Driven by what? A Honda? Nah.

If you're an atheist, then you should have nothing to fear in death, because there will be nothing afterwards (right...? I'm not sure about this...). In fact, death will be a relief. It will be neither scary nor painful; I'm thinking just a slow release, then poof, no more consciousness. There won't even be a defined moment of "death"; probably just "you're here", then "you're gone".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BlueSoul Im agnostic. I dont know what the hell to believe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ooooh...I see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Man, that's tough.

On the one hand, you can have reincarnation...

On another hand, you can have eternal bliss...

And on the third hand, you can have complete non-existence...

There's tonnes more...Are you leaning in some direction, or looking into anything ATM?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bluesoul:

Okay, gotcha.

But aren't humans animals? And did we not evolve from "less advanced" forms of life?

Really? Do you believe this yourself?

 

Yes, humans are animals, biologically speaking. But we have a mind that can control (more or less) our intentions, while animals are governed by instinct. I doubt whether a shark can wonder when his next meal will come, or why he's mating at all.

I see your point in our evolution...But it goes back to the fact that sentience separates us. We've evolved into more intelligent beings; we question our existence and why we do what we do. Without denying our "ancestral roots", we can still identify with the animals, but it's like we're on another plane now. Why base ourselves in "primitivity" (is that even a word?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) when we can achieve so much more?

I suppose so, unless I'm contradicting everything I've already said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I see there are some similiar points between animal and human goals, but we're a segregated species. We can't go back to the way the animals are, and neither can they achieve our "level of evolution". There are still basic needs, like eating, reproducing, etc., but in a human, I thought there should be more than that.

 

Bluesoul:

Is not "faking" a sign of controlling intentions? Chimps do this.
Is not planning a sign of controlling intentions? Chimps do this. So do wolves and lions.

Are there not humans who can't or won't control their intentions?

So there goes your theory that humans are "special" somehow.

Why do you claim that only humans are sentient?

Do you have any evidence for this or is it just your assertion?

 

Wolves and lions and chimpanzees do plan, but their planning can only go so far. How many records are there of lionesses taking down a completely healthy adult male gazelle during good weather (e.g. no drought)? They prey on the aged and diseased. And if they have some kind of language that goes beyond territorial markings that can enable them to plan their attack, lionesses and wolves and chimps would probably be "ruling" the world instead of us.
I don't quite understand the "faking" part...Do you mean that they fake injuries to attract predators...or something?

How do you mean? Are they mentally challenged?

Because we can wonder about things, such as our existence, our purpose, and even this topic of the driving force behind humans. And we've founded the term based on ourselves anyway, so it's rather tainted, isn't it?

Here's a bit:
Human Evolution

Among hominids, a parallel evolutionary process involving increased intelligence and cultural complexity is apparent in the material record. Evidence of greater behavioral flexibility and adaptability presumably reflects the decreased influence of genetically encoded behaviors and the increased importance of learning and social interaction in transmitting and maintaining behavioral adaptations.Because the organization of neural circuitry is more significant than overall cranial capacity in establishing mental capabilities, direct inferences from the fossil record are likely to be misleading. Contemporary humans, for example, exhibit considerable variability in cranial capacity (1150 cc to 1600 cc), none of which is related to intelligence.
<hr>
Even if the cranial capacity has nothing to do with intelligence, it shows how we've evolved. True, we don't know how the animal kingdom might be like a couple of million years down the road, because there don't seem to be signs of further evolution today (not quite sure...). And I'm pretty certain humans can't go back to their original species, because it would take a lot of evolutionary miracles to give us back our animal selves. But for the moment, I'm asking what's the opinion of the force that drives humans today.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The part about "decreased influence of genetically coded behaviours, etc." also provides support for differences in animal and human goals. It seems as if we're aspiring to new heights, while animals are still the same as they were a million years ago.

 

Hey Xev, your argument against about sentience makes a whole lot of sense. You've got to ask, what is sentience? The dictionary says it's the ability to percieve and feel things, which applies to a lot of animals. So take that, BlueSoul.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Second Bluesoul: "Shove that up your pipe and smoke it."
First Bluesoul: "Damn."

i'm not schizophrenic i'm not schizophrenic i'm not schizophrenic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know about all that, but what I do know is that there are a lot of unattractive people around.

 

Welcome to sciforums, lordjin.