the child's welfare, it is best that it gets a diverse mix of genes to prevent genetic defects.
Some people have been known to 'switch' either way. Whether this is due to social pressures or an actual change in preference is unknown.
However observance of animals can be a good approximation of human sexuality. More communal animals tend to have a higher occurance of homosexuality/bisexuality. I think homosexuality exists in mammals because it glues the group together. In simple terms homosexuality is a group gene, rather than an individual gene. Imagine two species group A and B. In species A, homosexuality occurance is 2% in species B homosexuality occurance is 20%. In group A as the males have lesser homosexuality tendencies then they are more likely to be competitive for females and resources, thus the bonds between them are weaker. Group B has a more cooperative nature, due to the bonds between the males (and females). In a dangerous environment group B is more likely to deter off predators as they can act as a group to warn them off. Thus the survivability of Group B is higher than group A. However group A probably has a higher fertility rate, so the optimal homosexuality occurance is probably in between group A and B.
Using this logic you would presume that the homosexual percentage in human groups would be quite high, as we are incredibly social animals. This can be evidenced by studying ancient greece, as it wasn't considered taboo, and homosexuality was quite common. Only through abrahamic religions have the actual numbers been kept artifically low.
There is nothing wrong with a brother and sister getting married, however there is a problem with them having offspring, as genetic defects are more common. However evolution has prevented most humans from falling in love with their close kin (or any one they have grown up closely with).
Think of a woman with long hair. When she is wadding through a river trying to catch fish, she has her hands free while the baby is hanging onto her hair. Instead of leaving the baby by the riverside where it could get eaten.
Also imagine what happens when a predator starts chasing the female, the child/baby can not run and thus has to hang onto her hair. She has her hands free to keep her balance.
This theory may also explain why male hair is shorter/courser.
Don't forget:
4) "Diaspora" by Greg Egan: Civs with the technology escape into a more stable higher-dimensional Universe.
Exactly. Considering that it's impossible to experience non-existence. Then the argument "our existence is highly improbably, therefore God created us" becomse highly absurd. We are experiencing this universe because the other uncountable Universes that exist can't support life, and stable physics.
Existence is such an strange thing, guess I'll find out when I die.
Oops tempature/pressure should equal lumanance/presure.
I don't understand why a shark would surface if it was sick, that would just make it more vulnerable to unforeseen predators.
I don't understand American culture. I'm puzzeled what's so wrong with a male carrying a bag? It's a basic necessity, I do it all the time to my local Sainsburys. If anyone thought that was odd here, then consider them crazy.
My hunch is that once a civilisation reaches a certain stage in their evolution when they can simulate reality completely, then they find very little need in continuing to exist in the present Universe, and migrate into this simulated reality.
What's the point in travesing a Universe that will take billions of years to get basically nowhere, when you can create your own Universe, with it's own rules, having total control of it.