Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Philosophical implications of extinction
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 16 of 23 (248302)
10-02-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by bkelly
10-01-2005 5:50 PM


Who I am
bkelly,
First of all, thank you for your kind words. I am flattered.
As to the matter of who I am, I will say this: knowing my name wouldn't add anything to what you already know about me from reading my posts. Some here call me 'Pars' - although I prefer the name to be used in full- and I've also been called 'Seven' sometimes. Please, let it suffice that I go under the pseudonym of Parasomnium.
Anyway, a name is not what I am. I am the words that I write, the style I use, and the thoughts that I post. That's how you can know me. By my mind, not by my name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bkelly, posted 10-01-2005 5:50 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bkelly, posted 10-02-2005 8:12 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 23 (248339)
10-02-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Parasomnium
10-02-2005 6:33 PM


Re: Who I am
I really was not interested in your name, but your lifestyle (mental, not physical), your beliefs, etc. IOW: What causes you to write what you do? However, it is quite difficult for a person to describe themselves in the same manner that others see them. I will continue to read your posts and develop my impession of you.
And this is off topic so I will stop and understand that a reply is not appropiate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Parasomnium, posted 10-02-2005 6:33 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 23 (248428)
10-03-2005 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
10-02-2005 5:21 PM


Re: Uniqueness of humanity
did they ever really exist?
Objectively, yes. Subjectively to themselves during their existence, yes. Subjectively to some other sentient species, not unless they encounter some traces of our life.
Do they exist now without colonization?
I don't think I understand your question. If you mean do we exist if we have no way of surving an extinction event, then yes.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 10-02-2005 5:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 19 of 23 (248441)
10-03-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
10-01-2005 2:12 PM


The evolution of "we"
1)Will humanity evolve on other planets? If so, do we (now)discuss this as our future, even though we will some day no longer exist?
The interesting word here is "our".
As some have already pointed out, it is not to be expected that something identical to Homo Sapiens would re-evolve, or evolve on another planet. Evolution is for a large part 'historical'. The directions it takes are guided only in a very broad sense by the environment, but the details depend on a long chain of more or less random choices. Even the evolution of something that resembles our intelligence doesn't look like a given.
However, I would argue that the meaning of "our" is subject to constant evolution (i.e. it becomes broader). As such, I think there is a good chance that we would indeed consider any extra-terrestrial lifeform, that looks like it will survive beyond our own extinction, to be "our" representatives.
What I mean with "broadening", is the ever shrinking antropocentrism. From a situation where white men couldn't even identify with people with a different skin-color, where slaves existed, where even women were considered inferior and where the uniqueness of earth and humans was a given, we have evolved to a situation where it is understood that all lifeforms share a common ancestor, and that earth is just a grain of sand in the universe.
Although we already understand that *rationally*, it will probably take something like the discovery of (unrelated) extraterrestrial life to really feel an *emotional* bond with any other earthly lifeform. Once we have that "antipode" available, it will feel totally natural to include all earth-based lifeforms into a new form of "us", against "them" (=extraterrestrial life, not from the same common ancestor).
Then, we could imagine a scenario where in a later stage still other, silicon-based, lifeforms would be discovered. This could lead to an inclusion of the other carbon-based lifeforms in an even broader "us", against the non-carbon based life.
Finally, let's say we would end up in a situation where we were completely sure that we were aware of ALL lifeforms in the universe. And that everything was extinct, except earth-based life and one example of (primitive?) silicon-based life on a distant planet. If we would then somehow know that earth-based life would come to an unavoidable end soon, I guess we would feel like the silicon based lifeforms would become "Ambassadors Of Life" for the entire universe, in our name.
That would be the ultimate "US": Life vs dead matter.
Although of course it would be perfectly valid to argue that life would arise again But it's a bit hard to feel related to a rock, lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-01-2005 2:12 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 10-05-2005 11:51 AM Annafan has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 20 of 23 (249098)
10-05-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Annafan
10-03-2005 7:33 AM


