so step changing, evolution, brain power increased awareness, intellect and reason are not part of nature? On the contrary, I think industrial society has given us a whole bevy of new issues that threaten our so called advanced human evolution. There are even "preppers" who have a way of life anticipating the current precariousness of things far from being non-different I think "unnatural" is quite at odds with "transcendence"
Are you suggesting our evolution is "unnatural"? They evolved. Is evolution "unnatural"? No, we merely evolved. Rather depends on what you understand "natural selection" to be. Yet you said we "effectively transcended evolution itself". Yet you just said that the "brain is a physical object" and "nature is the physical world" - thus our brain is part of nature? What is unnatural about our world that we have created? It is obedient to the laws of physics, to the laws of nature (as you say that nature is the physical world). Is it unnatural to create things? Birds create nests... so are they "transcendent-brained"?
Because you have an axe to grind with an imaginary enemy you call Physics. Us and everything standing. Palm trees...pink flamingoes...striped ungulates...well dressed mannequins...it's quite a lengthy list I would say. Only when we've been drinking in moderation. So does the fossil layer, the strata, the light just now arriving from stars already dead. But not to beat time, as now still advances to the next now. Now plus twenty four hours equals tomorrow. Yet now still advances, so I didn't beat time, I didn't transcend physics, I haven't beaten gravity, and my memory isn't that great either...except I remember you, or, more precisely, certain ideas that keep crashing right before my very eyes. Herein, perhaps, lies the workings of physics. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're describing processes, processes that have stretched across centuries and millennia. Spaced out as such, progress didn't just happen—it evolved.
As long as we are subject to aging, illness and death, in whatever form, we have not "transcended nature," TYVM!!
It is now, due to the step change, through evolution, in brain power and its concomitant increase in awareness, intellect and reason, but prior to that, no. Yet only the transcendental being can create an industrial society and its issues. Yet their transcendence gave them the ability to sense impending doom and to act to with a belief that they will mitigate it. Yet only the transcendental being can turn a woodlands into a parking lot.
Yet we have transcended many natural illnesses, extended natural life expectancy and cheated natural death (as with a defibrillator) and thus we have transcended nature and its most remarkable creation: sentience.
I was only referring to evolved traits, nothing more. We evolved a brain capable of transcending certain constraints of nature. The first human who tracked footsteps of an animal, by observation and reason, demonstrated a transcendence, even if it was only to fulfill the most primal urge to eat or eaten.
Which are all proving to be successfully returning, stronger than ever. And cut many other lives short. No and no. While our molars rot. About 70,000,000,000 of them, and counting, all rotting. Transcendence by intoxication! Now there's a new one ...
I get the impression that Fraggle Rocker might agree with me that nature is tyrannical. For example, the sex drive consumes a lot of peoples' lives that they could have spent on doing greater things, things that advance civilization, like discovering a convenient substitute for fossil fuels.
Yes, but that isn't even the problem with his theory. To transcend means to rise or move beyond the limits of something, and we certainly have not done that. His mistake (well, one of them, anyway) was in perceiving ancient man's way of life as hard and fast evolutionary law, rather than simply an adaptation to our environment. He's so caught up with romanticizing this notion that he misses obvious clues such as "making friends with wolves" requiring the wolf, per his logic, to transcend it's own nature as well, and thereby making this "transcendent" moment far less unique.
No. No. We evolved into a species that mediates its own evolution by avoidance of further natural selection, through the erection of defenses that will reasonably thwart a natural threat, so it will not prevent us from leaving our DNA behind. This transcends nature. The textbook defintion. We evolved into a species that mediates its own evolution. We avoid natural selection through deliberate erection of defenses. They will reasonably thwart a natural threat that would otherwise preclude us from leaving our DNA behind. This transcends the natural causes of evolution and interrupts it. Yes, the brain naturally evolved into a transcendent object. Transcendence arises from a step change in brain size. The process of becoming endowed with transcendent attributes ocurred naturally. All things made by humans, but not found in nature, are unnatural. Styofoam. HCFC’s. Logging camps. They build nests formulaicly, by rules imposed on them by nature. The transcendental bird of prey would be able to draw sparrows by erecting bird houses and feeders to attract them. Futhermore, it would be able to optimize the cost of materials against the benefits of increased protein. Then, upon discovering its elevated cholesterol, it would regret having cheated nature, and make a New Year’s pledge to see the vet and follow prescribed treatment.
Then you are saying "transcendent" is natural... which sort of goes against any understanding of transcendent. :shrug: We no longer evolve through natural selection? I'm fairly sure we're getting about 1-inch taller with each generation. All you are talking about is that we have evolved, naturally, to utilise our environment in ways that other animals do not. This isn't transcendence. So a natural object evolved into an unnatural object? I'm not sure many agree with your usage of the term "transcendence". Then we are talking from entirely different understandings of what is natural or not. You seem to think "natural" = "anything found without the intervention of intelligence at the level of Man", which sort of puts man immediately outside of nature. Many would hold Man, and everything they do, to be part of nature... albeit our "nature" is rather different, more complex and varied than other things we have so far identified. So do we... with the rules being gravity and other laws of physics/nature. No, that would merely be a clever bird. So is transcendence merely an intellect?
Utter nonsense. For one, we do not thwart natural selection. We, like any other successful being, have found ways to thrive. Other animals use shelter and tools to achieve the same ends. When a bear stuffs himself and then finds a place to hibernate, has he too thwarted natural selection? Has the beaver thwarted natural selection by his constructing of a dam? Natural selection does not mandate that all species die. That's what you're proposing here. You're saying that the mere act of surviving means we've transcended natural selection, but in reality surviving is as much a part of natural selection as dying. But we haven't transcended anything. So then a beehive is unnatural? Ah, so it's just that you don't actually understand the concept of "transcendence," then.
Then you clearly don't have transcendence but merely another aspect of natural conditioning On the contrary, only a being conditioned by short term interests can a sparrow does the same thing when they fly away to a high branch I think I am beginning to see teh picture here. You are simply enamored by technological advancement and can't see how that it is merely another tool in the pursuit of animal propensities not at all alien to sparrows, walruses or dogs. If a person does their business on four wheels for the same reason that a dog does its business on four legs you certainly don't have anything transcendental.
1/ This answer does not work. Standing up is not an axe to grind. The two things are different subjects. 2/ Correct, it means that we didn't transcend nature but physics. We are the same as nature, we both transcended physics. So somehow again your reply only works to agree with me. You need to read more carefully what you are replying to. 3/ They are all in the present, our memories are in the past. You remember being a baby, you aren't a baby now. The fossil is a fossil now, it doesn't remember being alive. Anyway, I'm fed up of scrolling up, and down to find the replies now.
Transcendence doesn't have to be absolute to be significant. No, that's actually a very old one, older than religion.