Philosophical Rant against extinction of "we"
Hi, Annafan! I was impressed with your post--especially after seeing it get the nod from Parasomnium in the POTM.
Parasomnium writes:
A very well thought-out argument about the meaning of 'us', which could justifiably be called a statement about the meaning of life. What makes it really Post-Of-The-Month worthy is the delightful thought experiment which advances the central idea in a crystal clear manner while at the same time giving us a breathtaking vista on a future that simultaneously is and isn't 'ours'. Very well done!
You have explained a lot of concepts in a clarifying manner. It is one thing to ponder ones own mortality. This theme has been explored time and time again from all angles and from all beliefs by we the people. Notice how I labled us with a color? As a Bible guy, I read your post and immediately thought of several themes that you touched upon. Allow me to give you my comments:
Annafan writes:
The interesting word here is "our".
As some have already pointed out, it is not to be expected that something identical to Homo Sapiens would re-evolve, or evolve on another planet.
PB writes:
so humans are unique?
Evolution is for a large part 'historical'. The directions it takes are guided only in a very broad sense by the environment, but the details depend on a long chain of more or less random choices. Even the evolution of something that resembles our intelligence doesn't look like a given.
PB writes:
So my kids will grow based on random choices? How many choices do they have? Where will evolution take the human species? What will be the eventual outcome of intelligence on a universal scale?
However, I would argue that the meaning of "our" is subject to constant evolution (i.e. it becomes broader). As such, I think there is a good chance that we would indeed consider any extra-terrestrial lifeform, that looks like it will survive beyond our own extinction, to be "our" representatives.
PB writes:
I can't help but think of Star Trek or Star Wars in the Tavern. Is what you are suggesting is that intelligence has an evolution?
What I mean with "broadening", is the ever shrinking anthropocentrism. From a situation where white men couldn't even identify with people with a different skin-color, where slaves existed, where even women were considered inferior and where the uniqueness of earth and humans was a given, we have evolved to a situation where it is understood that all lifeforms share a common ancestor, and that earth is just a grain of sand in the universe.
PB writes:
This reminds me of Abram, later known as Abraham.Gen 32:9-12-- Then Jacob prayed, "O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who said to me, 'Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,' I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups. Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children. But you have said, 'I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.'"
Abraham was said to be the Father of all nations.Would there or could there be a home base for all lifeforms in the universe, or can it be inferred that each planet has its own unique life?
Although we already understand that *rationally*, it will probably take something like the discovery of (unrelated) extraterrestrial life to really feel an *emotional* bond with any other earthly lifeform. Once we have that "antipode" available, it will feel totally natural to include all earth-based lifeforms into a new form of "us", against "them" (=extraterrestrial life, not from the same common ancestor).
PB writes:
Fascinating! In my "God" arguments, I notice that some people say that since God is not observable, He is a product of our collective and individual imaginations. Life outside of our planet is certainly possible, but is this life a product of our collective imagination or is this life absolute(absolutely possible)
Then, we could imagine a scenario where in a later stage still other, silicon-based, lifeforms would be discovered. This could lead to an inclusion of the other carbon-based lifeforms in an even broader "us", against the non-carbon based life.
Finally, let's say we would end up in a situation where we were completely sure that we were aware of ALL lifeforms in the universe.
PB writes:
kinda like "ye shall be as gods?(tongue-in-cheek)
And that everything was extinct, except earth-based life and one example of (primitive?) silicon-based life on a distant planet. If we would then somehow know that earth-based life would come to an unavoidable end soon, I guess we would feel like the silicon based lifeforms would become "Ambassadors Of Life" for the entire universe, in our name.
PB writes:
This reminds me of the Christ analogy where one man becomes an ambassador for all of us into that area beyond mortality.
That would be the ultimate "US": Life vs dead matter.
Although of course it would be perfectly valid to argue that life would arise again But it's a bit hard to feel related to a rock, lol.
Wow! I don't want to steer us away from philosophy into theology, but I guess that theology is part of my philosophy. The Bible said that the Jewish people were chosen from among all nations. Many *evil* cultures have sought to make this people extinct. Yet when this people makes other people extinct, it is argued that the God of the early Bible is cruel. Lets take this analogy a step further. As it is in Star Trek, there is a federation of planets. They have a prime directive. War happens, but is undesireable. It is similar to my Bible quote. On the one hand, brother is against brother. On the other hand, the offspring of the group will become as numerous as the sand on a beach, or stars in the sky.
Conclusion: Philosophically, I can relate to what you say.
Annafan writes:
If we would then somehow know that earth-based life would come to an unavoidable end soon, I guess we would feel like the silicon based lifeforms would become "Ambassadors Of Life" for the entire universe, in our name.
And such optimism is what goes against the very idea of war in any form, whether it be war between kingdoms and nations, war between brothers, or war on a cosmic scale such as a war in heaven or a war between planets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Annafan, posted 10-03-2005 7:33 AM Annafan has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 21 of 23 (249763)
10-07-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-01-2005 2:56 PM


Dinosaur reply
jar writes:
Ask the dinosaurs.
Tweet!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-01-2005 2:56 PM jar has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 22 of 23 (249769)
10-07-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
10-01-2005 2:12 PM


Everything dies.
My personal history has made me a race traitor, gender traitor, sexual preference traitor, nationalism traitor: I prefer to be a person, not a citizen of any restricted airspace.
I view my own demise, that of my nation, my planet, my kind with a sort of melancholy equanimity--inevitable, and inevitably underscoring how much breath and time we waste.
I can identify more largely with life in general than our kind, but it seems no instance or class of it will continue forever, and life itself one day must pass from our universe, I suspect.
James Dickey has a wonderful meditation on extinction. Here is an excerpt--I couldn't maintain his freewheeling stanza forms here, since spaces are redacted, so check the original for the beauty of it hot:
from "For the Last Wolverine"
But, small, filthy, unwinged,
You will soon be crouching
Alone, with maybe some dim racial notion
Of being the last, but none of how much
Your unnoticed going will mean:
How much the timid poem needs
The mindless explosion of your rage,
The glutton's internal fire
the elk's
Heart in the belly, sprouting wings,
The pact of the "blind swallowing
Thing," with himself, to eat
The world, and not to be driven off it
Until it is gone, even if it takes
Forever. I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die
but not die
Out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-01-2005 2:12 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Phat, posted 11-11-2005 3:39 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 23 of 23 (258773)
11-11-2005 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Omnivorous
10-07-2005 11:12 AM


poem writes:
Lord, let me die
but not die
Out.
Why is it that people always feel immortality through their kids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 10-07-2005 11:12 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024